Originally posted by Saddiiq: ie. Certain Surahs, and ayahs are not to be taught w/ tafsiir. Of course certain ahadeeth and Islamic literature are not to be taught. Those Sheekhs who do not comply simply are not allowed to teach. Sheikh Abdullah Faisal is one of those. For example British authorities confronted him for giving a lesson on Suratul Bayyinaa, calling it racial hatred when Allah says "Sharrul Bariyya". So you consider the following words by "shiikh" Al-Feisal are accurate reflections on Islamic Surrahs and hadiiths? Everyone of these excerpts are from official court documents -- appeal hearing -- in the case of Crown vs Al-Feisal. Personally, I don't think he is "hate-preacher" but an honest and devout Muslim unlike the hypocrites. The words of the "innocent" and harmless Sh. Al-Feisal who is denied his freedom to preach: Excerpts from the videotape Jihad DAT: "Before continuing let us define the word Jihad… whenever Allah used the word Jihad in the Koran it means to kill the Kaffars…That's the legitimate meaning of Jihad." "So the 1st condition for you to call your war Jihad is that is, it has to be against Kaffars." "Hypocrites would have said maybe Allah meant the Jihad of the pen or the Jihad of the tongue so Allah said …fighting is prescribed for you and you can't say that Allah meant you can fight with a pen on the battlefield [laughter from audience]." "…anytime you love the world‐earthly life and fear death the Kaffars will not fear you anymore. Therefore for you to be a formidable foe…you need to conquer your fear for death…and you need to look to die in the path of Allah…" "So the way forward can never be the ballot. The [way] forward is the bullet." "We spread Islam by the sword and so what, and today we are going to spread by the Kalashnikov and there is nothing you can do about it" "I'm sure that after September 11th everybody knows about Islam and Muslims [laughter in audience]" "The fifth aim and objective of Jihad is to lessen the population of the Kaffars… Even today in modern times you should cut the throat of the Kaffars with machete." "Allah used the word to terrorise…So we terrorise the Kaffars. However you are only allowed to strike at military targets. You are not allowed to strike at civilian targets. This is debatable. Is that clear? What I've just said to you is debatable because I've read to you a Fatwa from Saudi Arabia last week and the Sheikh said there is no such thing as an innocent Kaffar because before they attack Muslims they will vote for war…They take a poll and 90% of Kaffars said kill them…so whenever a Kaffar vote for war they are like Kaffar soldiers." "…one of the aims and objectives of Jihad is to lessen the population of the Kaffars and in order to inspire us to kill Kaffars the messenger of Allah said any time a Muslim kill a Kaffar that Kaffar will take his place in hellfire…If you kill a Kaffar on the battlefield that Kaffar will take your place in hellfire." "The sixth aim and objective of Jihad is to terrorise the Kaffars… Allah said you should terrorise them" "Jihad is to wage war against the unbelievers" "Is there any peace treaty between us and Hindus and Indian? No, so you can go to India and if you see a Hindu walking down the road you are allowed to kill him and take his money, is that clear, because there is no peace treaty between us and him his wealth isn't sacred nor his life because there is no peace treaty between us and him…" "…assassination is Hallal Lawful, so if you know that the person is plotting, you are allowed to send somebody to kill him." "The sixth aim and objective of Jihad is to spread terrorism. To terrorise the unbelievers…if terror didn't work Allah wouldn't have commanded you to terrorise the unbelievers and the best way to terrorise them is to exterminate them with Jihad." "Every Muslim hates the unbelievers and you want to see their extermination…Allah said kill them and did Allah tell you what to use. That means you can use anything, even chemical weapons…to exterminate unbelievers." "The apostate leaders and the scholars of the apostate leaders, you have to kill them because they preach the wrong Islam…you have to abduct them and kill them and you kill the unbelievers and you kill the hypocrites and…the apostates…these are the 5 people you kill when you do Jihad" ... and it goes on and on... all of these excerpts are from one tape; there are several other tapes. Muslims hunt down and discriminate against Ahmadiyyas for "perverting" true Islam but remain silent over people like Sh. Al-fiesal. Source: http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/RoyalCourtsofJustice_AlFaisal.pdf

I can't believe a potential World Cup "dark horse" Ivory Coast is on the verge of elimination in the first round. If they don't win tomorrow against Ghana, they're out. On second thought, that wouldn't be a bad outcome as we'd have Drogba and Kalou back earlier.

