Well, I for one am glad to live in a nation where you first get stoned and then commit adultery as opposed to committing adultery and then getting stoned.

Originally posted by ThePoint: 1. Two states out of how many in the Muslim world? Not too sure what it is you're crowing about proving. They're the only two states that matter -- both proclaim to be run according to Sharia and carry out many Sharia mandated policies like gender segregation, prohibition of riba (interest), implement xuduud punishments like lapidation, amputations, beheadings, lashes for various misdemeanors etc... if Sharia compliant governments coercing women into wearing the Hijab/Burka was exception to the rule, then both S. Arabia and Iran shouldn't be compelling women to wear the Hijab since they're the majority. You see, your real problem is not whether these two countries force women to wear the Hijab; your problem is reconciling modern moral sensibilities -- what modern humans consider to be just, fair and humane -- and what your religion prescribes. For the most part, modern values and Islamic moral prescriptions can not be reconciled. For the genuinely devout Muslim, this poses a great challenge. On one hand, a Muslim can't disengage from his/her moral/cultural milieu. For example, a Muslim in the West can't avoid being confronted with various believes/practices that contradict his religion. By the same token, the devout Muslim can't divorce from his religion for fear he'll earn eternal damnation. The devout Muslim in the West is often required to make difficult trade-offs between demands of the West (religious pluralism, gender equality etc) and observing his religious duties. Thus, you got the classic condition of cognitive dissonance. The brave and honest find release for this cognitive dissonance through "radical Islam." For the hypocrites and cowardly, equivocation and denial is their remedy. This is why they'll deny every Islamic group that implements Sharia in full or partially and claim they don't represent true Islam... why? Are they deviating from Islamic teachings or historical precedents? Nope. Are they doing what is proscribed in Islam? Nope. Their only justification for denying the legitimacy of these Islamic groups is because what these groups breach and do isn't acceptable to the West and the rest of the world. Hence, we got you denying policies of S. Arabia and Iran not because they're inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Islam but because they're embarrassing YOU as a Muslim living in the West. You have my pity. Originally posted by ThePoint: Hamas does not have any laws that mandate hijab nor do they enforce the wearing of hijab on anyone Muslim or not. Unless you can provide proof - this statement is simply a lie. Perhaps you're not keeping abreast of events in Gaza. Hamas is slowly but surely turning Gaza into Talibanistan. Here is Human Rights Watch pleading with Hamas to rescind Hijab law: source1 Here is another article talking about the varius measures being taken by Hamas to Islamise Gaza: source2 Originally posted by ThePoint: Tell me how does one measure 'proportionate outrage' - what measuring stick or scale do you use? Even if you had such a thing - where do you go to quantify this outrage - websites, newspapers, tv - where exactly? This impossible demand speaks to your biased mindset and has no basis in logic. Have you ever taken a survey or wrote one? If you did, you'd know that you're often asked to rank priorities/preferences in some questions. That data is then pooled and used to extrapolate what people prefer. It's very scientific and objective means of ascertaining people's priorities. My developing point is, we CAN determine the priorities of Muslims. What is of greater priority to Muslims: muslim women being forced into wearing the HIjab/Burka/Niqab at the pain of whippings, fines, imprisonment or other draconian punishments OR President of France suggesting a hearing into whether the Burka (but not the Hijab!) should be banned or not? The response to this question was the hysteria surrounding Sarkozy's suggestions. Even Al-Qaacida got into the fray with threats of revenge against France. Conversely, we got and continue to get a deafening silence about brutalization of Muslim women who refuse to wear the Hijab/Niqab/Burka. We know WHY Muslims remain silent over the mistreatment of Mulsims women; wearing the Hijab is religious duty. In SOL we can easily measure Muslim priorities by comparing the number of posts/threads dedicated to denouncing governments that ban or suggest banning the Hijab to the posts/threads covering equal denunciation against governments or other entities that force the Hijab. Originally posted by ThePoint: Thus France and Saudi Arabia share the rare distinction of restricting women's dress on the basis of religion. A vivid demonstration of the equivocation I mentioned earlier. France restricts ALL religious symbols, including HIjabs, on government premises. It's not really restriction of woman's dress per se as it is more of the strict separation of religion and state. To equate French ban on religious symbols to S. Arabia's foisting of religious dress code on all women is to indulge in fallacy of equivocation. Originally posted by ThePoint: Is France then not worthy of more criticism? This is not a complicated argument. No. France doesn't lash or imprison people for how they dress. Originally posted by ThePoint: 6. Sharia has different sets of laws because some issues of Islamic morality are not applicable to non-Muslims. Did you want Sharia to force non-Muslims into accepting all aspects of Islamic morality? Non-Muslims are second-class citizens under Sharia. Equality of all before the law will level the floor and treat all equally with dignity. Originally posted by ThePoint: It's official name is the Democatic People's Republic of North Korea. You also have the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Now having seen these countries in isolation - any half-wit would quickly come to the conclusion that democracy is a horrible and brutal system of government since these two countries that claim to be democratic are nightmarish places to live.... Pointing at Saudi Arabia and insisting that is Islam in action will only score you points with the ignorant and the prejudiced Of course what a country is -- democratic or not -- is not determined by what it calls itself but by objective reality. There are a number of requirements a country has to meet before it can be accepted as Democracy. These include but are not limited to: competitive elections and politics, economic and personal freedoms, free press, free association, freedom of speech, separation of powers including independent judiciary, promotion and protection of civil society groups etc. Also, democracy (or any political system for that matter) is not a switch that must be one way or the other (democracy or not). Democratic institutions are on a continuum. This is how the various political indices rank democratic countries. Some countries are considered more democratic than others because they score higher on democratic institutional measurements. N. Korea and DR Congo would be the very bottom of any democracy list. Similarly, Saudia Arabia is Islamic country based on Sharia because it has more of the Islamic/Sharia institutions than not. Is it 100% perfect? No. But then there never was an Islamic entity that implemented Sharia flawlessly if such thing ever exists.

