Originally posted by Fabregas_Bruv: Majority of people who have launched or being caught attempting to launch attacks on US soil have rarely used the "islamaphobia" that exists on US soil as a an excuse for what they were attempting to do, rather they see this as a legitimate response to the support for Israel, the torture in US or US funded prisons, the support for Israel, Afghanistan, the desceration of Islamic holy books in various US ran institutions, the crimes in Guantanomo, Iraq, Afghanistan the so called extraordinary renditions and so and so forth. Ignoring the fact that most of these grievances postdate the 9/11 attacks, what did Muslims benefit from attacking the US? For bringing down two American towers, the US brought down two Muslim majority countries. How did that work out for Muslims? Originally posted by Fabregas_Bruv: Did Nidal Hassan do what he did as a reaction to global and personal events or was he pushed to do what he did by US mosques, websites or prisons? He did what he did because he genuinely thought he was waging Jihad against unbelievers. Originally posted by ThePoint: A backlash only defined as a tallying of reported crimes to police is quite frankly a retarded metric. You dismiss FBI statistics on hate crime and then proceed to give a list taken right out of the talking-points of Islamic pressure groups. A "hieghtened atmosphere of suspicion against any and all members of x group" is not a hate crime as per US Common Law and if it is, there is no way to objectively measure it. The FBI's hate crime statistics may not be perfect in fully capturing hate crime but it is the best and most objective way to gauge the trends in hate crimes as defined by the law. Originally posted by ThePoint: From shutting down all Islamic charities Like the Holy Land Foundation? I get it now, closing down charities that are fronts for terrorists hellbent on killing Americans is rank Islamophobia. Originally posted by ThePoint: to the Muslims praying on a plane being taken off and questioned for terrorism because people thought they looked suspicious I'm sure the victims on the planes that went down on 9/11 would've loved if Mohammed Atta and company were taken off those planes. Don't you agree with me? Are Muslims fliers under greater scrutiny today than before 9/11, you bet. But I suggest you lay the blame on your coreligionists for not only flying planes into buildings but CONTINUING their war against your hosts. Originally posted by ThePoint: to the lovely US policy of rendition Like I said above, blame it on your pious coreligionists. Without Jihadi terror not a single innocent Muslim would be subjected to extraordinary rendition. Originally posted by ThePoint: to the celebration of the likes of Ayan Ali Hersi et al. This complaint illustrates why people are skeptical of Muslims' claims of Islamophobia. How is celebrating and defending freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to life indicative of Islamophobia? The West celebrates Ayan Hirsi for her indefatigably, courage, acceptance and assimilation into Western lifestyle, mores and outlook, standing up to Islamic bullies and defending the right of the oppressed (Muslim and non-Muslim). That you consider the West's celebration of Ayan Hirsi as Islamophobic only indicates, once again, your contempt for their values.

Originally posted by Nur: I have never implied that I agree with the whole of articles that I post, so that will leave what I have written in that thread as your remaining caption, which is the only proof you can use to show that I have changed my mind. So you don't after all agree with the article or some of it what it says? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but I must say it sounds awfully convenient. But I will leave you with this advice: perception is reality. By posting an article with a title " Horror at Fort Hood Inspires Horribly Predictable Islamophobia" a mere 24 hours after Islam inspired massacre of Americans, you don't give the impression that you think the US is the best place for Muslims. Reading the article one would think Muslims in the US are like Coptic Christians in Egypt or Christians in Pakistan or Somalia. There is a huge dissonance between the knee-jerk cautioning against "Islamophobia" and the reality of nigh total absence of that "Islamophobia." This is only exacerbated by the hate crime data from the FBI which shows declining figures for hate crimes against Muslims. Originally posted by Nur: Islamophobia is feeding the 8 year unwarranted and unjust US war in Iraq and Afghanistan that claimed the lives of over a Million civilians after concocted 911 frame game. This is so symptomatic of Muslim's inability to take responsibility for their own problems and learn one or two things from history. First, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would never have occurred if Muslims didn't fly planes into buildings killing 3,000 people. Second, both Iraq and Afghanistan had the chance to avoid any invasion by simply complying the demands of the Allies just like German, Italy and Japan sensibly complied all the demands of Allies. But the Taliban and Saddam weren't able to cut deals with those threatening to invade their countries thereby avoiding all those dead Muslims you mourn and we don't have to wonder why. Lastly, you say a million Muslims died. Of course this is not true but even if it is true the overwhelming majority of them died at the hands of other Muslims. Muslim on Muslim bloodletting is one of the defining features of Islam. If Iraqi Muslims didn't decide to re-fight the 656 A.D. Battle of Basra in the 21st Century, so many Iraqi Muslims wouldn't have died. Originally posted by Nur: Islampohobia has since prompted the change of laws in the US Actually, it is Islamic terrorism -- you know the people who fly planes into buildings and try to smuggle explosives onto planes -- that are responsible for any changes in the law.

Originally posted by Fabregas_Bruv: Muslims turned/restored the kaba and mecca into places where only Allah was worshiped. The Muslims destroyed the idols, but some of the rites of hajj were kept as Muslims believe that these were all ancient centers of monotheism which were later corrupted by the Quraish tribe. This is all true as per Islamic dogma. Muslims believe the Ka'ba was originally built by Abraham for the worship of one and true God but somehow was corrupted by pagan Arabs. They also believe Islam existed before Mohamud was born. The problem with this claim is that there is no corroborating historical evidence. Not a single epigraph, archeological artifact, no written sources or any other historical evidence attesting to the veracity of Islamic claims exists. Islam didn't exist before Mohamud was born. And absent any contrary evidence, we must accept what the historical evidence shows to be true. Namely, that the Ka'ba was always the center of Arabian paganism until Muslims converted it into exclusively monotheistic site. So, in this regard, the incorporation into Islam of pagan rituals and practices associated with the Haj is not substantively different from the incorporation of pagan rituals into Christianity. The two are exactly the same. Only those imbued with sectarian prejudice would disagree. Originally posted by Fabregas_Bruv: On the other hand, Christians clearly incorprated paganism into their religion and they compromised on many aspects of their religion in order to appease Rome. All of this occured after the time of Jesus and his followers. This is why they are accused by Muslims, Jews and even some Atheist academics of changing their religion and diluting it with paganism. Christianity (like Islam, Judiasm or any other religion) is highly evolved theology. But it is not "diluted" or "corrupted," that's just Islamic slur.

Originally posted by Nur: This report supports what I've always believed. That the safest place on earth for Muslims today is in the USA. "Always?" You certainly didn't seem to believe that "always" when you posted this link while the wounds of the victims were still fresh: Horror at Fort Hood Inspires Horribly Predictable Islamophobia What led to your change of mind?