Originally posted by Cara.: Johnny and Layzie, What if a woman wears a burkha because she believes it signifies her subjugation and inferiority relative to men? What if she thinks her body is shameful, she's unworthy, she'll go to hell if a man sees her face, and she even likes the fact that it's physically restrictive? Then her self-perception and self-worth is informed by superstition, ignorance and outright falsehood. We -- those that disagree with her -- must be allowed to show her the way to self-ennoblement without prejudice, hindrance or death threats. Originally posted by Cara.: It doesn't concern you why someone does whatever they do, as long as it's of their own freewill, and it has negligible impact on your life. I -- as a non-believer -- agree with this. Unfortunately, Muslims don't.

Originally posted by Jacphar: Would it be against democracy and 'modern standard' (need definition here) if a county chooses the Sharia due to majority vote? Yes, since Sharia will deprive many non-Muslims of their basic human dignity and rights. Sharia institutes Spiritual Apartheid not much different from the racial apartheid of former S. Africa. In the ideal Sharia based country there will be no equality of Muslims and non-Muslims in front of the law. This salient point was ever present on the minds of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) members when they rejected the UN's and adopted its own Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. No other major world religion felt the exigency to craft its own charter of human rights. Now, why do you think that is? Democracy doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others, specially minorities. ailamos, welcome to the site and I'm glad you're sensible and courageous enough to stand for sanity and the life-affirming truth that secularism is better alternative to theocracy. Secularism's greatest advantage is that it can be changed with the ever shifting zeitgeist. If a particular secular law is deemed no longer desirable, there are no immovable obstacles to changing that law. That same can't be said of theocracy where God's laws are -- as an article of faith -- immutable. This fact along should clinch it for any rational and honest person.

Erdogan should've been the fall guy for this not the ambassador. It is all Erdogan's fault. The fears and suspicions of secular Turks that Erdogan was an undercover Islamist with hidden Islamist agenda are coming true as each day goes by. He was recently awarded the "Defender of the Faith" by S. Arabia. Erdogan's entire beef with Israel is rooted in Islamist ideology regardless of how he camouflages it.

Originally posted by ailamos: Despite the Duke's claims I have to give him some Islamic credit, the oldest continuously operating degree granting university is not Nanjing but university of Al Karouine in Morocco founded sometime in the mid-9th century. Duke's initial claim was that Arabs/Muslims "invented" mathematics and gave the world the first university, library and hospital. None of this is remotely true. Indians were probably the first to invent the university followed by the Greeks and the Chinese. That Muslims merely added the innovation of dispensing degrees to an already existing institution is hardly on the same scale of achievement as inventing the university in the first place, is it? After I've debunked these claims, he started to spam the site with articles containing even more outlandish aggrandizement of Muslim achievements. I'm not denying or minimizing Islamic contribution to humanity/West. Anyone who does so is a rank nincompoop since Islam was a world empire equal to many other great empires in history. The problem is Muslims, like other religious people, have "religionized" history. Since religions are largely based on myths, history also becomes mythical. Islam says Believers are the best of all living creatures. This translates into Islamic history being the most glorious and the most magnificent. Consequently, if you're a believer and Islam is true, scientific achievements of Muslims must be have no parallels. Unable to parse real history from mythical history, Muslims end up making ridiculous and exaggerated claims that have no basis in reality. Mr. Somalia, are you denying Islam calls for the heads of apostates? Be careful in how you answer this question.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ^^peacenow, stay away from the angry, voilant white folks. You see, it's not only arabs that get voilant Arabs ARE whites.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^ quote: So, you see, you can cite any book or author you like, I got the facts. Yes I quoted the "Islamic" independent.co.uk, as well as various western portals. you quoted Raamsade, thus we shall belive you, for you present facsts from thin air. lool. Duke 21: Raamsade 0.. I haven't even started with the independent.co.uk list. That will only compound your problems and I'm in a generous mood today... so quit while ahead. So far the score is 4-0 in my favor.