Originally posted by ThePoint: The argument consists of citizenship and its attendant rights. There is no citizenship for non-Saudis in Saudi Arabia and consequently fewer rights vis-a-vis citizens. Another complete balderdash from you. I exposed the silliness of your original argument and now you're trying to safe face by changing the topic. Lest you forget, your initial argument was: France claims the moral higher ground as evinced by their national motto but S. Arabia doesn't have morally superlative motto or doesn't claim to adhere to higher morals like France... THEREFORE, we can't criticize S. Arabia to the same extent as we can and should criticize France. That was the gist of your original argument. Now you "magically" float in the issue of citizenship. Did I miss something? But there is a flaw with that argument as it rests on unstated, implicit assumption that some countries have mottoes like: to kill, plunder and oppress. In reality no country in the world has such motto and all countries aspire to higher morals... they all claim to uphold highest moral standards. Thus, all have equal moral responsibility. In other words, we can judge them based on not what they say they stand for but what we expect from every nation. But this lame ad hoc argument of yours has other problems. For instance, why if the reason non-mulims can't build churches or non-Islamic places of worship in S. Arabia is due to citizenship issue, why then can't non-Muslim S. Arabian citizens build their places of worship? Oops! ****** question 'cause you're not allowed to convert out of Islam in S. Arabia as the punishment for apostasy according to Islamic law is death. Accept the harsh truth. Non-Muslims can't build places of worship in S. Arabia and many other Islamic countries or face extreme restrictions BECAUSE of Islamic law and nothing else. Originally posted by ThePoint: France gives citizenship to many but fails to accord some rights to a certain section of its citizens due to the religion they practice. That is a failing of France to live upto the contract established with citizens. The law is the same for every citizen of France regardless of religious or ethnic extraction. Unlike under Sharia where there is one law for Muslims and another for everyone else. So, what exactly do you mean deny certain rights? What rights were denied to Muslims that are afforded to others? Originally posted by ThePoint: In general - I do expect Saudi Arabia to be a more just and peaceful place than France if it was actually living upto the Quran, Shariah and the Sunnah. You're beginning to sound like communists in denial who still will tell you with straight face that communism works just not USSR or PRC or N. Korea or anyone else who tried to implement it. What you see is what you get. S. Arabia is "living upto the Quran, Shariah and the Sunnah." It's just that you don't like what that entails.

Originally posted by ThePoint: There are only 2 states that mandate hijab for all women - Saudi Arabia and Iran. No other other state in the Muslim world does so. And this is really a damning with a faint praise. That you concede that there ARE Sharia Law based Islamic States that do force women (muslim or non-muslim) to wear the Hijab only bears me out. While I didn't address states per se, only countries where Islamists exercise control/influence, my point still stands. So far the record is 100% (2/2). The only two states in the world that are based on Sharia Law force women to wear the Hijab. Now, lets look at all the non-governmental Islamists groups whose objective, as they state, is to implement Sharia Law. Just about everywhere -- from Indonesia to Mauritania -- where Islamists exercise significant control, women are forced to wear the Hijab. It doesn't matter who these Islamists are be it the Taliban, Alshabaab, Hamas, Jameeca Al-Islamiya etc... they all force women to wear the Hijab. What are the chances that it's all due to pure coincidence that all these disparate pro-Sharia Islamists groups and the only two officially Sharia based states in the world, all force women to wear? The chances are zero. Forcing women to wear the Hijab is part and parcel of running a particular region or country by Sharia law. Despite the voluminous cases from all over the world where all sorts of unspeakable crimes are done against Muslim women for refusing to wear the Hijab, we get a deafening silence from the Muslim masses. And yet when the French government suggests maybe the Burqa and the Niqab should be banned, we have people so indignant that they nearly go into epileptic seizures. If you don't see something wrong with that, then you're part of the problem. Originally posted by ThePoint: Read the posts on this forum regarding hijab and you can clearly see many people don't agree with forcing individuals to wear the hijab. Nonsense. Show me the proportionate outrage against those who force muslim women to wear the Hijab compared to those who suggest denying muslim women the right to wear the Hijab. Note, I purposefully chose "proportionate" because the reactions have to be in proportion to the outrage they're directed at. In Sharia run countries and regions, the penalty for women who refuse to wear the Hijab is not a mere symbolic fine or something like that; it is actually more severe like whipping, prison or family/relatives taking the law into their hands and disfiguring the women. Originally posted by ThePoint: But I doubt any of this matters. In your zeal to denigrate and demean Muslims and Islam you will say anything that comes from the deep recesses of your bias. This is more ad hominem attacks against me by someone who ran out of arguments. You know who invented this tactic of smearing his opponents so as to prejudice the audience (readers) against him? It was Dr. Joseph Goebbel. He used to distribute pamphlets and brochures containing prejudicial information against his (and his friend's) debating partners in the entrances of wherever the debates took. And you wouldn't believe how many seemingly intelligent people fell for this tactic time and again. Lets hope people have learned a thing or two about history.

^Sherban shabeel, Hamas DOES force Gazan women to wear the Hijab but they're savvy about it unlike others like Alshabaab or the Taliban. Hamas gets plenty of support from the International Left who constitute an important media ally in the West (to spread the noble message of hamas -- think of Galloway and the likes) and they are duly aware that if they get so much as a whiff that Hamas is turning Gaza into Talibanistan, they'd lose an irreplaceable ally. For that reason Hamas tries to uphold the delicate balance between the competing constituencies -- its own hardcore supporters and Islamic principles on one hand and the political objective of not wanting to appear as another Taliban-like Islamist group and to keep non-Muslim international supporters. This delicate balance came undone earlier this year when a less diplomatic and eagerly pro-Sharia Law group led an uprising against the "insufficiently Islamic" Hamas administration in Gaza. Hamas swiftly crushed the uprising (by storming a mosque guns blazing!) but that episode is a reminder that Hamas' current posture is far from stable. This is why Hamas doesn't officially admit the existence of the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (called to mutawaciin in S. Arabia) even though every body knows of their existence. This committee has its own agents that patrol the streets either warning or penalizing those they deem to be in contravention of Sharia law. Among what they can deem as being against Islam includes not wearing the Hijab. There's countless stories of Palestinian women threatened, beaten or even killed for now wearing the Hijab by Hamas thugs. Don't delude yourself into thinking that there is a good/moderate Islamists. All Islamists are the same -- they're all after the implementation of Sharia Law which will force every women, Muslim or non-Muslim, to don the Hijab. The only difference between the myriad of Islamists groups is their approach and sophistication.