Originally posted by The Zack: Raamsade, Christians claim that Jesus(peace up on him) was born on December 25th yet history proves that he was actually not born in December. Muslims don't celebrate for eidul adha or claim that hajj is someone's birthday. So you are totally lost with this comparison here. It is actually you who is lost in misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. I was merely pointing out the irony of a Muslim knocking down Christianity for co-opting pagan rituals and practices. Islam itself co-opted many pre-Islamic and pagan rituals and practices like virtually all the rituals associated with the Hajj and Ramadan. Don't you find that ironic? All Abrahamic religions have appropriated the predating pagan/polytheist rituals and practices. Originally posted by Maaddeey: Hajj has nothing to do with Paganism, it was originated from Ibrahim, and the Mushrikuun got it from what they had of Millatu Ibrahim. Ibrahim/Abraham is a mythical figure and it largely based on Islamic dogma not on hard facts. Notwithstanding that, I'm a bit dumbfounded at your (and others as well) denial of the pagan origin of Hajj. It's not something I'm making up or written by "enemies of Islam" or some kind of esoteric knowledge that only some can understand... it is all there in authoritative Islamic sources like Ahadith and Quran. The Ka'ba was the center of idol worship. It contained over 300 idols at one point. Pagan Arabs made pilgrimages (Hajj) to Mecca where they kissed the Black Stone, "stoned the devil," ran back and forth between the hills of Al-safa and Marwa, circumambulate the Ka'ba although sometimes naked which was later forbidden in Islam... the Hajj pilgrimage was how Mohammed's own tribe the Quireish originally grew rich.

Originally posted by Meiji: 3 October 1993 was a historic day in which Americans were defeated and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. They got what they deserved, and the victims of the massacres the Americans committed have rejoiced the defeat of the US rangers on that day. The "victims" of the massacre were also the perpetrators of bigger massacres against fellow Somalis. I guess Karma is a bich, as they say.

Barbaric and totally revolting. Although there are so many things about the Chinese dictatorship that are objectionable, capital punishment stands out for me. Nothing justifies the taking of human life.

A gripping first-hand account of what happened. Umar was clearly a victim as much as he was a perp, lets not forget that. He was a victim of sick and insidious ideology which instructs its adherents to disengage morally and commit the most wicked crimes imaginable. It's time people wake up and confront this ideology before it is too late.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: Raamsade, you've proven to me that you don't know what you're talking about. You are a fraud. So the debate has ended for me. If you cannot keep up with what's being said or understand what the references are or what we are talking about, there isn't even a debate. This coming from someone who can't distinguish Abiogenesis from Evolution Theory or claims that Australopithucines (bipedal species) were the ancestors of modern chimps or thinks most genetic mutations are deleterious... that's really rich. You would have long been tossed out of this debate for your flagrant flouting of debating etiquette and complete inability to defend your positions. By every objective measure you've lost this debate eons ago and by margins as wide as the Atlantic ocean. Don't confuse that fact I continued this debate thusfar as validation of your debating skills or confirmation that you were making valid points. You weren't. I only kept this debate going this far to combat the hostility and suspicion Somalis generally have of science in large and Evolution Theory in particular informed in large part by religiously induced obscurantism. You're just another creationist addition to my scalp collection. But I must confess, you're not one I'm proud of. Originally posted by 2+2=5: So this is what I propose. Lets take this discussion elsewhere. Lets take it to a science forum. That way, you can give way to more knowledgable folks, and as an end result, perhaps even return to Islam. I fail to see how carrying this debate in this section prevents any of your "knowledgeable folks" from partaking.

^Peace and stability comes before financing. You can have all the funding in the world but that would amount to nothing if where the project is to be implemented in the midst of civil strife. Achieve peace first and then tackle financing second. About financing, it depends on who is undertaking the project. If it is national or local government, the financing will come from them. If it NGOs (i.e. FAO), again the financing can come from them. If it is NGO that you started, you can get funding from various sources both private and public. But if it is an individual project, then you got your work cut out for you. It's doable though so long as you aim for realistic targets. Don't plan on building desalination plant on your own. Whoever you appeal to for funding make sure you appeal to their self-interest and not out of their sense of charity.