Originally posted by General Duke: Because you are anti Islam, I'm not anti-Islam but if I were, it is understandable. For being apostate (murtad), Islam calls for my death. Don't know about you but I sure don't wanna die because Islam says so. Your accusation of anti-Islam prejudice on my part is akin to a Nazi accusing a jew of anti-Nazim or white supremacist accusing a colored person of anti-white supremacism... it's an accusation that simply doesn't wash. But this all distraction by you to hide the real trashing you've received so far. Originally posted by General Duke: does not give you the right to try to rewrite history, Islam invented the foundation for the Muslim world, even Guinness book of records [not an Islamic book] gives the first recognized Univerisity to the Muslim world. In the field of Medicine the Islamic firsts are well known and publicized. The Nanjing University, which still exists to this day, was first found in 254 A.D. Obviously much older than any Islamic university. I'm sure there were even older but no longer extant universities. So, you see, you can cite any book or author you like, I got the facts.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: Like totally! This is like so much fun, but I have to go watch paint dry. It is, of course, much more exciting than having to continuously spoon-feed the opponent. "given a resounding trashing in this thread" "they keep coming back" Continue watching WWE, little boy. Then maybe, one day, when you're old enough, you can CRUSH us with your SPEED RACER hot wheels car or, or, OPTIMUS PRIME or MEGATRON! Yaaay Unfortunately auntie 5 has to go now. She has to baby-sit real kids tomorrow. *Expects some kicking and crying* So you're fleeing from a debate that you initiated? I always thought that was your best options. Don't know why it took you so long. Run along.

Originally posted by General Duke: Raamsade, you are only presenting your ignorance of Islamic culture even learned Westerners can not deny the contributions Islam made to the world. In the realms of science, literature, medicine, architecture, warfare and commerce. How am I presenting my "ignorance of Islamic culture?" The university, library and hospital predate Islam. Muslims (or any other culture/civiliation) didn't invent mathematics. These claims are objective facts that can easily be falsified. And I never said Islam made no valuable contributions to humanity or the West in particular. The problem is that you Muslims make outlandish claims regarding things that Muslims didn't invent. When others call you out on your mendacity, you accuse them of ignorance or bigotry. Very convenient don't you think?

Originally posted by Fabregas_Bruv: Mecenaries and governments have always blown up civilians( including their own) or another ethnic group-in order to turn the public against an insurgent group. But i think that would be extremely difficult to pull off in Muqdisho. There are a couple of problems with this argument. 1. There is no evidence that Western governments and mercenaries on their payola are blowing up civilians. The flip side to this glaring lack of evidence is the abundance of evidence incriminating Jihadi groups for terrorism against civilians. 2. Alshabaab has already claimed pride and support for suicide bombings in Somalia. They openly ally themselves with groups that support and justify terrorism like the Taliban and Al-Qacida.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^Oh the angry man, I'm not angry, just allergic to BS. Originally posted by General Duke: why do the westerners call it the Arabic numerals? Not the French numerals... That's who (arabs) they (Italians) adopted from in the first place. And the Arabs got their "Arabic Numerals" from the Indians via the Persians. I'll count this as 4th claim. The score thusfar is: Muslim inventions: 0 Non-Muslim inventions: 4 You're making this way too easy. Next.

Originally posted by BiLaaL: Could the December 3rd Shamo Hotel bombing have signalled their arrival? Why would mysterious infidel "merceneries" gain from blowing up innocent Somalis? I can understand and would support them 100% as would all sensible Somalis if they blew up Alshabaab and the rest of the Jihadi misfits who are maiming and terrorizing Somalis... but why bomb civilians? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^lool There was no oil when they invented the Mathematics the world uses No body "invented" mathematics just like no body ever invented physics or chemistry. Mathematics always existed, humans (of many cultures/civilizations) merely discovered it. Originally posted by General Duke: ... and the first, Public Hospital, Library and Universities.. But you only hear your own words.. This is palpable lie. All of these institutions predate the advent of Islam in the 7th century A.D. I like to keep score so here is the score so far: Muslim inventions: 0 Non-Muslim inventions: 3 That's 0/3 or 0%... a complete failure by anyone's standard. Next!