Originally posted by Waran Qoodal: I am somali , African by location and Arab by blood. Salam . You as an individual maybe an Arab but Somalis as a people are not Arabs. We, as a people, are indigenous to the Horn of Africa and are closely related by blood and language to other Eastern Cushitic speaking natives of the Horn of Africa like the Oromo, Rendille, Sidamo, Afars etc. Modern genetic analysis confirms this fact. It's time we embrace our true identity and stop perpetuating the myth of Arab descent.

Phobia means having irrational fear of something. My fear of Islam is very rational and well validated by historical and contemporary facts. Religious totalitarianism (such as Sharia) is the antithesis of liberal democracy. And yet Abu Salman, who is unabashed supporter of Sharia based governance system, is posting an article critical of Ethiopia for its democratic deficit. I found that a bit too surreal. If my point is still a little too subtle, let me put it more plainly for you. If you're a Sharia supporter, you can't criticize other countries for not being democratic enough.

You seem, abu Salman, oblivious to the fact that under the system you prefer -- Sharia totalitarianism -- there is no democracy, no separation of power (trias politica), no freedom of speech, no equality of all people before the law etc. Any unpalatable aspect of the current Ethiopian regime (and there are a number) pales in comparison what's on offer from such paradises as S. Arabia, Iran and Alshabaabland.

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tolka: It is fighting for self-determination of the somaligalbeed people. It is for the people to choose what they want when they have the opportunity to determine what they want. In other words the ONLF is confused and is unable to state its positions. It doesn't know whether to stay with Ethiopia, become an independent nation or join Somalia. The very fact your first instinct is NOT to join Somalia should give other Somalis a pause and a wake-up call. These mealy-mouthed pronouncements are merely confirmation of my believe that the ONLF is clan supremacist movement going after the glorification of the clan that bears its name. No wonder sensible Somalis are against it. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tolka: Ta labaad, adigu dadka laga xoroobi ayaad ku jirtaa (I mean Gaalada), kolkaa bal horta inta muslinka ah baal aan meel wax isla dhigno! Adeer, ani waxaan ahay Somali rasmi ah. Waxaa ahay Somali ku dhashay dhul xor leh sida awooweyaashiisa. Ani kama mid ahi kuwa Somali afka killi ka sheegta balse waxaan ahay muwaadin Somaliyeed oo dalkiisa iyo dadkiisaba isku haleyn karaan. Lakiin waxaad kor ku qortey su'aal weyn ba ka dhalatay. Su'aasha waxee tahay: ma Jihaad baa ku jirtaa oo gaalo aa la dagaalee mise gumeysi aa iska xoreynee? Haddaa gumeysi la dagaaleysid, ma aha inaad kala saartid kuwa ku gumaadaya waayo waa qolooyin isku wada jirta ha ahaato gaalo, muslimiin iyo kuwa kale. Lakiin hadaa Jihaad ku jirtid waa sheeko cusub oo Melez Zenawi dhagahiisa aad uga raaxeysanayaan... adinka iyo Alshabaab-Alqaacida aa mar dhow la isku kiin darayaa... marka, halgankaada ma Jihaad baa (dagaal diimeed) mise mid "isticmaal" la is kaga xoreynayo?

They should also learn from other Islamic countries plagued by Jihadi terror. These Jihadi groups sense out any weakness by probing for hesitation and indecisiveness. Nothing short of swift and decisive response will do. Just about the only thing authoritarian arab/Islamic regimes got right in the last half a century is how to defeat Jihadi terror. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria, Morrocco etc are masters at the game of counter-terrorism. In contrast, the countries that dithered and hesitated, like Pakistan, are having hell of a time precisely because they were indecisive when they needed to be the opposite.

Of course there is a trade-off at play when it comes to females selecting men with big brains. Big brains means babies with bigger heads. Now, women already face difficulties giving birth to modern babies as it is and it's hard to see how their birth canals can accommodate babies with even bigger heads. Maybe more folding of the brain is the key. That could result in more smarter offspring and less birth complications and pain. There first has to be selective pressure for smarter brains -- i.e. there should be clear advantages for women to marry smarter men. I don't see any evidence for that at the moment but the world would be a better place if that were to happen. There would be fewer palpably daft and superstitious people.

Originally posted by ThePoint: Saudi Arabia does not have as its national motto liberty, fraternity and egality. But it has the Quran, the Sunna, the Sharia and the Prophet Mohammed. Ostensibly superior sources of higher moral framework and system of governance that dispenses justice and bestows freedom according to Muslims. We expect Saudia Arabia to behave better (grant more freedoms and justice) than France because the former's laws and system of governance is from God unlike man-made motto of France. This is a self-defeating argument for a Muslim to make. Unless, of course, you're losing faith in Islam.

Originally posted by hodman: The hijab is a conscious choice to those of us who want to follow our religion and is nobody's business to tell us how or when to wear it. I find this argument deliciously ironic. The right of Muslim women to dress as they see fit is often cited to defend the wearing of Burqa or Niqab. Not the Hijab! The Hijab is banned no where (to the best of my knowledge) in any liberal democracy aside from public premises in some countries (i.e. France). Not in the Great Satan (USA) and not even in the Little Satan (Israel). But the Niqab is banned in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. The irony is none of the people who make the above argument are willing to extend it to Muslim women who decide NOT to wear the Hijab. Just about everywhere where Islamists exercise control, Muslim (and none Muslim) women are forced to wear the Hijab at the pain of imprisonment or fine or whipping or face some other draconian punishment. Where are their rights to dress as they like? Where are those great defenders of the liberty of Muslim women? Their silence is deafening. I will confess to you that I personally find the Niqab and Burqa a little creepy; don't mind the hijab at all. But I will defend the right of any Muslim woman to wear them if she does so out of her free will. Just as I would defend their right not to wear any Hijab or Niqab or Burqa. Unlike the hypocrites who speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Mullah Omar all brought peace and security. And whole lotta suffering.

