i hope we know why we are different!!!!

why me of all the people in here??? Aaliyyah, juxa, blessed those will have been so nice for the posts you mentioned

burahadeer;741800 wrote: easy way out!!!!! that same brain(scientists) stated that man came out of evolutionary process.Man existed before islam, christianity or judaism.Quran says man is made of sand & evolution says life (first plant)started at the bottom of ocean(sand & water) where did this first plant came from? burahadeer;741800 wrote: ).May be some coexistance needed here, Do you seem to reap some understanding here? burahadeer;741800 wrote: but personally I will stick with science when I look the world around me & see what science has accomplished which is tangible & could be seen with naked eye science is a function of the thinking of man, by itself its nothing.

burahadeer;741692 wrote: koran & bible r just faith books.Only science run this world...hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.It has become customary to deny what eye can see.Look at the technology infront of your eyes be it medicine or engineering.I just don't understand how you circumvent that.Nice to write whole pages but reality stands. qur'an states the origin of the brain, which is the source of all this technology you are talking about. is that not reality?? at least science does't state many things which are real, hence its imperfection. as faeces are a by product of man, so does all technology. be it in any field p.s. if you factor out the brain from the equation of science, what will you be remained with????

burahadeer;741313 wrote: Religion is a belief, can't compete with science.Are there verses that fortold the aeroplane,train,telephone,internet,lightbulb,T.v,aspirin etc.When you sneeze where you run to?Neither koran nor bible can come up with 2+2=4. You'r entitled to your belief but science stands.Vagueness doesn't work in today's world.It's show me..how to put a crash victim back together! how to disassemble the spongy web-like brain & pick a tumor, how to fix a radio or even artificial insemination before any of this things mentioned here came into being, it must have been an idea deep in the brain of a human. Then i wonder, was the brain not created, or evolution thought of it and created it???? science is not an independent tool, but brain of men thinks it out. And mark you, the brain is limited, as it doesn't know everything. Why does the eye see, where does the wind originate?? Why is water made up of h and o??? Just few kulahaa

johhny b=voltaire. Iskumid camal kulahaa

we iko watch ile ya churchil live??? Bure kabisa! Ile ya ramadhan watu hapana iko fisuri cheka-cheka ka ulidose, then ulikuwa down sana hahaha

ameen. lakiin, does it matter if the man is short? ~~~~~~handsome-ta ayaa idishay!!

then aaliyyah why not try the someone back in africa, lol.

Johnny B;738570 wrote: So you're doing just like we're doing here , copy/pasting right?!. This is terrebile state to be in for someone who despite his burning desire to debate( or have a say in) the subject matter, all s/he seems to be equipped with is copy/pasting the flawed works of others, and justifying it by claiming to just have done what others are doing. Worse, it's crystal clear for anyone with a decent mind that i neither claimed nor insinuated to be the writer of the article, despite not giving the source of the article, i underlined (twice) the contents of the article, hence, the seperation of my question regarding what to make out of the article,and weather it was a cognitive dissonance or just a Human nature to take the positions taken by the Doctors and medical students in the survey, so there is no excuse for anyone with a decent mind ( even for a seething theist like yourself) to equivocate on that. Now, let us for arguendo say i am guilty of palagrism by not regiving the source of the article, is then copy/pasting the lfawed works of others all one could contribute to the subject matter, namely Islam and it's emerging complex response to the Evolutionary theroy? To be extremely honest with you, the level of knowledge,decency,intellectual integrity and sophistication shown thus far are with all due respect appalling, to grant you a platform to be worthy opponent with integrity in this very subject matter is with such record a generousity rexamined , but hope is the last thing we'd lose so squeeze more of that brain, who knows maybe , just maybe you may have the stars lining on your behalf and you start making sense. please clarify how laptops get inspired, and while on it, account for how the Universe was made, ofcourse without being that hub of irrationality . a serious note: you are hypocritical and never sincere with your own soul. the power of denial propels you. your only source of energy is to say ''if i can deny, then i will''. you might ask yourself why am saying this. well, the point is, how on earth will one ever discuss a point with someone who blames others what he comfortably does? who never accepts the truth? just the plagiarism issue is making you feel you were wronged, what else will you accept. here we are not competing for any prices, just the plain truth. to sum up everything, there's nothing on earth which happens by its own. no way can an action happen without a doer. to refute this, just come with an example of an action which happens without a doer, and when you observed it. p.s. in my lineage, i have no more than human beings, who were born by a mother and a father.

Johnny B;738570 wrote: So you're doing just like we're doing here , copy/pasting right?!. This is terrebile state to be in for someone who despite his burning desire to debate( or have a say in) the subject matter, all s/he seems to be equipped with is copy/pasting the flawed works of others, and justifying it by claiming to just have done what others are doing my worry is on the poor soul that dwells deep in you. you are on a noble course searching for GOD. mine is just to help you see the truth. about the debate and argument, you are only complaining about flaws, and denying facts.

burahadeer;738371 wrote: When scientists say"evolution is a fact",they r using one of 2 meanings of the word "fact".One meaning is empirical: Evolution can be observed thru changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population ova successive generations. Anotha way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory,one that has been so powerful & productive for such a long time that it's universally accepted by scientists.When scientists say evolution is a fact in this case,they mean it's a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor(or ancestral gene pool). This implies more tangibly that it's a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact is this not a copy paste?:D:D i wonder waxa indha laisku tiraayo

If the truth is insult, then what will the lies and falsehood be?

the gentleman/women complaining about copy paste, should realize that, this thread started with such a pattern. I mean copy paste. Where does the creativity you are talking about come in?? Jb, apart from what u copy pasted, any other stuff? Just waving a petty flag of denial and baseless blames. Burahadeer, horta this fellow doesn't know even what he/she is talking about. Jaqjaqleen un sidii dumarka camal. Note: empty vessels make the most noise. P.s. The brain that accepts inspirron14 as a laptop made by dell and concludes that the universe has not been made, never fails to be the hub for irrationality and to say it precisely, logical disability.