^Exactly! Muslim creationists have been given a resounding trashing in this thread. And yet they keep coming back for more which leads me to believe that there is more at play than mere ego. There is clear signs of masochism. I know religious people are into pain and suffering as atonement for sins or what have you but this is something else. While still on the topic of Evolution, there is another (what a surprise again!) fossil discovery. Footprints show tetrapods walked on land 18m years earlier than thought Fossil footprints in an old quarry lead to a radical rethink of the evolution of the first four-legged animals or 'tetrapods' The oldest footprints ever made by four-legged creatures have been discovered by scientists, forcing them to reconsider a critical period in evolution: the point at which fish crawled out of the water onto land to evolve into reptiles, mammals and eventually humans. The "hand" and "foot" prints are 18m years older than the earliest, previously confirmed fossil remains of "tetrapods" or four-legged vertebrates and were left by lizard-like creatures up to 2.5 metres long. The discovery, reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature, was made in a former quarry in the Holy Cross Mountains in south-eastern Poland. The fossil footprints can be reliably dated to the early Middle Devonian period, around 395 million years ago. Philippe Janvier of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris said the finding was as significant as "the first footprint of Neil Armstrong on the moon" and described its effect as akin to "lobbing a grenade" into the previous consensus of when the shift from water to land occurred. Until now, experts had believed that the earliest tetrapod fossils, traced to about 375 million years ago, had split from their fishy ancestors a few million years earlier and then gone on to conquer the land. "These prints push back the divergence of fish and four-legged vertebrates by almost 20 million years," said Janvier. "The evolutionary tree as we consider it now remains the same, but the timing of the tree changes." Tetrapods are thought to have evolved from a family of fish known as elpistostegids, which had a similar body and head shape to tetrapods, but paired fins rather than four feet. However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. They suggest that the fossil elpistostegids were late-surviving relics rather than transitional forms. Janvier, who said he is convinced that no animal other than an "elusive tetrapod" could have left such imprints, said: "It's really the first evidence we have of an animal with legs and digits walking on land at that time." The paper's co-author, Professor Per Ahlberg from Uppsala University in Sweden, describes several tracks of different sizes and characteristics as well as a number of isolated prints around 15cm wide. There are distinct "hand" and "foot" prints, with no evidence of a dragging body or tail, because the animals' body weight would have been partly supported by water. Ahlberg and his co-authors, mainly from the Polish Geological Institute in Warsaw, say their findings highlight how little we know of the earliest history of land vertebrates. They write that the prints "force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record". The prints will further "shake up" scientific thinking over human origins, said Janvier, because they show tetrapods thrived in the sea, which is at odds with the long-held view that river deltas and lakes were the necessary environment for the transition from water to land during vertebrate evolution. "The closest elpistostegids were probably contemporaneous with these tracks," he said. "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids." Jenny Clark, a palaeontologist at Cambridge University, echoed Janvier's belief that the findings would force scientists to re-examine their beliefs about the timing of the transition to land. "It blows the whole story out of the water, so to speak," she said. Clark added that it may also give pause for thought over what drove fish from water to land in the first place. Some theorised that tetrapods originally went ashore to lay their eggs out of reach of aquatic predators, or that their ancestors grew legs to scurry from pool to pool. She had favoured the notion that fish emerged from oxygen-deprived waters in order, quite literally, to catch their breath. None of those theories was supported by the Polish find, she said. source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/06/footprints-tetrapods-walked

One of the spokesman for Alshabaab has brashly claimed that Somalis were fed be Allah and not by the WFP and the likes. My question to him and his supporters is: if the malnutrition and famine fears come to fruition, who should be held responsible? Alshabaab or Allah?

One of the spokesman for Alshabaab has brashly claimed that Somalis were fed be Allah and not by the WFP and the likes. My question to him and his supporters is: if the malnutrition and famine fears come to fruition, who should be held responsible? Alshabaab or Allah?

One of the spokesman for Alshabaab has brashly claimed that Somalis were fed be Allah and not by the WFP and the likes. My question to him and his supporters is: if the malnutrition and famine fears come to fruition, who should be held responsible? Alshabaab or Allah?

Probably in some Kafir country waiting for scraps from his master.