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: The fact that some people would deny help to their Somali brethren because they belong to an organization and live in a region named after a certain clan is MIND-BOGGLING. You're woefully misinformed about the reality in Somalia. The ONLF is clan supremacist rebel movement among the sea of ethnic rebel movements all across Africa. Not too different from erstwhile clan supremacist Somali rebel movements like USC, SNM, SSDF etc. The ONLF is virtually a single clan movement striving to exert the superiority of its clan over all others and not fighting for the welfare and interests of all Somalis in Western Somalia. This is why almost all of those in diaspora who fervently advocate for ONLF cause are of a single clan. This is why the so-called "ONLF struggle against Melez" in Western Somalia is taking place in regions inhabited by a single clan. Are other Somalis and non-Somalis in Western Somalia not capable of feeling oppressed and picking up the gun and fighting the evil xabashi? Of course they can but those imbued with superiority complex feel otherwise. The sheer incompetence of the ONLF is manifest in their inability to articulate their objective(s). To this day the ONLF can't give straight answer as to what it is fighting for. Is it fighting for: (1) more autonomy within Ethiopian State, (2) independent state called **** or what have you, or (3) join Somali republic? Now, it is possible that innocent people from the ONLF clan may be caught up in the dragnet during operations to sweep up ONLF agents and supporters who use the relative safety and anonymity offered by Somali towns inside the borders of Somali republic to wage war against Ethiopia. All this hoopla about ONLF clan being targeted is hot air. I mean since when did a one or few individuals being handed over (if such thing ever occurred) to Ethiopia ever constitute an entire clan being discriminated against. And if a single clan is being discriminated against, whose fault is it? Anyways, the crux of the matter is this: the ONLF is waging a war to overthrow the Ethiopian government and break-up the Ethiopian state. This war is taking place in territory both within Ethiopia and Somali Republic. No state with the wherewithal to counter such threat would and is expected to tolerate existential dangers to materialize within the borders of its neighbors. ONLF is using Somalia proper territories means Ethiopia invading these regions like it already does. The ONLF wants to burn its house and that of Somalis in Somalia. It's not in the enlightened self-interest of any Somali living in Somalia proper to see his house burnt by the thoughtless actions of someone else. If people are handing over ONLF agents to Ethiopia it is merely to preserve their homes from being set on fire. [ October 30, 2009, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar ]

What a disgusting sight! A 17 year old girl about to be a boinked by a man old enough to be her great-great-grandfather. And if you support this marriage because the girl agreed to the marriage out of her own volition and not due to pressure (religious, cultural, socio-economic, rampant gender discrimination and inequality etc)... then you must also support prostitutes who make the choice to sell sex for money. We can't draw moral judgments. It's all relative. Welcome to the age of Post Modernism.

This is a step forward in that it addresses one aspect of what the UN Arab Development Reports have repeatedly pointed out. But I have my doubts if it's enough. It's not enough to build more schools and labs and train more scientists, teachers and technicians... all that will amount to a naught if what is taught in science classes are determined by Imaams or have to conform to the agenda of the mosques. The Arab Development Reports have called for the rolling back of Islam's overbearing influence on all facets of Arab societies (politics, culture, science etc). Without limiting Islam to the mosque, forget about scientific and technological progress in the Arab world. you can read the Arab Development Reports here: http://www.arab-hdr.org/

Since this story is from Reuters, there's a very good chance it is true notwithstanding how unbelievable it sounds. But this story gives us another vivid illustration of why we should oppose Sharia Law (or any other religious law for that matter) for Somalia. Wherever Sharia goes is followed by controversy, injustices and the usual bizarre punishments similar to this one.

Wealth ultimately comes from productivity gains and innovation not consumption. Remittance fueled consumption economy is not gonna get you anywhere. You're merely transferring wealth from more affluent Somalis in the diaspora to less well-off Somalis in Somalia. Giving with one hand, taking it away with the other.

Originally posted by genius pauper.: raamsade, be a man enough to wishtand reality., my question is,,,, who is that common ancestor? You mean of Primates? Probably an intermediate species that resembled modern prosimians (lemurs) like the Adapidae. Originally posted by genius pauper.: and where did he/she came from?. Evolved from other less prosimian like species. Originally posted by genius pauper.: come forward with concrete evidence to show this. To show what? That evolution is occurring? Originally posted by genius pauper.: hhmm...does calling it natural selection make it needless for a co-ordinator??? if you still think so, i ask why? Yes; it's a natural phenomenon requiring natural explanations. That "coordinator" is NOT a natural explanation. Originally posted by genius pauper.: what, does not neccessarily mean someone,, it can mean a cause,a condition,... No creator, no "cause or condition." Only Natural Selection. Originally posted by genius pauper.: it means survival for the fittest(as is taught and known to all},,,and i ask, why only the fittest??( the cause of the fitness is not a point..as your saying 'better reproductive." why???) Then let me give an example of what survival of the fittest in evolutionary context means. Before the industrial revolution the English peppered moth was of light color. This allowed it to blend into its environment and thereby avoid prey. But after the industrial revolution, the pollution had darkened the moth's environment. Now, the lightly colored moths were easily vulnerable to prey. Some moths, however, had as result of genetic mutations (before the pollution) slightly darker hue. Because these darker moths, which were the minority before, could avoid prey and hence live on to adulthood and reproduce, they had better reproductive success. Over many generations, they were able to pass on the gene for dark color to future generations. As you can see, survival of the fittest as has nothing to do with what you think. Originally posted by genius pauper.: do you doubt atheism??????????? I have doubts about everything I believe. That's why I'm ready to accept any idea so long as it supported by facts. You on other hand will believe regardless of facts.

