It seems you fabricating the notion that science and religion have hydrophilic interactions rather than hydrophobic ones as your oil and water example outlines. So based on your example there should not been overwhelming debate on this issue because hydrophobic effect is not in existence. Therefore, based on your assumptions i can state scientific molecules did not / do not and will not collide with religion molecules – resulting zero confusion. However, the reality is conflicting; we see issues are smashing together and that tells us their endurance in one system with high entropy level. Consistently, the confusion rate rises up as matter is dissected , good example, our pool of views here at “SOL.†All that said, we clearly see now that the two issues are inter-mix with hydrophobic interactions in one jar,holding hand one another and for that reason is why we have a this 7 page long debate and insha allah more Eid Mubarak to ALL players and audience

Johnny B i am not giving the cridet to creationism simply because i cannot find a scientific anwser but science itself lacks a vaible explanation. in addition, i havenot done any assumption rather i underline questions that are worth to analysis, for example if science cannot expalain where bactria come from than we have take the consideration if creationism have anwser, which says ID made this bactria. in fact, creationism has anwser what you called assumption number 5. apart from this discussion you mentioned earlier in the debate that I neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like). So i would like to ask you where you falling in this heating debate. since you not with creationsim, or evolution or pro-creationsim or pro-evolution??? because in order to mismentel any argument there should be a target that person running after. Otherwise, there is nothing to debate about

I believe science and religion can and MUST co-exist in harmony When the debate becomes about the metaphysical, ontological, creation of first living organism and similar topics...Evolution Theory must -- rightfully -- exist the ring. Conversely, when the debate is about the biology of living organisms, Creation Theory must step aside If you are saying all above statements is not that mean you agree that two theories can go hand in hand. Since, you clearly stated how the two theories interplay, as one exists and the other steps aside, in different phases of building a logical trace of lifes origin. In addition, you surprise me when you said the other (Creation) doesn't even have a hypothesis or make any predictions Well here you are treating creationism as a product of science, which is not true. Therefore, i wouldnot suggest you to use the scientific way to disprove creationism theory but to evaluate its validity in other terms. moreover, when iam saying right or wrong iam simply cautioning introverted individuals to abstain their close circle and bridge themselves to the big picture. in fact, as you mentioned the two theories have its own weakness and strength so why not bring the best of two worlds and drew mutual consensus. unless we are ready to go for the third option " Vacuity" ( as far as i know) if anyone have/know other options iam please to know

Creationism theory shouldn’t compare with Darwin's theory "Evolution theory". It shouldn’t be said if this is right the other one is wrong or vase versa. However, I believe they can go hand on hand. Keeping in mind that organisms evolve till the fits one survives and others become extinct (through natural selection mechanism). The question is how does these organisms become to existence?????? since everything have a start point! Common answer is from bacteria etc. Well are not bacteria itself an organism …where does this bacterium emerge? Here is where creationism can play a reasonable role. It has been created by whom? Obviously god . Unfortunately, atheists don’t like to dig the argument that deep, so usually we see them rowling on the surface and trying to set up a cyclic argument; if not creationism than it should be evolution and vase versa.Evolution theory is coming from scientific aspect – its excavating physical proves / tangible facts from the nature. Furthermore, it is not only limited to humans. However, it covers all living organisms form Endoskeletons such as vertebrates (e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) to exoskeletons like arthropods regardless which environment they inhibit. However, creationism is mainly scrutinized from the historic aspect of the universe’s origin. Meanwhile, religion books and other myths that different societies adhere are frequently the main resource of creationism, since it involves a transcendental power, which is beyond imagination of our intellectual capability.

This memo was well written. it has balance, proportionality, logic and most importantly it carries tangible facts. For example, Gamal Hassan's last statement " It is, however, necessary for the secessionists and their ‘friends' to understand that if Somalia is divisible, Somaliland is also divisible." precisely makes everything clear.With no farther due, I would like to ask my dear brothers and sisters who blindly believe utopian state of somaliland to carefully read above quote and to think about it deeply. unfortunately, establishing a clannish state at this stage of era is a brainless model, which portraits catastrophic image of "our mental maturity". Since, the world encountering the formation of multi-national states . This clanism has zero incentives to its citizens - economiclly by e.g. possessing less natural resources and socailly by e.g. picturing their follow brothers and sisters (rest of the Somalis) as a foreigner. Although, this ideology was creatively planed by old Somali politicians, who simply were after “Mansab†a political title, post the fall of Somali federal government in year 1991. Sadly to say many young people back then were misled and totally changed. Who up today fighting for state that simply carrying a name with false themes. Therefore, Mr. Hassan's alert has come the right time and along with him iam cautioning our Canadian government to not misled by egoistic professors who purely after a fame.

I love Somali politics full of ambiguity, and its players have no sense of direction. Furthermore, Sir Ibraahim Jaamac Daad is not the first of his kind to switch around and redo his political maneuver. As history books wrote and generations before as observed I can refresh your mind with good examples of Somali politicians and around globe. However. My point is not to say “this guy did it, why not him†but the core of my argument is to enlighten you that this is politics’ nature. In fact, what is worth discussing is • Can Sir Ibraahim Jaamac Daad bring a change to economic and social status of the region • Would he be able to homogenate elders and other politicians of the region view of “ what is good for sool region†• Does he have the courage to assure the stability of the region by wiping out the external forces - Somaliland and Puntland dispute over the region, though he was appointed by puntland • Etc.... If he have all that kind of qualities than without hesitation I would say the region have hope - and where is hope there is life.