Originally posted by Amistad: What is the TFGs opinion of Ahlusunnah Waljama'a Network? The current of frame of mind of the TFG is: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Since they're literally on the ropes, they'll be happy to have any allies. On that basis they deem Ahlu Sunnah waljameeca as allies in a existential war of annihilation. That said, the TFG is apprehensive of the Ahlu Sunnah's independence as that could cause problems in the future. Assuming the TFG survives, of course. Originally posted by Amistad: Ive read from some Jihadi watch groups that this group has been linked to terrorism "persons of interest", would you consider them a terrorist organization and why? No. I'm unaware of any terrorists among them and haven't seen any evidence whatsoever. You have to remember that Ahlu Sunnah waljameeca are Sufis (a minority group that is despised by mainstream muslims and persecuted throughout history) whereas all the Islamic terrorists are of Salafi persuasion. But I can see why Jihad watch groups maybe wary of 'em because while Ahlu Sunnah waljameeca is certainly more "moderate" than the Salafi death groups (alqaida, taliban, alshabaab etc)... they're still avowed Muslims who assert the superiority of Sharia with all that it entails. Originally posted by Amistad: Does the US/UK consider them a Terrorist Organization? No. Originally posted by Amistad: They are obviously fighting Hizbul Islam and Al Shabab. Does this mean they would be considered "moderate" Muslims? I hope so. Their resistence to Salafism indicates that not all Somali Muslims are on board with Alshabaab's Jihad and Sharia non-sense. Originally posted by Amistad: Why are they fighting Shabab & H.I. ? What is this groups goals in Somalia. Allahu yaclam.

There was a time when the apostate tag carried special status since there were handful of genuine and self-confessed apostates. But nowadays, there are so many apostates (self-confessed or not) that I kinda of feel small and insignificant. Missed the old days.