This article essentially encapsulates everything I want to say, so I won't say much. I'll only add that Islamic apologists have once again been caught with their pants down. From 9/11 to Fort Hood massacre, we've heard nothing but ominous warnings of anti-Muslim backlash from bigoted and Islamophobic Westerners. We've been told to expect concentration camps, mosque burning and beheading of Muslims, forced expulsions ect... but if the evidence on hate crime is anything to go by, hate crimes against Muslims is on the decline. Muslim groups are unperturbed by this and continue to insist on mythical anti-Muslim backlash ala anti-Danish backlash during Mohammed cartoons episode. It is only fair after some 8 years and a litany of quite hysterical claims, to ask of Islamic apologists: where is the anti-Muslim backlash you've been warning us about? The Myth of the Anti-Muslim Backlash Hysteria hasn't swept the country since the Ft. Hood terrorist attack. by Gary Bauer Backlash: a strong or violent reaction, as to some social or political change. It has been more than a month since U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly murdered 14 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood military base in Texas. And while we were led to believe that the rampage by Hasan, who is Muslim, would provoke a strong and violent reaction against Arab and Muslim Americans, a backlash has been conspicuous only by its absence. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of each of the dozen attacks by Muslim Americans since 9-11, the conversation has been dominated by predictions of inevitable violence toward Muslims by bigoted Americans unable to control their rage. And each time a backlash has been virtually nonexistent. Our journalistic and political elites have become terrorism's unwitting domestic enablers, perceiving religion-based violence where there is none, while ignoring it where it is widespread and intensifying. After Hasan's terrorist attack, an Associated Press headline read, "Another attack leaves U.S. Muslims fearing backlash." A Christian Science Monitor story was titled, "Fort Hood Shootings: US Muslims feel new heat." Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: "We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this." And U.S. Army Chief of Staff George Casey said, "I'm concerned that this increased speculation [about Hasan's motives] could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. ... as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." But the data show that America's more than two million Muslims have little to fear from their fellow citizens. According to crime statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the number of hate crimes against Muslim Americans increased in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. But it declined precipitously after that, and has remained low ever since. Of 6,832 religion-based hate crimes reported between 2002 and 2006, 4,627, or 68 percent, were committed not against Muslims but against Jews, while 744, or 11 percent, were committed against Muslims. In 2007 there were 1,477 reported offenses motivated by religious bias. Again, 68 percent were committed against Jews, and only 9 percent against Muslims. Reported hate crimes against Catholics and Protestants accounted for 8.4 percent. And recently-released FBI statistics for 2008 show that 65.7 percent of religion-motivated hate crimes were anti-Jewish, 8.4 percent anti-Christian and 7.7 percent anti-Islamic. That means there were 1,013 cases of hate crimes motivated by anti-Semitism in 2008, the highest number of hate crimes against Jews reported since 2001. There were just 105 reported cases of anti-Islamic hate crimes. Don't believe the FBI's statistics? Data compiled by Muslim lobby groups paint a similar picture. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute's 2003-2007 Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans found "The rate of violent hate crimes against Arab Americans continued to decline from the immediate post 9-11 surge, to a level somewhat but not dramatically increased over that seen in the five years leading up to the 2001 attacks." A 2008 survey by Human Rights First called Violence Against Muslims found only two assaults based on anti-Muslim sentiment in 2007 and 2008, no incidents under "violent backlash to terrorist and other attacks" and just one incident under "attacks on places of worship and cemeteries." Almost all of the "backlash" against Muslims following acts of Islamic domestic terrorism has consisted of acerbic blog posts, tightened restrictions at mosques and enhanced airport security. In the more than a month since the Fort Hood massacre, the only religion-based crime I could find was committed by a young Muslim in California at a mall kiosk. He tore a crucifix from shopper's neck and shouted anti-Christian slurs and "Allah is power." While reports of attacks against Muslim Americans remain low, it is worrisome that attacks by homegrown Jihadists have increased. Since 9-11, at least 60 Muslim Americans linked to jihadist groups have been convicted of terrorism and national security charges against American residents. As Sec. Napolitano said in a recent speech: "We've seen an increased number of arrests here in the U.S. of individuals suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, or supporting terror groups abroad such as Al Qaeda. Home-based terrorism is here. And, like violent extremism abroad, it will be part of the threat picture that we must now confront." The Los Angeles Times recently reported: "[FBI] investigations have run across Americans suspected of being operatives of Al Qaeda and its allies who were trained overseas and, in several cases, allegedly conspired with top terrorism bosses. They include a convert from Long Island, N.Y, who was captured in Pakistan late last year; a Chicago businessman accused of scouting foreign targets for a Pakistani network; and at least 15 Somali American youths from Minneapolis who returned to fight in their ancestral homeland." The emergence of Americans traveling abroad to train for Jihad was highlighted again in early December when five Muslim American men were arrested in Pakistan, allegedly en route to North Waziristan for training with the Taliban and al Qaeda to fight American troops in Afghanistan. A Rand Corporation report states that of the more than two dozen homegrown terror plots uncovered in the U.S. since 9-11, ten surfaced in 2009. That puts "the level of activity in 2009 much higher than that of previous years," Rand senior adviser Brian Jenkins told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in November. The misplaced fear of igniting an anti-Muslim backlash is a consequence of the pervasive and stifling political correctness that surrounds Islam in the West. It prevents many of our journalistic and political elites from naming our enemy and compels them to accommodate radical Islam most readily in the very places it can cause the most damage--in our prisons, public schools, and military. American Muslim radicalization is happening in a very tolerant America. The United States contains more than 1,200 mosques, and since 9-11 it has elected its first two Muslims congressmen as well as a president who inexplicably believes our country is as much Muslim as it is Christian, and who habitually refers to Islam as a "great religion." According to the New York Times, in 2005 more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents -- nearly 96,000 -- than in any year in the previous two decades. Next year, the first accredited Muslim college in the United States, Zaytuna College, is set to open its doors even though some of its founders have shown radical Islamic sympathies. At a time when Swiss voters have banned the nation's Muslims from building minarets, French officials are considering outlawing the burka, and Italian politicians are mulling legislation to prohibit mosque construction, the U.S. is increasingly looking like the most welcome destination for Muslims. A Rasmussen poll immediately after the Fort Hood massacre found that a majority of Americans were at least somewhat concerned that the shooting would prompt a backlash against Muslims in the military. They needn't have been concerned. Since 9-11, every Muslim terrorist attack on American soil has been followed not by a violent backlash, but by outreach and conciliation toward Muslim Americans. And then by more attacks--by radical Islamists. Instead of fretting about a nonexistent backlash against Muslims, perhaps we should be examining more closely what is happening on radical Islamic websites and in some U.S. prisons, mosques, and Islamic schools that is causing increasing numbers of young American Muslims to embrace jihad against their neighbors. source

^Even if Evolution Theory does disagree with "religion," and it does, who cares? Religions are mostly a collection of old wives' tale. It's like saying chemistry disagrees with alchemy. No kidding. Originally posted by 2+2=5: I'm not even going to bother with you. You mean you're conceding the debate to me? I can live with that.

Somalia is indeed, comparatively speaking, dry country with little water. The trails and tribulation Somalis are currently facing are to significant extent explainable by water scarcity. However, water scarcity should provide the incentive for Somalis to be more ingenious in how they overcome it and be more efficient. I foresee 3 mutually inclusive ways to overcome water scarcity. 1. Improve water infrastructure - this includes not only digging new wells, finding new aqueducts, constructing modern water systems in most large urban centers and so on but also building national/regional water carrier system similar to what they have in Israel and California. This system will allow for more efficient allocation of water by diverting water from where it's plentiful to water scarce regions. 2. Water conservation - Somalis need to be educated about using water more efficiently. Whether they're farmers who rely on irrigation, urban dwellers or manufacturers (whatever little there is)... all need to be mindful of the need for water conservation. If you're farmer, use drip irrigation. If you live in cities and do gardening, water your garden after sunset to limit the amount of water you lose to evaporation. And if people are not voluntarily allocating water in efficient manner, then force them through pricing. Implement water pricing based on demand and usage (the more you use, the more you pay). Lastly, better rain harvesting techniques. 3. Invest in desalination - with all its drawbacks, desalination of seawater is becoming an attractive proposition as more and more countries face water shortages. One of the biggest drawbacks of desalination has always been high energy consumption. This is not really a drawback for Somalia since the country is blessed with a great wind and solar energy potential. The whole desalination process can become self-sustaining as renewable energy powers the desalination plant that uses virtually renewable seawater.

$700,000,000 is a lot of money! How realistic is this? The road connect is good first step but what will really set Barbera port apart from other ports in former Somali republic is container cargo handling system.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: quote:Originally posted by *BOB: Who knows it for sure that Prophet Issa (Jesus) was born on 25th Dec.? Of course he wasn't! 25th Dec is an ancient Roman pagan celebration! The new Christian leaders converted the Roman pagans by promising them that they could continue celebrating their beloved pagan celebration Saturnalia. It has nothing to do with Christianity, really. Neither does the Haj have anything to do (at least originally) with Islam. All the rituals associated with the Haj are of pagan origin. But Muslims appropriated all the rituals and today they're considered integral part of Islam; in fact the Haj is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. Same is true with Christianity. I know at least two of biggest holidays in Christianity -- Easter and Winter Solstice Festival (Christmas) -- are of pagan origin. Happy New Year everyone.