Originally posted by G G: This doesn't make sense. We know dinosaurs were alive because we have the fossil evidence. Wow! GG finally accepts the fossil record can actually tell us something. Lets see how far she's willing to go before she rejects all reason and empirical facts to embrace mysticism and magical thinking. Originally posted by G G: Beyond that ---> a lot of speculation and suggestions but no real hard evidence. Now, GG, you dashed my hopes. I was hoping that you'll finally see light and come to your senses but I guess I overestimated you. We'll now look at what you consider "real hard evidence." Originally posted by G G: Fact? You have not been able to provide any fact for your claim. It would be different if a lion was to evolve into a different lion tomorrow. We could perform genetic tests, we could take the new lion and existing lions and compare and contrast. Maybe if it was born in captivity you'd have have the whole thing on tape. You are there to witness new lions emerging from old lions and it's all scientific. But for hominid species that died out hundreds and thousands of years ago, how can we possibly be so scientific? The DNA has degraded and without eye witness, controlled testing, the hypothesis cannot be verified. It's basic science 101. This is a such a warped (and erroneous) understanding of science that it is no wonder that you reject it. I'll ignore the factual errors for now and focus on your garbled conception of science. First, the evolution of humans from an ape-like ancestor is contingent historical event. Meaning it is a process that occurred at specific time given specific prevailing initial conditions that can not be reproduced in a lab. If the whole process of evolution was rolled back to its initial state -- that is when there were only 1 or few living organisms -- and allowed to play out again, you would get a different result. Maybe there would no humans, maybe not. For instance, what would have happened if dinosaurs were not wiped out 65 million years ago? Prior to their extinction, dinosaurs were undoubtedly at the top of most food chains; they were the ultimate kings of the earth. Some dinosaurs where showing signs of bigger brains and smaller forelimbs. But their extinction has allowed millions of species an opportunity to expand into new niches that they would never have otherwise. Past evolutionary events are necessarily contingent. Actually, same is true for all history. Past events can not be reproduced in a lab. Why, then, would expect to do so? Second, we can not, and this is corollary to what I've said above, observe past historical events but we can infer from available evidence what has happened in the past. 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 -- and know the mechanism such evolution came about. In labs we've observed evolution -- under controlled conditions (therefore, reproducible!) -- taking place with yeasts, bacteria and drosophila flies. In fact, scientists have repeated tested the core postulates of Evolution Theory in labs. In nature, we've observed evolution taking place with peppered English moth and other species. If we know how evolution works, seen it take place in nature and have a massive body of empirical evidence, we can confidently say x species evolved from this or that species. The history of living organisms on our planets shows that at one point there were no life on earth and then there few that ultimately led to millions of species. The question then becomes were all these species "specially created" or did they descent from original one or few living organisms over billions of years? The available evidence supports descent from common ancestor. The Theory of Special Creation, which you believe, has absolutely no evidence validating it. Moreover, the Theory of Evolution makes testable (falsifiable) predictions. People have been trying to find any evidence that falsifies the theory with no success. This tells us that the mechanisms and hypothesis offered by the Evolution theory do a good job of explaining the facts. Let me further expound on this point and show that historically your position is untenable one to hold. Prior to the 1960s when one of the Apollo missions took that now-famous picture of round, blue planet earth, people didn't have "real hard evidence" for round earth that rotated about its axis. It couldn't be reproduced in a lab. They had to rely on inference from available evidence (such as solar eclipses, among others). Similarly, today we accept the Heliocentric theory -- that the earth orbits the sun -- even though no body has ever seen the earth go around the sun. How do we know then? Inference via inductive reasoning! Do you reject the Heliocentric theory of our solar system because it can't be reproduced in a lab or no body has seen the earth go around the sun? Inductive reasoning is the bread and butter of science. Inductive reasoning holds that a proposition is valid if the facts of its premises are factually true. In other words, so long as premises are true, the inferences are logically sound, we can accept the conclusions. But if the evidence for our premises is false, we must reject our conclusion no matter how logically sound. This is why ALL scientific theories are tentative and subject to revision. The philosopher David Hume had pointed out that much of day-to-day living would be impossible without the application of inductive reasoning. We all rely on it (much like science) albeit -- at least to some of us -- unwittingly. Suppose, for instance, you come home from work one day to find another car parked in the driveway. You know that you're driving the only car of your household. It is safe to infer that the car parked in your drive belongs to a visitor and that if you went inside the house you'd find that visitor in it. You don't actually have to see that visitor for you to make the inference that you have a visitor before you even enter your house. Just because you can not reproduce a particular facet of a scientific theory in a lab doesn't mean it is not scientific. Science is about making testable (falsifiable) predictions. The theory of Evolution makes testable predictions that have been tested in labs (reproduced), observed in nature and consistently verified. Don't expect that just because you can't add 1 and 1 to get 2 and need a perfect 2 that others can't. Originally posted by G G: There are 2 types of evolutionary scientists. Those who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, and those who don't. Do you agree or disagree with this claim? Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Originally posted by G G: Scientists use their imagination but they use it for good cause. I thought this was conceited and flawed, How is it flawed and conceited? Some people use their imagination for how to fly planes into buildings while others use it to cure diseases or increase crop yield. Different people use their imagination for different reasons. It's simple statement of reality. Originally posted by G G: Evolutionary Theory postulates that all currently living organisms evolved from one or few original living organisms . Your source, please (the text in italic) On the Origin of Species and Darwin further expounded on the point in Common Descent. You'll also find it in every decent first year Biology text book. Originally posted by G G: According to 'What Evolution Is', evolution is about the individual, population and species; that it isn't 'change in gene frequency'. The two most important units are the individual which is the actual target of natural selection, and population. This is so characteristic of you. You miscontrue what others say and you contradict yourself. First, please provide the actual quotation from Mayr, not your paraphrasing. Second, it is population that evolve not individuals. Here is what the National Academy of Science has to say about subject: "Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations." "It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms" Source: Science, evolution and creationism (2008) Originally posted by G G: Now. Should I believe your explanation of evolutionary theory, or Ernst Mayr's? Both since we agree on what evolution says. Originally posted by G G: I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i 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 G G: What is nonesense? The Mutation theory? You see the point isn't that it was discredited. The point is that when I brought it up, you bashed me whilst being very unaware of the fact that this is what early evolutionary scientists believed in. Even T H Huxley, who fiercely defended Darwinism, believed in saltation (to bridge the gaps between a newly arisen taxon and its nearest ancestor). But you didn't realize I was talking about saltation, because I didn't mention it by name. So you couldn't google it. And depend on threads like FINALLY TANGIBLE PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION. That you quoted mutation theory shows you ARE perusing creationists websites because mutation theory is NOT the generally accepted by scientists today. The contemporary evolution paradigm is the Synthetic Theory of Evolution which combines genetics and evolution as postulated by Darwin. Second, I know more about evolution than you do. This much is self-evident to everyone. Originally posted by G G: And this is why I don't call myself a creationist. You don't believe that Allah created every living thing? If you do, then you're creationists. Just old-earth creationists variety but creationist nonetheless. Originally posted by G G: Your list was from a thread titled "Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION". If you don't understand why "giving a list" from a thread called that is wrong, then I possibly can't do anything for you. What a lame excuse to run away from the evidence. FYI, I DID NOT copy the fossils I presented from a site called "Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION." Secondly, the fossil record doesn't come from a site in virtual reality but from the real world. Your lame quibble is akin to rejecting chemical properties of a substance someone provides because it came from site x or y. That's not acceptable objection. It's pretty clear to everyone that you're terrified, much like your co-creationist Norsky, of the evidence for evolution. Originally posted by G G: "Expect to be taken seriously" by whom? Who are you referring to? The readers? Yes; I don't write only for you but all the silent readers who stand to benefit from this debate. Originally posted by G G: Who preceded Australopithecus? Probably Ardi; see the link in my response to Norfsky. Originally posted by G G: I asked you for conclusive and irrefutable evidence (originally your words, not mine) for the claim that Australopithecus is human's ancestor. You replied by telling me that it's brain was about the same size as chimpanzee, its teeth looked more human than apes and the date of the fossils predated fossils for modern humans. This to you is "conclusive" and "irrefutable" evidence, apparently. The fact that something looks more human than chimp and came earlier. The evidence is what the evidence is. You either accept it or you don't. You have provided no good reasons for why you reject the fossil evidence for human evolution. If you don't wanna accept Australopeithecus as intermediate species between humans and their ancestor, it's up to you. But as far as scientists are concerned it is irrefutable and conclusive evidence for human evolution. Until you give reasons for rejecting Australopethicus AND Homo habilis AND Homo erectus AND Homo sapiens AND Homo sapien neanderthalis... your objections will be without any substance. Originally posted by G G: But never-mind that. I asked you a specific question to make a point: which came earlier; the floresiensis or the neanderthal and which resembles more the modern human? Which had bigger head? I'm at a loss as to the purpose of these questions? How do they further your argument? The neanderthal came first. I would say Homo floresiensis resembled modern humans more but neanderthals had bigger brains. In fact neanderthals had bigger brains (as measured by average brain sizes) than us. Originally posted by G G: And how reliable is radiometric dating? For example, could one misestimate by hundreds of thousands of years, even over a million years? Is it possible? Very reliable and consistent with other methods of dating. We have no good reasons to doubt the accuracy of of radiometric dating. Originally posted by G G: I take it you are the layman. The cell's machinery detects the errors and fixes them. Some errors slip through No body said that DNA repair mechanisms don't fix mutations but that is beside the point. As you finally admit "some errors slip through" and it is those that count. Not only are mutations real and occur all the time but we have mutation rates for many organisms including. Each human has about 100-200 new mutations that he/she didn't inherit from parents. It is these mutations that forms the diversity within population that evolution ultimately acts upon. Without genetic diversity, evolution would be almost impossible. Originally posted by G G: Some errors slip through and that's how many cancers begin. Only in somatic cells, not germ-line (reproductive) cells. Originally posted by G G: The only mutations that matter for evolution are the ones that occur in the DNA of gametes as the DNA in these cells will be passed on to the next generation. Thanks for repeating what I've been saying. I'm flattered. Originally posted by G G: Mutations do occur but the cells machinery fixes them, as I explained earlier, therefore we don't really have mutations. You're really confused, aren't you? This is what you said earlier "Some errors slip through and that's how many cancers begin." Make up your mind. Originally posted by G G: As a general rule of thumb, if a mutation is passed on to offspring, they will suffer accordingly. For the umpteenth time, mutations don't necessarily have to be deleterious. Some are lethal (very few), some are beneficial (very few) and some are entirely neutral -- neither beneficial nor deleterious. But in reality MOST mutations are neutral and are called point mutations. The reason for this is due to the redundant nature of the genetic code. There are 64 codons but only 20 amino acids; so you can have the same amino acid being coded by different codons. Clearly this isn't an evidence that life was "created" by a competent "creator." Originally posted by G G: Read my question again, this time with thought. You said there are single celled organisms today, I asked you where they came from/whether they were the origin of life. Now read your response. How does it make sense? You're changing the subject and conflating different theories/disciplines. Evolution Theory describes the descent of all living things from a common ancestor. Thus it assumes the existence of at least one or few living things. Origin of life is not within the purview of Evolution Theory. It's like asking a physicist to explain the origin of math. If you wanna know about the origin of life, read on Abiogenesis.