Originally posted by MAXIMUS POWERS: International Terrorism piracy Human trafficking Warlordism Starvation Lawlessness Tribal warfare Barbarism and Extremist ideology You left out Islam. Personally, I blame Somalis AND Islam since you can't divorce the two as our resident Jihadis like to remind us.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: 1. You did not understand my reference to saltation, and instead mocked me that my knowledge is gleamed from cartoons. Well, saltation IS cartoonish idea no wonder you’re so attracted to it. So far we’ve established that you’re enamored with old dead men and their old dead ideas that are no longer part of Evolution Theory. Saltation is not part of modern science curriculum nor is it accepted by the scientific community. For those that don’t know what saltation means, it was an idea that postulated the sudden appearance of species from other species. By sudden, I mean, for instance, a horse giving birth to a snake. It was never taken seriously by scientists and relegated to the dustpan of false ideas along with phrenology, luminiferous ether and geocentricism. This demonstrates two things: (1) you’re perusing one too many creationist sites since no one else peddles these arguments than creationists and (2) you’re unable to address the multitude and independent lines of evidence supporting evolution theory, hence your ploy of attacking imaginary positions modern biologists don’t hold as a diversion. Originally posted by 2+2=5: 2. You lied that according to fossil evidence, the floreansis looked more human to you. When I gave you drawings as proof, you mocked them and called me 'an ignorant child'. Then when you saw the fossils, you tried to back down by saying there is a possibility they were dwarfs. First, Homo florensies is not a human ancestor, so comparing it to humans is meaningless exercise. I’ve explained this to you and of course, true to form, you’ve completely failed to acknowledge your error. Second, Homo florensies does look like human to me and many other practicing scientists. In fact, the fossil specimens of Homo florensies was so human like when first discovered that many scientists thought it was dwarf human or Homo sapien sapien. So, how exactly did I lie? More importantly, I provided a detailed elucidation of why your assertions that scientific approach of using fossils to establish descent is incorrect. I showed, in great detail and with plenty of evidence, how modern humans gradually evolved from Australopithecines using exactly the approach I first introduced. Any substantive response? Originally posted by 2+2=5: 3. About evolutionary scientists who believe birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. You initially said: "Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs." Later on you went on to say: "I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today. There will always be dissenting voices. That's given." And then accused me of name-dropping when I gave you the evidence. You’re being redundant. I’ve already addressed this argument. I asked you: how does this argument help your case? How does it disprove Evolution Theory? You’re a creationist who believes God created everything but you keep providing scientists who disagree with you and believe in evolution. I also note the conspicuous absence of ANY refutation of the fossil evidence that demonstrates the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. How do you expect to be taken serious when you REFUSE to discuss the evidence? The scientists you claim disagree with origin of birds all accept evolution of all living things from other living things. Science is open and tentative process. It is normal for scientists to debate the mode and tempo of evolution. That is within the purview of scientific discourse. Just because a minority of scientists believe birds didn’t descend from Dinosaurs (but from archasaurs) doesn’t mean Evolution Theory is false. Originally posted by 2+2=5: 4. I asked you for the definition of evolution (to prove my point evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself) and you gave me a description that completely conflicted Ernst Mayer's. Finding it hard to stomach, you accused me of "misconstruing others" and asked for proof. I gave you a quote from the book, you concluded Mayr is wrong. Then you said both of you were right because you agreed. What an utter nonsense. Evolution Theory is completely in “accordance with itself,” whatever that means. Not only is it internally consistent but it is also absolutely consistent with the evidence of the natural world. This thread is 16 pages long and you still haven’t presented a SINGLE piece of evidence that discredits Evolution Theory. Not one! That speaks for itself. Scientists’ debate over the mode and tempo of evolution is not evidence that Evolution Theory is false. You can only disprove Evolution Theory by providing contradictory evidence that is inconsistent with the theory’s core predictions and explanations. Can you do that? And we both agree with each other. Ernst Mayr believes in Evolution Theory just like I and you don’t. Originally posted by 2+2=5: I had previously quoted Mayr: "[Evolution…] may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." –‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174 Here is the actual quote in full: “"Evolution, being on the whole a population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except for certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." – Ernst Mayr ‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174” Now, what do you think the above quote actually means? It surely can’t be a horse giving birth to a dog as per saltation theory and Mayr didn’t believe that. I like to hear from you first because I doubt whether you even understand half the quotes you furnished in this thread. Originally posted by 2+2=5: 7. You made a claim that evolution does not proceed from less complex to more complex and as a proof said there are single celled organisms. When I asked you where single celled oranisms of today came from, you yelled straw man fallacy & now you claim I don't know the meaning of Abiogenesis. Asking about how the first living organism came about in a debate regarding Evolution Theory is a dead give-away that you don’t know the first thing about the theory or you’re being mendacious. So asking about the origin of the living organism is a straw man argument. Originally posted by 2+2=5: This is a ****** answer. Guinea pigs can't synthesize vitamin C, we share a common ancestor with them too? I have clearly overestimated both your intellect and your erudition. That you can’t even see how the inability of Guinea pigs to synthesize vitamin C substantiates Evolution Theory speaks volumes. Let me try this one more time but