Norfsky good notation.for seeing that its worth to shape sidii loo niqaashi lahaa, and that doest mean, A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT WHATSOEVER. as jb puts. horta waa ayaan daro hadaad baadi kadoonto meel eysan kaajirin. the problem isnt failure to define or present what we hold, as jb puts it. but the problem is why he(johhny b or jb)has to put the problem elsewhere. imagine if i tell you, i cant see. and you end up saying i told you i dont hear.THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

^somali09.i thought u aint here? waa maxay, hadal la'aanta??

where is jb and somalia ,and the like minded rest. why aint you flooding the floor?

WHY ARE YOU TWO BEING PARTIAL??? WHY DONT YOU TOO TELL US HOW YOU DENY WHAT EXISTS NOT???? JB..IF I AM NOT MAKING SENSE, ITS HIGH TIME YOU NOTE,,YOU WERE NEVER MAKING SENSE. The argument goes like this: 1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition) 2. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation) Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions: a) Humans designed DNA b) Aliens designed DNA c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God. (a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. © may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (e) a theological one. Therefore: 3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer. That's it. That's the argument. It's that simple.

jb... irrespective of the evidence's validity, what matters is the understanding of the individual, bcoz, one can reject the truth just because he doesnt want it.so saying,,it all depends on the individual,,,and thats why facts or evidences doesnt cease to justify what they stand for, irrespective of who takes them or who rejects them. if on earth, anything is evident enough to cause understanding it has to be the EXISTANCE OF GOD. beacuse no being on earth will ever fail to understand GOD exists, but what some do,( for that matter like the atheist,) is just simply deny, in the name of seeking for evidence, while they are evidences for the existance of GOD. those beings who ascribe themselves to the sect so called "atheists" are but evidence for the existnce of GOD,. if you think they aint, it beats logic to deny what exists not. and if you think you can deny what exists not, tell us how???????????????????

JB. Before i say anything, its just too vital we agree on what you really want., because;you said " but based on evidence ( as i understand it ) with some amount of intuition.".....which means irrespective of what your given as evidence, what matters to you is how you understand it. so, i feel, its nice you tell me what you take as evidence and what not. but mark you, as raamsade said "i.e. committing a logical fallacy" reasoning is not perfect,it can commit an error. by the way, do you concur with ramsade, that atheist doubt atheism??? NO CAUSE CAN CREATE ITS EFFECTS.

JB.., on reality you didnt answer any question of mine,. but never the less,,i shall tell you this.. that, the cornerstone of the whole issue is determined by what you really mean by evidence. what do you mean by evidence and what kind of evidence do you want? does it mean to you, seeing inorder to believe,? does it mean to you, touching or the presence of a physical body???????? does it mean to you, feeling inorder the existance of something???????? jb,,,least you forget,,in evolution theory, you would never hear about the SOUL.

jb, if atheism is not a religion on its own, what is it?? and if you believe not in GOD, what do u believe in???????? i guess u wont say..,nothing.

quote: Originally posted by Raamsade: Originally posted by genius pauper.: if we, humans of today evolved from ape, where did that ape came from? We didn't come from apes. Us and apes came from a common ancestor.raamsade, be a man enough to wishtand reality., my question is,,,, who is that common ancestor? and where did he/she came from?. my question is the litmus test for the whole arguement, quote: Originally posted by genius pauper.: is it a continuous process which still is unfolding?? [/qb] Yes; it's unfolding as I type this reply.[/qb]come forward with concrete evidence to show this. quote: Originally posted by genius pauper.: and if it is continuing who is co-ordinating its operation? No body that's why it's called Natural Selection.[/qb]hhmm...does calling it natural selection make it needless for a co-ordinator??? if you still think so, i ask why? quote: Originally posted by genius pauper.: what really necessitated the process to occur? You're begging the question (i.e. committing a logical fallacy). Before you ask the question "what necessitated the process" you must first show the process needs "someone" to necessitate it. Then and only then is your question legitimate one.[/qb]read properly. what, does not neccessarily mean someone,, it can mean a cause,a condition,... it just shows how far your limited. if you want questions to be asked as you wish and only the way 'you' think is right, then u better stay 'home'. i dont pitty, your inclined to 'legitimacy'(of the athiest laws?????? ...may be of your own thoughts. quote: Originally posted by genius pauper.: wont anyone not think that it is an injust process by the fact that only the fittest survive and those unable to adapt to the prevailing conditions perish? The survival of the fittest doesn't mean the strongest and most physically fit survive. Instead, it means those with better reproductive success leave more of their offspring behind (and hence, their genes survive into future generations).[/qb]your down here. it means survival for the fittest(as is taught and known to all},,,and i ask, why only the fittest??( the cause of the fitness is not a point..as your saying 'better reproductive." why???) quote: Originally posted by genius pauper.: a principle of the sciences of theology and jurisprudence is this: that a probability not originating from any indication or sign has no importance;it cannot induce doubt in a matter that is definite. it cannot shake the certainty that is based on sound judgement^^^^^^^^ Nonsense. Nothing in faith is based on sound judgment. You're only a muslim because of where you were born. Had you been born in Haiti you would believe in Voodooism.[/qb]why do u think so? i aint a muslim for the reason your giving,,,i wonder,were you me sometimes back, to talk on my behalf.??( this shows how bias your assumptions are and how they are blind folding you from the reality) Besides absolute certainty in anything is never good. You should always have doubts and ask question. It's people full of certainty that are often responsible for the most horrendous crimes in human history. [/QB] do you doubt atheism??????????? p.s; ramsaade, else where on this forum you said" you were created by your parents"? i ask hav you forgotten that???????? just remember your parents were too created.

hhhmm. just here to see you 'westernised' our boys and girls

^^^^^doubt cultivated in a barren mind of an atheist will only bear denial based on limited acumen.^^^^^^ somalia09......waad fashilantahay. how do you ascertain at first something which doesnt exist?..dont contradict your self. by saying so, u mean, u believe that, someone can ascertain the existance of something which doesnt exist?..hhhmm. ur really lost. may ALLAH GUIDE YOU AND THE REST,,,,,,,,,,,,AMII N.

^^^^ i did thought that mr.somali was a muslim,,... when i read some part of this thread. naxnu naxkumu dawaahir, wallaahu yatawala asaraa'ir. MASHA ALLAH.

why aint you asking this,,,,,,,,,if we, humans of today evolved from ape, where did that ape came from? and my worry is about natural selection,...was it a once process and is no longer there?? or is it a continuous process which still is unfolding?? if it was and not in function now, why did it stop? and if it is continuing who is co-ordinating its operation? what really necessitated the process to occur? wont anyone not think that it is an injust process by the fact that only the fittest survive and those unable to adapt to the prevailing conditions perish? ~~~~^^^^^a principle of the sciences of theology and jurisprudence is this: that a probability not originating from any indication or sign has no importance;it cannot induce doubt in a matter that is definite. it cannot shake the certainty that is based on sound judgement^^^^^^^^

hi ALL SOLERS,............. .