Originally posted by genius pauper.: if we, humans of today evolved from ape, where did that ape came from? We didn't come from apes. Us and apes came from a common ancestor. Originally posted by genius pauper.: is it a continuous process which still is unfolding?? [/qb] Yes; it's unfolding as I type this reply. Originally posted by genius pauper.: and if it is continuing who is co-ordinating its operation? No body that's why it's called Natural Selection. Originally posted by genius pauper.: what really necessitated the process to occur? You're begging the question (i.e. committing a logical fallacy). Before you ask the question "what necessitated the process" you must first show the process needs "someone" to necessitate it. Then and only then is your question legitimate one. Originally posted by genius pauper.: wont anyone not think that it is an injust process by the fact that only the fittest survive and those unable to adapt to the prevailing conditions perish? The survival of the fittest doesn't mean the strongest and most physically fit survive. Instead, it means those with better reproductive success leave more of their offspring behind (and hence, their genes survive into future generations). Originally posted by genius pauper.: a principle of the sciences of theology and jurisprudence is this: that a probability not originating from any indication or sign has no importance;it cannot induce doubt in a matter that is definite. it cannot shake the certainty that is based on sound judgement^^^^^^^^ Nonsense. Nothing in faith is based on sound judgment. You're only a muslim because of where you were born. Had you been born in Haiti you would believe in Voodooism. Besides absolute certainty in anything is never good. You should always have doubts and ask question. It's people full of certainty that are often responsible for the most horrendous crimes in human history.