this time I’ll explain it very very slowly. We know from Evolution Theory that humans and other higher primates are closely related. We also know that all higher primates including humans can’t synthesize vitamin C because they lack the enzyme that converts glucose into vitamin C. Any good scientific theory must be able to make testable (falsifiable) predictions. Using Evolution Theory we make a testable prediction. If humans and other primates descended from a common ancestor and their ancestors had the capacity to produce vitamin C but they themselves have subsequently lost it, then we should find vestigial evidence in their DNA. This would indicate a common ancestor since the probability of the independent appearance of the non-functional gene in ALL primates is virtually zero. Scientists tested this prediction and have found the gene that coded for the enzyme that converted glucose into vitamin C has become inactive; in other words, it is a pseudogene now. When the gene was mapped – the entire nucleotide sequence was determined – it was compared to same gene in other animals (cows, mouse, dogs etc). Doing this comparison allowed scientists to determine the exact location of the mutation. But scientists have also discovered another confirmation of the descent of man from ape-like ancestors; the gene sequences of humans and chimp resembled each other the most followed by orangutans and other primates as required by primate phylogenetic tree. What about the Guinea pig? Guinea pigs are not closely related to humans. Given this and in line with what has been discussed above, we should be able to find two things. One, the location of the mutation should be different which will demonstrate the mutation was inherited from two different ancestors. Two, the gene sequence should show distant relationship between guinea pigs and humans. When scientists tried to test these predictions they found that mutation occurred at a different location on the guinea pig pseudogene than primates. Moreover, the psuedogene sequence of guinea pig showed distant relationship to primates but close relationship to other rodents. This illustrates the explanatory power of Evolution Theory. It is able to explain facts and mysteries of the living world to a degree that no other theory can. Quranic theory of Special Creation has absolutely no explanation for these findings. If what I've written isn't helpful, watch this short video: Originally posted by 2+2=5: Again, back to my point (which, if you knew anything about, you would understand), have you or have you not heard of pseudogenes? Do you understand the reason for my asking this question? Of course you don't. Go ahead and tell me what you think psudogenes are. And I don’t understand your reason at all. Originally posted by 2+2=5: What I was talking about was that humans and chimps' "98%" claim is in fact BASED ON PROTEIN CODING REGIONS which compromise 1.5% OF THE TWO GENOMES. The more area will be covered in the future, the more the number will change (and possibly dramatically drop). Therefore 98% genome similarity is misleading, a half-truth, if you will. If this is what you actually believe than you’re terrible way off base. The 98% figure comes from a comparison of the whole genome. That is a letter-for-letter (AGCT…) of the whole chimp and human genome… all 3.2 or so billion base pairs of it. And the actual figure is over 98%. Here is a study that goes into detail about the whole topic and more: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html Main finding of the paper: “Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.” In other words, their DNA is 98.94% identical. This result is based on: “We explored changes at the level of single nucleotides, small insertions and deletions, interspersed repeats and chromosomal rearrangements…. We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies12, 33, 34. The differences between one copy of the human genome and one copy of the chimpanzee genome include both the sites of fixed divergence between the species and some polymorphic sites within each species. By correcting for the estimated coalescence times in the human and chimpanzee populations (see Supplementary Information 'Genome evolution'), we estimate that polymorphism accounts for 14–22% of the observed divergence rate and thus that the fixed divergence is 1.06% or less.” Originally posted by 2+2=5: This is a matter of opinion. Unless you were there to witness the fusion Sorry to burst your bubble but facts are facts, not opinions. Other primates have chromosomes 2 A and B. Our chromosome 2 is the fusion of those two. Originally posted by 2+2=5: The answer is more miscarriages. Now how could this new, changed chromosome have taken over the entire population and become what is most common in people, when it's carriers were at disadvantage due to fertility problems? This is a complete waste of my time. None of this has anything to do with the human chromosome 2. It is a telomere-telomere fusion as evidenced by the inactive telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2. Robertsonian translocation is centromere-centromere fusion. Had you actually bothered to consider the evidence – by the renowned biologist Ken Miller, who also happens to be the author of a lot of HS/University Biology textbooks – you wouldn’t be wasting your time or mine. Every time I present evidence for evolution your first reaction is to change the topic or ask inane questions as opposed to actually addressing the evidence. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Because you brought up "comparative anatomy". Knee is not part of the anatomy? And now my question are getting more and more bizarre? You are a clown. Of course the knee can be part of any comparative anatomy between chimps and humans. But you were asking me why chimps and humans don’t have similar knees, weren’t you? If that is the case, then your question is a weird one. Humans are bipedal and chimps are quadrupedal. Why would you expect their knees to be similar? Originally posted by 2+2=5: Goes on to show how much you know, (yet) again. So according to you, there are known intermediate mechanisms between a simple pivot hinge and a four-bar mechanism? The evolution of human knee (and other body parts) was gradual, incremental process… this evolution is observed both in the fossil evidence as well as modern animals starting with amphibians with their simple knee joints all the way to humans. Originally posted by 2+2=5: This is tiresome. Fossil findings show there have been other creatures roaming on Earth. They say ignorance is bliss. Fossils tell us more than whether creatures once roamed the earth. They tell us whether Quranic global flood ever occurred and whether the Quranic creation story is true at all; fossils provide evidence