^Yaa Zack, Yaa ikhwaani, you are right. As a non-Muslim I have no right to talk to Muslims as equal. We non-Muslims are inferior beings. But I have rights under Sharia law. The testimony of non-Muslim against a Muslim in a court of law is worth at least half. So half of what I say must count. Now, fear Allah and grant me that. Originally posted by Tuujiye: ^^^ saaxiib even thou you do make sense in some what, I still need to ask you this…. are you muslim yes or No? we are debating in an honest matter but you have a different agenda... saaxiib when you tell us that you are a Muslim then we should listen to what you are saying or read it, till then axsaan noofal bax meela kale ka daneyso...... Wareer Badanaa!!! I'm obviously not a Muslim. And I'm dead serious. Aren't you tired of apologizing for your religion? I'm the last person in the world to oppose any campaign by Muslims to change Hudud punishments. But for that campaign to be successful, it needs better arguments than the lamentable catalog we got in this thread. The Jihadis who implement these punishments cite Mohammed, the Ahadith and the Quran. What do you nay-sayers cite? They'll always win.

I'm shocked at the number of self-professed muslims who take exception to this barbaric act. You should be proud of it instead. Stoning people to death is part and parcel of Islam. As is cutting the hands of thieves (of course, while giving manicures to kleptocrats) and killing apostates. The argument that stoning adulterers to death is not mentioned in the Quran doesn't hold any water. For that argument requires Islam being equal to Quran only. But we know Islam is not Quran only. It is also Ahadith, the consensus of the Ulema and historical precedents (rulings and practices of early Rashidun caliphates). There is clear and unambiguous authority from Ahadith prescribing stoning for unmarried adulterers. So, Alshabaab must be commended for their piety. I'm also taken back by the level self-delusion of those who support Sharia but are against this cruel act. If you're against Alshabaab stoning to death today, what makes you think you'll support other entities stoning people to death tomorrow? Isn't it more intellectually honest to say I'm against stoning people to death irrespective of what Islam says? One thing you gotta admire about Jihadi groups (alshabaab, Taliban etc) and their moral and material supporters, the Jihadi wannabes in the West (i.e., Geel-Jire), is they never apologize for their religion, accept everything their religion enjoins and tell everyone else to go to hell if they don't like. What I can't stand is the mealymouthed Muslims who will tell you that they want Sharia but then go on to criticize EVERY group or COUNTRY that implements Sharia.