Originally posted by Norfsky: Is that what you call 'evidence'? Yes. That is what I call evidence. That's what scientists specializing in evolution theory call evidence validating the theory. And more importantly, that is what is predicted as evidence by evolution theory. The theory of Evolution predicts intermediate fossils with the older ones resembling parent species while the younger resembling modern species (displaying modern anatomical features) as per Descent with Modification. Each species that descends from another is slightly different. At the beginning (before the process speciation concludes) these differences are minor and hardly noticeable but overtime they accumulate to something significant. The new species reaches a point where it can no longer interbreed (and produce fertile offspring) with its parent species. These fossils fit the human evolution model perfectly. The older the hominid fossils are, the more ape-like they appear. The younger they are, the more human they appear. My question to you is: why are you skeptical? BTW, I was just reading today the latest twist to the storied journey of humans. According to a recent paper in the journal Science, scientists have found the oldest possible human ancestor -- much older than Australopithecus Aferensis or popularly known as Lucy. Read it here: Oldest "human skeleton" found -- disproves missing link Originally posted by Norfsky: Have you ever critically evaluated this 'evidence'? I sure have; more than you critically evaluated your own religious believes which you accept wholly without any reservations. Have you critically evaluated (human ancestor fossils) them? Originally posted by Norfsky: I for one would be very interested on how you would refute the following assessment by Harun Yahya in his book Evolution Deceit . I can refute (have done so in the past numerous times) everything the crackpot Adnan Otkar (his real name) writes. He is a charlatan who profits (he is a wealthy man) from the religiously-induced ignorance of Muslim masses. I don't blame him for exploiting this profitable opportunity. He is the consummate entrepreneur. And I don't blame the benighted, unwashed Muslim masses living in poor, impoverished countries and who don't know any better falling for his lies. But what I can't fathom is the level of self-deception that compels Muslims who should and do know better to lend an ear to Adnan Otkar's polemics against science. The man is self-styled polemicist who knows zilch about science (he isn't even a Uni graduate) and isn't interested in having an honest debate based on facts regarding the evolution theory (or anything else as he was once a Holocaust denier). His entire case against evolution is based on out and out lies, half-truths, misrepresentation of real scientific concepts and the words of scientists and plain old ignorance. Believe you me, it is easy to refute what he says but why should any self-respecting scientists or private citizen debunk him? Why should I deign to refute his mad ravings against science? No, you deal with the evidence for human evolution that I presented first. You asked for it and I provided it. Be a man and either refute the evidence you specifically asked for or gracefully bow out of this debate.

Originally posted by G G: What "objective and verifiable facts" have you got on the skin colour of dinosaurs? Or the shape of the iris? We have dinosaur skin fossils but their color and the color of eyes are entirely speculative at this stage. But this is, once again, another straw man argument from creationists (and yes, you ARE a creationist). The skin color of dinosaurs is completely irrelevant to whether evolution occurred or not. Our current knowledge of dinosaurs comes from the fossil record not what scientists speculate. Deal with the evidence for Evolution! Originally posted by G G: Oh and by the way, about cartoons and drawings: I applaud evolutionary theorists for their excellent and groundbreaking scientific visualization abilities, Once more, we have our dear GG showcasing her aversion for facts and attacking imaginary positions no one holds. The reason Evolutionary Theory displaced Creationism about 150 years ago and became the central organizing principal for all sciences since is based on the massive collection of evidence from varied fields as: comparative anatomy and behavior, molecular genetics, paleontology, population genetics, biogeography and so on. GG dismisses or avoids dealing with the evidence persistently as we will see shortly when she rejects the transitional evidence I presented for the transition between Dinosaurs and modern Birds. But this naked rejection of the evidence is too embarrassing, so she camouflages it with straw man arguments - i.e. attacking positions that scientists and evolution theory don't posit. Originally posted by G G: as they managed to sketch a whole pre-human and his family (complete with skin and hair - in colour) from 2 teeth. Which then unfortunately had to belong to a stopid pig. This wasn't of course forgery, this was a serious misunderstanding (I'm seriously not being sarcastic). If the teeth had been human, it would have made all the difference. This is what I mean with GG's constant attack on irrelevant issues. Ask yourself this question: does any forgery or "misunderstanding" detract from the fact that modern humans evolved from ape-like ancestors? Does it, when we have a vast fossil record showing the gradual evolution of modern humans from earlier ape-like ancestors? Here is a list of fossil record regarding human evolution: 1. Australopithecus anamensis - lived 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago (mya). 2. Australopithecus afarensis - lived 3.9 to 3 mya 3. Australopithecus africanus - lived 3 to 2 mya 4. Australopithecus aethiopicus - lived 2.6 to 2.3 mya 5. Homo habilis - lived 2.4 to 1.5 mya 6. Homo erectus - lived 1.8 mya to 300,000 7. Homo sapiens - lived 500k to 200k years ago (ya) 8. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - lived 230k to 30k ya Now, in the face of such massive (note, I presented, for brevity, an incomplete fossil record here) fossil evidence, does any of GG's pathetic quibbles make any difference? Of course not. This is why GG keeps harping on tangential issues instead of dealing with the evidence. But GG can redeem herself, she can now deal with the evidence I presented above and explain to us why she rejects human evolution from a common ape-like ancestor. The flour is yours GG. Don't let the faithful down. Originally posted by G G: Wait, what evidence? (Btw I really don't like being called a creationist) The evidence above (for human evolution) and the other evidence you ignored for the transition between between dinosaurs and birds. Originally posted by G G: I agree, evoscientists are as reliable as the writers of the Bible. Are they related?? Actually, the writers of the Bible have more in common with the writers of the Quran but that is for another debate. My point remains. Scientists are humans and can deceive themselves and other scientists for various reasons. But it won't be long before they're exposed by none other than their peers. Science has the mechanism for self-correction. This is due to the adversarial nature of science. Scientists always face uphill battle if they wanna convince other scientists about their discoveries. A scientist would first have to do real science work by collecting data, providing hypothesis and testable predictions and then testing those predictions. Once a scientist has his results, he must submit his paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Most papers submitted to a peer-reviewed journals never get published but those that do get published are attacked by a whole slew of scientists who critically scrutinize any published papers. If the paper withstands those critical attacks, it lives to fight another day. If not, it is rejected. Even if it withstands those attacks, accepting the discovery would take many years. So, you see the chances of any false finding being readily accepted by the scientific community is fleetingly small. Originally posted by G G: Muslims can't be slaves, soz bruv. This is complete non sequitur as it doesn't logically follow from anything previously written. I didn't say anything about Muslim slaves. I said at the time when Darwin was fervent abolitionist, Muslims, especially arabs muslims were selling and buying black African slaves with alacrity. Originally posted by G G: I think I already asked you; please explain/clarify to me what evolutionary theory is. See, I even asked you nicely Evolutionary Theory postulates that all currently living organisms evolved from one or few original living organisms. The theory gives several mechanisms for evolution including but not limited to Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and so on. Evolution impacts populations not individuals. Any one individual is irrelevant. At the most basic level, evolution can be defined as the change in gene or allele frequency of a population over many generations. Originally posted by G G: Thanks! I agree with you, that is pretty cartoonish! Thank you for agreeing with me. Unfortunately that was actually what De Vries suggested in early 20th century. And he was the developer of mutation theory of evolution. :'( That's why my knowledge of genetics is so cartoonish and naive. I blame him, it was the swieetie man. Fooking Dutch and his prawnmen! This demonstrates to me that you're reading way too much Creationist claptrap. Creationists, because they can't refute the evidence, always engage in dishonest debating tactics. They'll misquote or take out of contexts what scientists say, they'll use long discredited ideas or rely on limited knowledge of scientists 100 years ago. De Vries's Mutation Theory, which is NOT taught in schools (meaning you're reading this nonesense from Creationist websites), has long been discredited and we know have better knowledge about genetics. If you wanna debate evolution, you gotta debate what evolution theory posits. Originally posted by G G: That's what evolutionists think. Of course, that is what "evolutionists" think and that is what the evidence shows. Whose thinking should we mind? Creationists? People who believe the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old and the reason dinosaurs are extinct is because they couldn't fit in Noah's Ark... should we be listening to them? Originally posted by G G: You know what, I actually googled that list in that exact order and guess what came up? And why would you do that? Didn't you ask for evidence? If you were sincere in your request, the first think you should do should've been check out each species. This vindicates me in so many ways least of all that you guys, the Evolution Theory's detractors, aren't interested in honest debate. Nor are you interested in changing your views and accepting the fact of evolution. Your only interest is protecting your imaginary believes. Originally posted by G G: Now what did you say about copy&paste, you old hypocrite? Shame on you. What a pathetic person you are. You asked for the transitional fossils between modern birds and their ancestors dinosaurs. I gave a list of those transitional fossils. And you accuse me of copy and pasting. You're a joke and charlatan. Those fossils were DUG up by real scientists who classified them. No website owns them. They're physical reality outside of the internet. I don't copy and paste other people's ideas and then pass them off as my own. You're projecting. Like I said earlier, you're too scared to deal with the evidence. Originally posted by G G: This is exactly what I mean with "confusing things". Australopithecus (both aferensis and africanus) is (supposedly) the forefather of modern chimpanzees. The fact that you say they resemble more humans than apes just sealed it for me. It's official! You're a complete dolt. Before I thought you were a mere dilettante but your case is worse. How could you write Australopithecus was the ancestor of modern chimpazees and expect to be taken seriously? For the record, Australopithecus is NOT the ancestor of modern chimpazees. Originally posted by G G: And this is your explanation? Because they came earlier, they must be their ancestors? Are you doing this on purpose? You can't be this daft. Yes, the older the fossils, the more likely -- given everything else -- they're the ancestors of the younger fossils. Just like you're descendant of your great-grandfather who lived long time ago. Originally posted by G G: And by the way, how does one get the date of fossils? Radiometric dating. Originally posted by G G: We don't all carry mutant genes, if we did we'd be facking retards. (No offense to those who have inherited diseases) Mutation, along with Theory, means different thing to a scientists than to a layman. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along and it seems you have missed or ignored it completely. Mutations in genetics means mistakes in the genome arising from the copying process. It' is a mistake that happens all the time and contributes to the genetic diversity present in many organisms. Originally posted by G G: So a group of guys had a look at this bird that looked funny, and in their all-powerful wisdom, they declared it an intermediate? Yeah, sure, sounds good by me. Another hit from our dear GG -- attacking imaginary position no one holds. Who ever said Archeopteryx looked funny, therefore it must be an intermediate? Who really holds such position? Originally posted by G G: Why genetic make up and mutation are not the same thing: Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome ... I'll let the readers see what a nincompoop you are... the Wikipedia passage you provide disagrees with you and yet you're blissfully unaware. Genome and genes are like apples and oranges to our hapless GG. Originally posted by G G: 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? These questions are irrelevant to Evolution Theory since the theory assumes the existence of one or few living organisms. Originally posted by G G: Life on Earth (material pursuits etc) is meaningless and ultimately an illusion. The test however is real. The realness of free will can be seen in our discussion: you don't believe in God, I do. Because God has created you so that you will never be able to predict tomorrow; knowing your future is impossible for you. Therefore free will is real for you and not for Him. Just like this world is the reality for you and not for Him. I have hard time following what you're saying. What do you mean free will is not real for Him? Are you saying God doesn't have free will? I'll respond more once you clarify what you wrote above. Also, keep in mind that the free will we're debating is the one pertaining to your ultimate salvation. Not meaningless free will like what kind of car you drive or job you have. But whether you have the free will to affect your ultimate fate in the after life.