for the evolution of living things and more importantly, the fossil record allows us to test predictions made by Evolution Theory AND Theory of Special Creation. It is self-serving for you to belittle the significance of fossils because you’ve been unable to refute the plethora of fossil evidences provided for the evolution of bird from dinosaurs and humans from ape-like ancestors. Originally posted by 2+2=5: After your request for example of variation within a kind , this is what you had to say: "These are dog breeds not different species. Species have exact scientific definition(s)." And you really wonder why I can't be bothered with you? You are incapable of keeping up with what's being talked about. Excuse me? What are you babbling about? I initially wrote this: “In labs we've observed evolution -- under controlled conditions (therefore, reproducible!) -- taking place with yeasts, bacteria and drosophila flies. In fact, scientists have repeatedly tested the core postulates of Evolution Theory in labs. In nature, we've observed evolution taking place with peppered English moth and other species.” To which you replied: “You're confusing terms here. Those claimed examples of ‘evolution-in-action’ are actually examples of variation within a kind; antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, even the peppered moths you mentioned…” I then asked you to explain what you mean by “variation within kind” and your reply was dog breeds. And you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about? I let the readers be the judge. In science, there is no such thing as “variation within kind.” It is not a scientific classification system. Species have scientific definition(s) and binomial or trinomial naming system (genus species or genus species subspecies). That definition subsume breeds. All domesticated dogs are subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupis) and belong to Canis lupis familiaris. And the irony is that dogs EVOLVED from wolfs after human domestication some 12-15k years ago. You adduced dog breeds as evidence against evolution when in fact they're demonstration of evolution at work. Quite ironic! My earlier suggestion that you start reading real science books and stop reading creationist sites still stands. Originally posted by 2+2=5: "What he said in the last part of your quote is perfectly consistent with Evolution because every time there is a new species, genetic information is reduced." You are a troll. All this time you have been arguing mutations add information, just so you can retreat from your original point Speciation reduces genetic diversity but mutation replenishes the gene pool. That is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Any time speciation occurs where a part of the larger population becomes reproductively isolated from the main group, the newly speciated group takes away (reduces) the genetic diversity of the main group. But overtime mutations restore genetic diversity in the main group. Do you have substantive response to this? Originally posted by 2+2=5: I never said so. I only said so of some of the errors that slip through the DNA repair mechanism; that they are detrimental. You don’t know what you said because you don’t know most of what you write. You regurgitate creationists’ talking points with tenuous grasp of what they’re actually saying. The quote you provided shows that you did say most mutations are harmful. Here is the first two sentences “Yes, some errors slip through and it affects the information it encodes. They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer.” Since errors=mutations, what does “they are mostly detrimental” mean? Originally posted by 2+2=5: You have the attention span and the logical ability of a 3 year old child. You’re projecting. Originally posted by 2+2=5: If life started from single cell organism, and mutation is a decrease in "true information content" (although "making it genetically more diverse") how could this result in more... anything? Logically speaking. Mutation is increase in genetic diversity. Each one of us has over 100 new mutations that we didn’t inherit from our parents. Most of these are neutral and only add to genetic diversity. Originally posted by 2+2=5: "And Allah isn't competent enough to create a single, unambiguous book that could convince that vast majority of humanity of his instructions and existence" It is not that God is incompetent to do that. It is that if He did it, there would be no need for faith. But God did send countless revelations and over 100,000 prophets. He even restarted the creation project by wiping the slate clean with the global flood. But if the world ends today and Islam is true, most people would end up in hell. It seems the whole purpose behind God’s creation was to populate hell with as many people as possible. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Again, free will. They were free to choose to obey God or not. But you have to remember that God had prepared Earth for them even before they did. It was predetermined that we would live on Earth. There is no such thing as free will in Islam. Free will doesn’t exist in a world presided over by omniscient creator. Both the Quran and Ahadith affirm this. Before God created you He knew of your ultimate destiny (hell or heaven). When you grow up, nothing you do will change God’s foreknowledge because that would violate God’s omniscient attribute. Thus, there is no free will in Islam. Mohamed says as much in a couple of hadiths. I can post them if you like. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Why shouldn't other people be just as free to corrupt what they see fit? Nothing happens without Allah’s will. So if His books were corrupted it is because he willed it. That rigs the salvation test for every body that had to rely on corrupted revelations. Originally posted by 2+2=5: If you look around, how many of humanity are kind-hearted, polite, well-meaning and loving? Very few. Actually most humans are empathetic. It is the source of human morality.

Lets not forget that Sh. Shariif was himself part of this Jihad madness only a couple or so years ago. Although he has toned down the Jihad or the religious rhetoric he employed while a member of the UIC... I suspect he still has a soft spot for his erstwhile allies now turned sworn enemies. How else can one explain his calls for negotiations with people who blew Madina Hotel in Beledweyne killing and maiming nearly a 100 people? I'm afraid Sh. Shariif simply doesn't possess the right stuff the occasion calls. In another time, he would perhaps make a good leader. Not today though. What Somalia needs today is savvy, pragmatic and at the same time ruthless and opportunistic leader willing to play both soft and hard in dealing with the Jihadi miscreants.