Originally posted by 2+2=5: Your objective is to change my mind? People debate/discuss so as to convince others to agree with them or at least have others change their position to something else. So, yes; I am trying to change your mind by persuading you to stop being what Professor Richard Dawkins calls "History Denier." Denying that humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) gradually evolved from ape-like ancestors or that all living organisms evolved from other living organisms is tantamount to denying the existence of Abassid and Ummayad Caliphates. Debating with History Deniers like you is like debating people who deny the historicity of Abassid and Ummayad caliphates irrespective of all the historical artifacts that is adduced. Originally posted by 2+2=5: I am not interested in what you say. I am interested in the Truth, and the truth is that Allah Almighty created us, everything around us, everything that existed prior to our existence and everything that will exists after us. Stop lying to yourself. You're not interested in the truth, if you did you wouldn’t be Islamic apologist. Your entire agenda in this whole thread is defending your fragile superstitious believes. Sadly, you’re bound by Islamic dogma to believe in logical absurdities, shun reason and be hostile to the truth. Which pretty much establishes why you’re so oftentimes wrong. 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 didn’t take a millisecond before Allah was banishing his own “creation” from heaven to earth after they rebelled. Islamic dogma tells that the Torah and some mythical book called Injeel was originally sent by Allah only to be "corrupted." Allah also sent countless “prophets” to deliver his message, all of them failing. If the world ends today most of humanity (>80%), as per Islamic eschatology, will end up in hell. We would expect better from any competent human creator let alone from omnipotent and omniscient “God.” Given all this, what on earth makes you assert Allah has the competence to create humans or life in general? That's the hubris of the faithful talking. If I were you I'd keep Allah out of this discussion. Originally posted by 2+2=5: I think you can shed some light as to why evolutionists don't teach school kids that their offsprings may not be be same species as them. Why would they? That isn’t even true. Evolution is a process not an event. They will never be a scenario where the offspring of one species suddenly (like in one or two generation) becomes another distinct species. That’s not how speciation occurs. Speciation occurs through reproductive isolation, meaning some populations of humans can no longer interbreed and reproduce fertile offspring. Moreover, speciation is a process that takes 10s of thousands of years if not more. So their offspring for the foreseeable future will certainly still be humans. Originally posted by 2+2=5: You're driving the discussion into humans and chimps. I'm not driving the discussion anywhere other than where it rightly belongs. We're discussing Evolution Theory and I'll take the discussion wherever the theory leads me to. As the saying goes "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." Well, when discussing Evolution Theory, you discuss what theory postulates not what you like. You're laboring under the illusion that you can decide what is acceptable evidence for Evolution Theory. You can't! Reject the evidence/arguments for evolution that I adduce by all means. Just keep in mind for your rejection to be taken seriously it must be based on the incongruity between what Evolution Theory posits and the data of the natural world. Originally posted by 2+2=5: A lot of other animals can't synthesize C vitamin, so what? Actually, the overwhelming majority of animals can synthesize their own Vitamin C. A handful of other animals can't. But the point I was making completely sailed over your head. ALL primates lost the ability to synthesize. The fact all of them can't synthesize their own vitamin C like us, indicates we share an immediate common ancestor with them. Keep in mind that EVOLUTION THEORY postulates that closely related animals should display close similarities. And that includes similarities in biochemistry. Thus, this finding is not only absolutely consistent with Evolution Theory but also predicted. The Quranic Theory of Special Creation can’t explain this fact. Another evidence for evolution from biochemistry is the DNA molecule. All living things use the same molecule to transfer genetic information from generation to another. This is consistent with Evolution Theory but NOT with the Theory of Special Creation. Why would Allah use the same molecule in all organisms if he created every single organism individually? Originally posted by 2+2=5: Half-truths, half-truths. The 98% is derived from protein-coding regions that only compromise about 1.5% of the two genomes. Note that as 2+2=5 is unremittingly confronted with the unassailable evidence for human evolution, she retreats further and further into denials and lame quibbles. The above is case in point. What exactly is she trying to say? Most of our DNA is what is called Junk DNA. A misleading term because it implies that most of our DNA is "junk" or of no use. But in reality parts of that Junk DNA was at one time functional genes that became non-functional due to mutations. The same process can activate those genes back to functional form in the future. 2+2=5’s quibble above is complete red herring. No one is talking about functional and non-functional parts of human and ape genome. Instead, it is a comparison of the similarities/differences of human and chimp genome. Gene functionality is completely immaterial. The same functional/non-functional genes would still be present in the genome and is detectable. As I said above, Evolution Theory predicts close anatomical, genetic, biochemistry, biogeography etc similarities in closely related species. The 98% genome similarity chimps and humans share is confirmation of that prediction by Evolution Theory. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Chromosome 2 looks like two ape chromosomes stuck together. You need to look again. It is a fusion of two chromosomes as evidenced by the extra telomeres and centromeres. Originally posted by 2+2=5: What do you think the consequence of having a Robertsonian translocation is? Yes, I do. What is your point? That chromosomal rearrangements occur? If so, you're wasting your time. You see, there was an opportunity to test Evolution Theory. We know all the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Therefore, if evolution theory is correct, we should be able to find that extra pair of chromosome somewhere in the human genome. If not then evolution theory is in trouble. Lo and behold we found the extra pair in Chromosome 2. That is the beauty of Evolution theory, it makes testable predictions. What testable predictions does the Quranic theory of Special Creation make? Is there any evidence for any of the Quranic creation myths? Originally posted by 2+2=5: Have you looked at your knee lately? How is it similar to a Chimps? I'd like to hear your insight into the evolution of the knee, as "little changes adding up" clearly isn't how it came to be. Your questions are getting more and more bizarre. Why would you expect human and chimp knee to be similar? Do humans and chimps have the same gait? If not, and they obviously don’t, then why would you honestly expect their knees to be similar? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. From casual observation, human and chimp bear remarkably close anatomical features. But they’re not identical since they’re two different and somewhat distantly related species. A more apt comparison would be the knee of bipedal hominids and humans. Ever since the ancestor of humans switched the tropical forests of Africa for the fast encroaching savannas, the body of our human ancestors adapted to upright walking. We inherited that modification. Originally posted by 2+2=5: So? How does this prove A evolved into Homo S, as opposed to them being separate species that existed at different times? It "proves" human evolution because the process of evolution is gradual one, taking place over millions of years. Thus, temporal relationships of the fossil record are important and should show up in our fossil data. If humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, then the fossil record should show it. And that is exactly what we find. The less human like a fossil looks, the older it is in the geological record. By fossils I mean the probable direct human ancestors like Australopithecus aferensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis or archaic homo sapiens. If on the other hand we found archaic homo sapiens side by side with Sahelanthropus tchadensis, then there is a problem with the theory of human evolution. However, if, on the other hand, the Quranic version of history was true, we should find all sorts of interesting fossils like dinosaurs and humans living together. Or if the other Quranic myth of Global Deluge ever occurred, we would find no temporal relationship in the fossil record... just bunch fossils of disparate animals all together in one place. There is a famous challenge made by a renowned scientist that goes “show me a fossil rabbit in Precambrian.” That challenge still stands and to this date no History Denier has been able to find Precambrian fossils of a rabbit. All it takes to discredit evolution is to falsify its biostratigraphy or any other of its predictions. Originally posted by 2+2=5: These are dog breeds not different species. Species have exact scientific definition(s). Two populations would be said to be the same species if and only if they can interbreed and reproduce a fertile offspring. Breeds, by this definition, are of the same species. For illustration, donkeys and horses are two different species because their offspring is the sterile mule. In reality, the breeds in your picture are a poodle and a German Shepard. And you know what? They can interbreed and reproduce a fertile offspring. It's called Shepoodle. With that out of the way, are you now prepared to consider the evidence of speciation? I can present countless observed speciation cases not “variation within kind.” Originally posted by 2+2=5: Even Richard Dawkins says in his short article Information Challenge ( http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/ ): "Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse" But he continues: "for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the ‘prior uncertainty’ and therefore, in Shannon’s sense, contributes information to the gene pool. In every generation, natural selection removes the less successful genes from the gene pool, so the remaining gene pool is a narrower subset." Claude Shannon was an American engineer who developed information theory. Richard Dawkins, in an attempt to answer the question why there are no beneficial mutations (ones which add information) responded by twisting the whole meaning and giving an answer that roughly goes "mutations do add information but in a way that it makes it seem like it loses information". It is good that this time you provided all of what he said instead of misconstruing his words like you always do with other scientists. If you read what he said in its proper context, he clearly says mutations do add to genetic diversity. 