I say there should be more of this. People's beliefs shouldn't be dictated by just one prevalent religion. In my opinion, people should be free to follow any religion of their choice without societal ostracisation and without the dictation of a culture that favours just one.

Boondheere;741252 wrote: ... It seems you didn't get the gist of what I was saying. Forming a religious position (or providing a translation/interpretation yielding as such) to claim a credit for something after it's been established by some other means is a form of bias. It even has a name - it's called 'hindsight bias'. You can't tweak the Koran's translations like that just to make it match with science and then claim it as a miracle of sorts that indicates the Koran's validity as divine work.

I posted this earlier, but it didn't appear somehow -- here we go again: Mohammed;741046 wrote: I'm pretty sure that the earth circles the sun was a theory until it was proven to be a fact. I'm afraid you haven't answered my question. I asked you to name a theory that was proven which then consequently became a fact. I didn't ask you to give an outline of a mundane common guess which then was supported. The point behind my question is that theories don't get proven and become facts. Einstein's theory of relativity passed all the scientific tests with high precision, yet it still has the label theory. Same goes for all theories of science. From the theory of thermodynamics in physics and cell theory of biology to germ theory of disease and transition state theory in chemistry. Can you tell me why it happens that all these still have the label theory, despite having tons of evidence met on their behalf? The point is, the Quran states we did not evolve. That has nothing to do whatsoever to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. Rejecting the theory of evolution because it does not accord with your religious world view is lame. What religious texts have to say has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any theory of science. Do you have non-religious (or better yet scientific) reasons for your belief in the exception of man from evolution? Let's then say I did believe in that, were do we stop? The Quran states Jesus was born to a virgin mother. You know that's impossible. In order for one to be pregnant, you need semen, right? Furthermore the Quran states two unseen angels are on your shoulder. Where' the scientific evidence for that? So an so forth. Interesting! Am I right in assuming that you accepted all of these without ever being provided with evidence (or else some compelling logical argument) to say that they actually occurred? If so, then why is it hard to accept a scientific theory with logical foundation and which has tons of evidence provided on its behalf? Moreover, in what logic does one dismiss that which has solid logical foundation and evidence in favour of one that has neither? There's enough in the Quran to suggest that it's the word of god. I don't believe such a book was written by a 7th century illiterate arab. There's no mistakes, no inconsistencies and no contradictions. How is that enough to suggest that it was the work of God? It's disappointing that your belief in the Koran's lack of mistakes, inconsistencies and contradictions would be enough for you to declare it the work of God. It also appears you are trying to find within the Koran an evidence to support its own validity. Isn't that like a man being his own witness in a court of law? If the Quran however said the earth is flat or the sun evolved around the earth, then you'd have a point. However it doesn't. It simply states that Adam and Eve were created separately and weren't part of the evolution process. If science suggest man is 100,000 years old, we accept. I didn't make any claims; I simply asked questions. I don't understand how the validity of my questions should depend on whether or not the Koran made wild claims about the solar system. As I've said above, what the Koran says has no bearing on whether or not theory of evolution is valid. You seem to be picking up the parts of evolution which conform with your religious beliefs and discarding those which don't. That's a logical fallacy called 'cherry picking'.

Boondheere;741163 wrote: Actually quran says earth is shaped like Egg. i think flat earth in the quran means that humans are to able to walk on the earth whit out falling down from it . therefore for us the earth is flat but if you look distance it look like Egg. Quran 79:30 Wal'arda ba'da dhalika dahaha He(allah) made the earth egg-shapedI would like to see a commentary of the Koran, dating back at least 600 years, that actually says the verse means the Earth is shaped like an egg. Most prominent commentaries of the Koran were written long before that, so I'm guessing you will have no problem finding such a thing. Hint: you will find none. Almost all of them will say that it means the Earth is extended, which is the more natural/unforced translation. Moreover, even most modern translators of the Koran will agree with me here. I'm thinking of Shakir, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali to name but few. Not to mention that the Earth isn't really shaped like an egg even from distance.