3) what he does in life to gain sustenance. this will put in perspective whether he can support you economically. definitely his source of income must halal. however, this doesn't in any way mean, he should be so wealthy. just enough amount to push you through your daily bread is fine. if he has more wealth, with good character and knowledgeable, then your lucky. 4)his insights and views about the most paramount principles of life. what are his views about divorce, children, marriage, parents, and many more. this will put in focus his inner humble opinions pertaining to essentials of life.

Let women be treated with kindness and honesty

The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution. The scientists who participated in establishing the new theory included the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5 To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory—a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists." Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo- Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen. Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail. Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from the fossil record. Even in Darwin's time, fossils were already posing an important obstacle to the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of "intermediate species," he also predicted that further research would provide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However, despite all the paleontologists' efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a serious obstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as "vestigial organs," "embryological recapitulation" and "homology" lost all significance in the light of new scientific findings. All these issues are dealt with more fully in the remaining chapters of this book.

things had very simple structures. Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that nonliving matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course. Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye. Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread. However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."2 Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur's findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We shall consider this subject in some detail in this book. The Problem of Genetics Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations—that is, how inheritance took place—was not completely understood. That is why the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted. Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the "mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, "the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck: Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics... Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions' causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it... Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision.3 However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows. Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck. Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation."4 The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism."

The Birth of Darwinism Charles Darwin based his theory on various observations he made as a young naturalist on board the H.M.S Beagle, which sailed in late 1831 on a five-year official voyage around the world. Young Darwin was heavily influenced by the diversity of species he observed, especially of the different Galapagos Island finches. The differences in the beaks of these birds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to their different environments. After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England. He observed that breeders produced new breeds of cow by mating animals with different characteristics. This experience, together with the different finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributed to the formulation of his theory. In 1859, he published his views in his book The Origin of Species. In this book, he postulated that all species had descended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time by slight variations. What made Darwin's theory different from Lamarck's was his emphasis on "natural selection." Darwin theorized that there is a struggle for survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strong species, which can adapt to their environment. Darwin adopted the following line of reasoning: Within a particular species, there are natural and coincidental variations. For instance some cows are bigger than others, while some have darker colors. Natural selection selects the favorable traits. The process of natural selection thus causes an increase of favorable genes within a population, which results in the features of that population being better adapted to local conditions. Over time these changes may be significant enough to cause a new species to arise. However, this "theory of evolution by natural selection" gave rise to doubts from the very first: 1- What were the "natural and coincidental variations" referred to by Darwin? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species? 2- Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In this case, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms." Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the conclusion that "further research would provide these fossils." 3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing? 4- Before considering these questions, consider the following: How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate? Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seen from the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory." However, the answers he provided had no scientific validity. H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makes the following comments about these "difficulties" of Darwin's: On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.1 Darwin invested all his hopes in advanced scientific research, which he expected to dispel the "difficulties of the theory." However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties. The Problem of the Origin of Life In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living

this links ayaa isku fuusaday beenta oodhan. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history_01.html

nyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes. For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes. In this book, we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific. 11 FOREWORD A 12 espite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy (1809). Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greater complexity. He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example of this line of reasoning, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of on grass. This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic inheritance. In the middle of the twentieth century, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that the nuclei of the cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, and that this information could not be altered by "acquired traits." In other words, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to make its neck a few centimeters longer by extending its neck to upper branches, this trait would not pass to its offspring. In brief, the Lamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings, and went down in history as a flawed assumption. However, the evolutionary theory formulated by another natural scientist who lived a couple of generations after Lamarck proved to be more influential. This natural scientist was Charles Robert Darwin, and the theory he formulated is known as "Darwinism."

Wonderful presentation by the dr.

burahadeer;737297 wrote: This is exactly the flaws & irrelevancy johny is talking about.Ur question is,"what r those questions we talking about?." Do I have to repeat in every single post.You couldn't answer & u can neva give a clear ,concise,intelligible sentence as to why almost all muslim countries(except s.arabia & few villages run by shabab) refuse to amputate hands of thieves which is contrary to wat quran says.Why they refuse to follow quran in this case Before i even attempt to answer your simple question, do you really understand the meaning of a muslim country? a muslim country is a country in which the book of allah and the sunnah of the prophet (s.a.w.) are the point of reference. period. so, do those countries you are talking about have the above quality? before you call them a muslim country or not. refuse to amputate hands of thieves which is contrary to wat quran says.Why they refuse to follow quran in this case do you blame the have nots for not giving? before you conclude on the verb ''refuse'' show the ability . p.s. understanding is a gift, and only ALLAH can give.,,,,,,,,,,,,alxamdulilah. ilahoow soo hanuuni

burahadeer;737111 wrote: the pillars of ur extreme views on religion was totally destroyed by a simple question.You'r absolutely defenseless. you could still be a shabab leader...no intellect required....Mr. Pauper. what are those questions you are talking about? being al-shabab member is better in any dimension than being a laa-diini or cilmaani. if you have subtance, juice it than just sidii qof doqon ah ad iska qeyqeylin leheed.

Johnny B;737182 wrote: People like Mr. Pauper apparently can only copy from others, unable to construct their own arguments, surely jb, have you done different? you have just copy pasted the argument yourself from the work of others. in fact, you did plagiarism. he might begin to see some of the flaws and perhaps the total irrelevancy in the arguments he uses. if you really saw any flaw, you will have posted it.