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. The role of mutations, then, is to replenish that loss and add diversity. Originally posted by 2+2=5: You did not mean what the "overwhelming majority" of scientists accepted, because if you had, you would have said so. Plain & simple. This is a losing argument, so I suggest you drop it. There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific journal that I'm aware of that is dedicated to debunking/critiquing Evolution Theory. National Academy of Sciences with all its reputable members and associations, including some in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Jordan, agrees with Evolution as a FACT. Evolution Theory is included in the scientific curriculum of most school boards in the developed world, at least the ones run by sane people (secular). All this is conclusive evidence that evolution is bonafide scientific theory and a fact that is virtually accepted by the entire scientific community. Evolution Theory has the same status as Theory of Gravity or Relativity or Cell theory etc. There are no debates/disagreements over the fact of evolution among practicing scientists. Where there is a debate is over details which is the norm in science. The day you provide peer-reviewed scientific journals publishing articles disagreeing with the fact of evolution and the theory is the day I'll start listen to your delusional ravings. Until then you're just another believing History Denier. Originally posted by 2+2=5: I asked you a simple question [whether there were EVO scientists who rejected the view birds evolved from dinos], which you rejected very firmly ("rubbish") and claimed that the "consensus in scientific community" agreed on it. And to prove you wrong, I gave you 2 examples of scientists who support the evolutionary theory BUT REJECT the birds-evolved-from-dinos view, but NOW you say I misinterpret others, and accuse me of "name-dropping"? You're an effin' retard. Sorry, you really are. You didn’t prove anything wrong. The overwhelming majority of practicing scientists today accept the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. This can be inferred from the scientific literature and science textbooks. All you did is confirm this fact by providing the exceptions that proves the rule. Two scientists out of thousands is hardly compelling evidence. There are scientists with PhDs from such prestigious universities as Harvard (i.e. Kurt Wise) who believe the earth is flat. Does that mean the earth is actually flat because scientists with PhDs say so? Similarly, did birds evolve from archasaurs or whatever because some scientists with PhDs said so? Science is not about authority. But even IF birds descended from Archosaurs (as Allan Feduccia asserts) as opposed to Dinosaurs (the current consensus among scientists), are you saying you’ll accept Evolution Theory? Because last time I checked all these scientists whose names you keep dropping in this debate are evolutionists. They all support the evolution of all living things from other living things including the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors. Do you agree with them? Originally posted by 2+2=5: So this long time professor of biology at Harvard is wrong, and you're right? As I said already said, we both agree with each other. We both believe in Evolution Theory and you don’t. In the same book you got you quote from, he also writes this: “Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biologial species.” And this is what I wrote: “At the most basic level, evolution can be defined as the change in gene or allele frequency of a population over many generations.” These definitions are identical and convey the same thing. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Anyway, this was only to cement my original claim: "The evolutionary theory isn't even in accordance with itself." Now that is has done it purpose, we can move on. As my Ernst Mayr quote above demonstrates, Mayr didn’t agree with himself. He gave two contradictory definitions of evolution in the same book. So the problem lies with him, not with science. Originally posted by 2+2=5: The >>>bit : Show me where. I had asked you for a definition of the evolutionary theory. We were not talking about "more specifically inheritance traits" here. At least I wasn't, in fact this is what I said: "I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i s." So where in that was I "more specifically" talking about inheritance traits? I’ve already given you a number of definitions of biological evolution (not the theory by the way). And you keep pretending that I haven’t defined evolution. Moreover, I say biological evolution because the word evolution is used to describe changes in cultures, languages, religions, ideas, laws etc. What differentiates biological evolution from other evolutions is biological evolution involves change in inheritable traits. If there is no change in inheritable traits or allele frequency, then evolution hasn’t occurred and we’re describing a different phenomenon. So far I’ve provided at least two definitions of evolution. One is what I’m most familiar with; what I learned in school and what is found in almost all modern science text books. That definition is “change in allele/gene frequency from generation to another.” The other is from the National Academy of Sciences “Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations… Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next. They are passed on to future generations.” All these definitions are remarkably consistent. Originally posted by 2+2=5: The fact that its brain was the size of a chimp and it had anatomical features that resembled more closely human, makes it - according to you - a human ancestor. Yes. But what is your problem with this? Evolution Theory tells us that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. The implication of this is that we should find many fossils that exhibit different brain sizes ranging from the size of apes (our closes primate relative) to modern humans. The older the fossils are, the smaller the brains. And the younger the hominid fossils are, the bigger the brains. This is what Evolution Theory predicts and the evidence supports this prediction. Originally posted by 2+2=5: In any case, if we applied this same "scientific" method with neanderthals & the floresiensis, we would come to the conclusion that the floresiensis came before the Neanderthals… Therefore your method of is flawed; therefore you have not been able to explain why Australopithecus Afarensis is a human ancestor; and therefore you haven't given me a reason to believe it This is complete red herring. Homo neandethalensis and floresiensis are not direct human ancestors but side branch species. They “branched” off from our common ancestor at different points in our evolutionary history and went their own way. What I and Evolution Theory are required to show is the gradual evolution of modern humans from ape-like ancestors. The starting point was a creature that looked like modern chimps and had brain size of about 400 cc. By the same token, the end point is modern humans with brain size of 1500 cc. We expect to find in the fossil record intermediate species that have brain sizes in the range of 400-1500 cc and exhibit anatomical features that is in-between humans and chimps. The more modern they are the more human-like they look and the bigger their brains. To be able to assess the fossil record and verify the predictions of evolution theory, however, we must first consult with the right fossil species. Your problem is you keep relying on the side branch species like Neanderthals and floresiensis. I’ve already mentioned in this thread that evolution is not directional and purposeful. There is no reason why, for instance, we can’t have a contemporary species of modern humans like Homo floresiensis that exhibit ape-like features and have small brain. Another contemporary species of humans, Neanderthals, had bigger brains. This doesn’t detract anything from Evolution Theory as these species branched off from our common ancestor and evolved differently then from us. The key determinant of evolution is the environment. Organisms must adapt to their environments. Having said all that, all I need to do to show the scientific method I provided works and that evolution is unassailable fact is to find enough fossils to “fill” the brain size gap (400-1500 cc). Do we have such fossils? I let you be the judge. Here is a near complete fossil species: 1. Australopithecus aferensis – brains size about 450 cc (3-2 million years ago or mya) 2. Homo habilis – brain size about 650 cc (2.5-1.5 mya) 3. Homo ergaster – brain size about 775 cc (1.9 mya-800k) 4. Homo erectus – brain size about 1000 cc (1.8mya-300k) 5. Homo heidelbergensis – brain size about 1200 cc (500k-200k) Q.E.D. Modern humans with brains size of 1500 cc evolved from other hominid species. So, once again, deal with the evidence for human evolution. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Therefore your method of is flawed; therefore you have not been able to explain why Australopithecus Afarensis is a human ancestor; and therefore you haven't given me a reason to believe it. First, it is not “my” method but one used by practicing scientists far more qualified than you and I. Second, I did explain it (see above) but like the typical creationist, you keep repeating the same old rehashed questions and denials. The case for human evolution from Australopithecus is based on several independent lines of evidence. It is based on biostratigraphy, biogeography, fossils, comparative anatomy etc… all collaborating each other. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Ah, hindsight. So "irrefutable" and "conclusive" are now words with no fixed meaning. Lets quote Thesaurus: Irrefutable: impossible to deny or disprove. Conclusive: forming an end or termination; especially putting an end to doubt or question; "conclusive proof"; "the evidence is conclusive" You do not use words and then ask the opponent for the meaning of the words. If you do not know or have doubts about the meaning of words, simply don't use them. I did not ask you for dictionary definitions of irrefutable and conclusive. Instead, I asked for YOUR criteria for irrefutable and conclusive evidence. Tell me the sort of evidence supporting evolution theory that you deem as irrefutable and conclusive. Because, like the typical evolutionists, you’ll probably reject any irrefutable and conclusive evidence I present with the excuse that it is not what you meant. Originally posted by 2+2=5: So essentially, overestimation is to due with the person forgetting how to use their equipment? Explain "procedural error", please. Not forget you silly thing. Scientists don’t normally forget how to use their equipment. Experimental error (the correct term) occurs all the time. That is why you include error margins to any recordings. But this is beside the point. Radiometric dating is sound method of dating old things and is collaborated by other dating techniques. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Did the first cell have them? Probably. Originally posted by 2+2=5: http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene07.php "Gene mutations can be either inherited from a parent or acquired. A heredity mutation is a mistake that is present in the DNA of virtually all body cells. Hereditary mutations are also called germ-line mutations because the gene change exists in the reproductive cells and can be passed from generation to generation" http://www.medicinenet.com/genetic_disease/article.htm "Most genetic diseases are the direct result of a mutation in one gene". What do you study; Spanish Language and Literature? I think you’re lost or maybe mistaking me for someone else. I asked for you to provide evidence that attests to your unsubstantiated assertion that most mutations are deleterious. To that end, you provided two completely unrelated quotes. The first merely describes, in general terms, about hereditary mutations (which I already acknowledged) and germ-line cells. But nothing regarding whether most mutations harmful or not (your assertion). The second quote is about genetic diseases which has nothing to do with evolution or even proves that most germ-line mutations are harmful. Now, can we surmise why you CAN’T produce a single authoritative source that supports your claim? Originally posted by 2+2=5: Any loss in genetic diversity is replenished by mutations - the source of the diversity in the FIRST place. Wow. I just realized I've spent a significant amount of time for the past couple of months with someone who is either too arrogant or too ignorant. Your own source – Richard Dawkins quote—proves my case; you did all the leg for me, so I thank you. Each unique individual has about 100,000 new mutations that he/she didn’t inherit from parents. Otherwise we’d all be clones. These mutations are the source of NEW genetic diversity that adds to and replenish the gene pool. Originally posted by 2+2=5: You always yell Straw man when you can't think of anything to say. It's pathetic. You made a stup1d comment, which you're now effectively trying to run away from. I yell Straw man because that is what you’re committing. Like the typical creationist, when you can’t address the evidence for evolution, start attacking imaginary positions that evolution theory doesn’t hold. Evolution theory is silent on the origin of the first living thing(s). There is an entire separate discipline called Abiogenesis that deals with the origin of living things. You’re barking up the wrong tree. But you’re hoping we don’t notice you. We do!