Originally posted by Mr. Somalia: Nice to hear from you, Raamsade . You have broken your silence. Why? I do not scare you, do I? I certainly hope I don't. I'm a busy man; I post here whenever I get spare time. Originally posted by Mr. Somalia: Honestly sxb, I haven't heard one person asking you to prove God does not exist. Then you must be experiencing the onset of amnesia or having a full-blown one. You said this earlier in this thread: "To Johny B: Got any proof that the Al-mighty and glorious Allah doesn't exist?" No one can prove what doesn't exist; it's logically absurd question to ask. The burden of proof always lies with the affirmative position. If you say God exists, the onus is on you to provide evidence for His existence. It's elementary logic taught to us, well some of us at least, as early as grade school. Originally posted by Mr. Somalia: I figured if certain people of atheistic persuasions such as yourself, could bandy about the simple statement that "no one can prove the existence of God," Note that proof doesn't exist in the real world, only evidence and reason. That said, when an atheist makes the above declaration (using "prove" in the vernacular sense), he/she is not making a universal claim. In other words, they're not saying God in general doesn't exist but the God of Christianity or Allah or Yahwe or Thor doesn't exist. A universal rejection of God is superfluous since no one defined such God in the first place. But the God of many religions are defined and given attributes. Since no empirical evidence is presented for such God's existence, we can use logic. And logic tells us that any entity with contradictory attributes/definitio ns -- such as omnipotent and omniscience -- can't logically exist. This is how an Atheist can say the God of religion X or Y doesn't exist. But the same statement can't be extended to a universally to a God that no one has yet defined. As the old dictum goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Originally posted by Mr. Somalia: then surely, they should be able to prove that the following simple sentence is false: To date no one has produced any evidence that proves God does not exist. Methinks, no one has succeeded so far, because they just do not know and cannot prove it. Then, you must believe in Thor, Waaq, Isis, Mithra etc... right? After all, no one has to date produced any evidence that proves all these Gods don't exist.