Mohammed;741046 wrote: I'm pretty sure that the earth circles the sun was a theory until it was proven to be a fact. I'm afraid you haven't answered my question. I asked you to name a theory that was proven which then consequently became a fact. I didn't ask you to give an outline of a mundane common guess which then was supported. The point behind my question is that theories don't get proven and become facts. Einstein's theory of relativity passed all the scientific tests with high precision, yet it still has the label theory. Same goes for all theories of science. From the theory of thermodynamics in physics and cell theory of biology to germ theory of disease and transition state theory in chemistry. Can you tell me why it happens that all these still have the label theory, despite having tons of evidence met on their behalf? The point is, the Quran states we did not evolve. That has nothing to do whatsoever to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. Rejecting the theory of evolution because it does not accord with your religious world view is lame. What religious texts have to say has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any theory of science. Do you have non-religious (or better yet scientific) reasons for your belief in the exception of man from evolution? Let's then say I did believe in that, were do we stop? The Quran states Jesus was born to a virgin mother. You know that's impossible. In order for one to be pregnant, you need semen, right? Furthermore the Quran states two unseen angels are on your shoulder. Where' the scientific evidence for that? So an so forth. Interesting! Am I right in assuming that you accepted all of these without ever being provided with evidence (or else some compelling logical argument) to say that they actually occurred? If so, then why is it hard to accept a scientific theory with logical foundation and which has tons of evidence provided on its behalf? Moreover, in what logic does one dismiss that which has solid logical foundation and evidence in favour of one that has neither? There's enough in the Quran to suggest that it's the word of god. I don't believe such a book was written by a 7th century illiterate arab. There's no mistakes, no inconsistencies and no contradictions. How is that enough to suggest that it was the work of God? It's disappointing that your belief in the Koran's lack of mistakes, inconsistencies and contradictions would be enough for you to declare it the work of God. It also appears you are trying to find within the Koran an evidence to support its own validity. Isn't that like a man being his own witness in a court of law? If the Quran however said the earth is flat or the sun evolved around the earth, then you'd have a point. However it doesn't. It simply states that Adam and Eve were created separately and weren't part of the evolution process. If science suggest man is 100,000 years old, we accept. I didn't make any claims; I simply asked questions. I don't understand how the validity of my questions should depend on whether or not the Koran made wild claims about the solar system. As I've said above, what the Koran says has no bearing on whether or not theory of evolution is valid. You seem to be picking up the parts of evolution which conform with your religious beliefs and discarding those which don't. That's a logical fallacy called 'cherry picking'.

That's Fermat's last theorem scribbled on the doodle. Fermat happens to be one of my favourite mathematicians. He was actually a lawyer by profession, and not a mathematician, yet he made all kinds of contributions to mathematics. Do you like maths? If so, who is your favourite mathematician and what's your favourite theorem?

Now I realise that Oscar Wilde had a point in advising that one should never wash one's dirty linen in public.

burahadeer;740493 wrote: I know this lady is white; but blacks started it all.Where i am,they give somalis hard time,always telling us we wana be white.They sick in the head & always looking for some criminal activity. I know there r good ones...but the youth carry more than their share of *********. I'm afraid they probably have a point. Somalis do have a history of having issues with being black. Ignoring the fact that most Somalis speak of 'blacks' in third person, like you did above, while being black themselves, it's a historical fact that Somalis have issues with being black. There are actually several traditional myths still widely believed to this day throughout Somalia which chronicle the origin of Somalis to non-black origins. Most books on the history of Somalis have something to say on this issue.

Mohammed;740780 wrote: I agree with mos theory of evolution except of man. That I do not agree. That's strange. May I ask, do you have any scientific reasons for this exception of man from evolution? People who say evolution is a fact, it's not. It's still a theory. Can you please give me the name of a theory that got proven which then consequently became a fact?

Jacaylbaro;740616 wrote: Waxaan la yaabanahay salaadda uun baaba la eeganayaa ,,, I was following those cases and 99% of them are carried out right after the person leaves Masjid .... I think it's to do with assassination logistics. If the target is one of those people who pray regularly, then they are likely to have a certain mosque in which they consistently attend for at least one prayer, if not all five. The fact that these prayers take place on certain assigned time makes the job far more easier for the hitman. Moreover, I think it's usually far more safer to kill a target in a mosque than at his house, shop, or in any other place where the target or his relatives could put up a fight or even a chase.