Originally posted by 2+2=5: Apologies for my late reply, I hope the lenght of this ess-- reply will give some indication as to why I've been so eager to put off responding. Let me state, right off the bat, that I'm happy to read that you took your time to give more studied reply. It is always an encouraging sign when people steeped in superstition and magical thinking actually bother to read for themselves -- consider the facts -- as opposed to regurgitating what they're told. Regrettably, nothing in what you write below indicates you've overcome your pathological tendencies. You're still arrogantly ignorant of the basic tenants of Evolution Theory even though I gave you the chance to be disabused of your ignorance. If you're actually telling the truth and took time to read up on the topic, your case is more troubling. Prior to now, I was merely grappling whether to impute your vehement opposition to the FACT of evolution to mere ignorance or religious dogma... but now I have to consider whether your problem is processing of the information you're given. You're exposed to amble opportunities to be corrected regarding your view on the FACT of evolution but you persist with your ignorant and often incoherent opposition. Is there anything that I can tell you that will change your mind? Originally posted by 2+2=5: You still haven't been able to prove it happened. Haven't I told you before that in the real world there is NO such thing as proof? You can't proof anything in science - not even "proven" gravity. There is only evidence and we consider something to be a fact based on the strength of that evidence. As Stephen J. Gould famously said "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." Why do you keep making statements that you've been corrected on? Originally posted by 2+2=5: We know humans evolved from ape-like ancestors because we have the empirical evidence for it -- from fossils, population genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biostratigraphy etc -- Do elaborate, please. Here is a select list of empirical evidences from various fields demonstrating descent of humans from ape-like ancestor some 6-7 millions years ago (when Chimps and Humans separated): Biochemistry: Humans and other great apes can't synthesize their own vitamin c. Fossils: We have nearly complete fossil record showing the gradual evolution of modern humans from ape-like ancestor. The latest fossil record is Ardi about 4.4 millions years old. Note, Ardi is considerably older than Australopithecus aferensis at 3.3 millions years ago. The importance of Ardi can not be overstated. Ardi takes us ever closer to the common ancestor of us AND chimps. The fossil record continues to complete the jigsaw puzzle. Genetics: Humans and Chimps share 98% of their DNA. Plus, all the great apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. So where did the extra pair go? We know that sometimes chromosomes fuse and become one. Thus, if humans descended from ape-like ancestor like other great apes, those extra chromosomes found in other primates MUST be found in our genome. Otherwise evolution theory is in big trouble? Did we find? I'll let answer it. Comparative anatomy: Humans and Chimps have uncanny anatomical similarities showcasing their close evolutionary relationship and descent from a common ancestor. Biostratigraphy: The placement of fossils is exactly as required by evolution theory. For instance, you will not find Australopithecus coexisting with Homo Sapiens. Or more generally, humans coexisting with Dinosaurs as the theory of Special Creation would have you believe. Originally posted by 2+2=5: 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, What exactly is "variation within a kind?" We know different population within species exhibit variations (genetic diversity) thus enabling evolution to take place in the first place. But I'm talking about speciation -- the birth of new species different from its parent species. It happens all the time and I can provide more examples from academic sources. Originally posted by 2+2=5: all these are examples of rearrangement of existing genetic information, or loss of information, there’s no new genetic information. This is classic creationist canard and demonstrably false. Genetic information is constantly being added via mutations. Mutation is the source of genetic diversity. Originally posted by 2+2=5: It is interesting you say 'consensus in the scientific community', as if scientists who support creationism aren't part of the scientific world. They're not part of scientific community. Scientists DO science. Creationists DON'T. Instead of science, they try to force their false believes into science classes via school boards, courts and state legislatures. Originally posted by 2+2=5: And consensus means unanimity, so there is no consensus if there is even one scientist who disagrees. Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. And scientists don't sit down and reach a consensus over what to reject or accept. That's not how science works. By consensus, I meant what the overwhelming majority of scientists accept today. There will always be dissenting voices. That's given. The facts remain though. Originally posted by 2+2=5: In any case, this brings us to Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin – both highly regarded fellow evolutionists, who defend the view that birds evolved from an unknown reptile long before dinosaurs. Clearly the fact that you did not acknowledge this, speaks volume for the internal conflicts within evolutionary theory. There you go again. Misconstruing what others say and practicing "name dropping." As if that will change the FACT of evolution. Alan Feduccia believes birds evolved from achasaurs and not dinosaurs; he certainly doesn't believe they evolved from "unknown reptile." Secondly, he's wrong. So, who cares. Not only does the preponderance of evidence show birds descended from dinosaurs but birds ARE dinosaurs in the same we humans are apes. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Because what Mayr says completely contradicts what you say, you think I misconstrue what others say? Here is the actual quotation, word by word, from Mayr: Actually, he agrees exactly with what I said for the most part: Mayr: "Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not a "change in gene frequencies." Pay particular attention to the highlighted part. Evolution works through populations. I don't know what he means by the last bit. There is no evolution without change in gene frequency from generation to another. If he disagrees with that then he's wrong. Perhaps that explains your affinity with him. I gave you the MOST authoritative source on this subject: National Academy of Sciences (NAS) which has some 2,000 current members ( list of members) and hundreds of foreign associations. Their definition is exactly what is taught in schools today, what is accepted by all of their members and what I originally said. Science doesn't operate on authority but on evidence. I did but you rejected it. I'll try it again but this time I'll quote from National Academy of Sciences (from the link above): "Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations." The report goes on to say: Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next.They are passed on to future generations. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Who asked you about genetics? I’m sorry, is this proving too hard? This is the kind of palpably daft question that sometimes makes question WHY AM I DEBATING WITH THIS PERSON?! We're talking about evolution, more specifically inheritance of traits, and you're asking me why I'm mentioning genetics? Do you even know the meaning of genetics? Originally posted by 2+2=5: The first quote: “biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms…” contradicts your first definition “any one individual is irrelevant”. Explain to me HOW they contradict each other. Originally posted by 2+2=5: It is pointless talking about what is "generally accepted by scientists today" if you do not know what was generally accepted before. It's called Straw-man fallacy. You attacked phony positions that modern Evolution Theory doesn't espouse because you can't debunk the REAL ideas of modern Evolution Theory. That's the only reason that can account for your morbid fascination with old ideas and men. Originally posted by 2+2=5: What is self-evident to everyone, is that you repeat evolutionist lies like a parrot (and with great errors), without the ability to stop and think about what it is that you are actually parroting. I hope I DO repeat evolutionists because they tell the truth. And the truth bears repeating. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Funny that the only place that list comes up in that exact same order, is in a thread called Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION. You're wrong again. Here is ANOTHER place where the list "comes up in that exact same order:" Talk Origins... this is a site maintained by a real scientists who is actually doing real science. Any other site on the internet that may have the same list comes from Talk Origins. Now, I let you peruse Talk Origins yourself and see the level of professionalism and scholarship there. You see, I don't need to google bird transitional fossils because I already have my own reliable sources. This is why I always present sources of impeccable authority (like NAS). Of course all this is distraction. You asked for a list of transitional fossils and I gave you one. True to form like most creationists you start quibling about my sources as if that will make the evidence go away. I also gave a list fossils for human evolution that I compiled. Did you reject that list either along similar lines? Nope. You completely ignored it just like you ignored the evidence of bird evolution from dinosaurs. You don't want to address the evidence for bird evolution because you can't. Originally posted by 2+2=5: This is an illustration of a neander: and here is one of floresiensis: And you claim floresiensis looks more human to you? Why are you being dishonest? Are you serious? You're submitting drawings and cartoons as evidence against evolution? What a confused and ignorant child you are. No body gives a damn about someone's drawings; we're talking about fossils. You asked my personal thought as to who I think resembled humans more; I gave my answer based on the fossil evidence. If you disagree, bring the contradictory fossil evidence. Originally posted by 2+2=5: I asked you whether you could provide irrefutable evidence that Australopithecus was a human ancestor, I should've asked you, what do you consider "irrefutable evidence?" Until and unless you define what you're seeking, you're just waffling as usual. Originally posted by 2+2=5: And that is what you came to me with. The fact that they RESEMBLED more humans than apes. Now with this logic, with this irrefutable method of yours, we could come to the conclusion that because the Neanderthals looked more human (although - not surprisingly - you decided to deny this obvious fact) they must be closer to modern humans. And yet they supposedly aren’t – floresiensis with smaller brain and physique, and which quite frankly looks like a step back in evolution, is supposedly closer to modern humans. So the purpose of the question was to falsify the method by which you concluded that Australopithecus was a human ancestor. You're really outdone yourself this time. First, the fossils of both Neanderthals and Homo floresiensis closely resemble humans because we all are close relatives with a common ancestor. We all went our separate directions and evolved. The tree of human evolution has many branches. Second, Australopithecus (3.2 millions years ago) is not part of Homo genus, thus they resembled modern humans even less. But more than Ardi (4.4 millions years ago). So there is direct and positive correlation between age of fossils and their resemblance to modern humans. Third, Homo floresiensis, since it is found on an Island, could be dwarf human. Island dwarfism is well observed phenomenon. Originally posted by 2+2=5: You still did not answer the question: “For example, could one misestimate by hundreds of thousands of years, even over a million years? Is it possible?” A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do. Yes and no. One person can make procedural error and can overestimate. But not hundreds and thousands of people. It's like using ATM. If one person forgets his pin number and can't get out cash, it doesn't mean ATMs don't work for everybody else. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Do you not find it odd natural selection created these protections against the very thing that enables evolution (beneficial mutation)? Who said natural selection created these "protections?" DNA repair tools are properties of the molecule itself. Originally posted by 2+2=5: They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer. This is a blatant lie. But I'll give a chance to redeem yourself by providing evidence. You keep repeating this lie and I keep correcting you. It's getting tiring but since you're the claimant, the onus is on you to back it up. Remember we're talking about germ line or reproductive cells, not somatic cells. Originally posted by 2+2=5: On top of that, all examples of mutations are actually loss of information, even the beneficial ones. So if natural selection and mutation result in LOSS of information, then how can evolution of increasing complexity occur? Any loss in genetic diversity is replenished by mutations - the source of the diversity in the FIRST place. Originally posted by 2+2=5: To which I then replied: “And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers?” You: “These questions are irrelevant to Evolution Theory since the theory assumes the existence of one or few living organisms.” Now how does this follow? One would think evolutionists would be interested in today’s organisms and not dismiss them as irrelevant to evolution. And now you accuse me of changing the subject and conflating different theories, when all I did was ask a simple question (the origin of single celled organisms), derived directly from something you had said. Evolution theory already assumes the existence of living things and proceeds from that point forward to explain how every living thing today and the past descended from original one or few living things. This is the Fallacy of Straw-man again. You demand is akin to asking physics to explain mathematics. Physics takes mathematics as given and uses it. Same with Evolution Theory. The existence of living things is a GIVEN in Evolution Theory.

Originally posted by Waran Qoodal: War niyow waxan ahay ma taqaanid , adiguna waxaad tahay waxba iga ma gelin. You do not speak for all somalis and your modern genetical studies are inconclusive . You embrace whomever you want , but I know who I am . Markaad af somaliga soo barato isku kaya keen insha Allah , halkuu gaalkaasi ku yidhi in Bani Aadaanku daanyeer ka tafiirmay baan ku tusi doona haddu Alle yidha e ! Waxaa i soo xasuusidey maah-maah rer mudugta oo dhahda: indha adeeg waa raasumaal. adoo Carab sheegta oo diidaya inaad qirato Somalinimdaada, baa anoo Soomali rasmi ah baa Af-Somali iga la hadlee!

This sort of thing happens all the time and everywhere. Why are you surprised?

Originally posted by Castro: I can't decide which is more backward of the two choices you mentioned. It all depends on one's perspective. For instance, do you support stoning people to death for ANY crime? I'm completely against the death penalty for ANY offense much less adultery.

"Horror at Fort Hood Inspires Horribly Predictable Islamophobia" Really? I'm a bit perplexed though. When I think of serious bigotry like "Islamophobia," my mind conjures up images of mass: lynchings, lapidations, desecration of places of worship (mosques in this case), killings and beatings of targeted group, angry protests burning embassies, flags and clamoring for blood. I've been told to expect the imminent break-out of "Islamophobia" ever since 9/11. I dreaded the day those ominous warnings came to fruition. Been waiting for 8 years now and I have to say I'm still waiting. In place of Islamophobia, I've witnessed nothing but Islamophilia. Spurred by political correctness gone awry, various infidel governments have taken extraordinary measures to ensure that Islam and Muslims are never held accountable for the crimes done in their name. Every time a crazed Jihadi(s) like this Maj. Nidal commits a moral outrage, we're told, with mind-numbing repetition, he doesn't represent Muslims and Islam is religion of peace. Despite the inconvenient fact that all Jihadis SAY, often on tape, that what they do is in the service of Islam.

Originally posted by Nur: Raamsade writes: From the perspective of a person who believes that his parents literally created him, and that God does not exist, Its quite logical that, he also believes that such a thing called Sharia never existed! flawlessly or otherwise! Nur Islam is composed of many foundational myths including the myth that at one time there existed a pious, peaceful, progressive Islamic polity (Ummah if you will) that lived under the one and true Sharia (as opposed to all the false/incomplete ones)... and if Muslims could only reconstitute that polity today, all the problems afflicting Muslims will magically go away. Such Islamic polity never existed. That's the point I was trying to convey.

You gotta admire S. Barre for his unflinching commitment to reason and sanity (Secularism) and his success in limiting beardos to their rightful place (Mosque).