Originally posted by Ms DD: A muslim would never turn in another to muslim to gaallo. if he does, his aqeedah waxbaa si ka ah. That's a very important point. And it is a point missed by Kaafirs of all stripes who are confronting Islamic Jihadism. In the eyes of the Muslims, a Muslim is always superior to a Kaafir even if that Muslim is a criminal. This is why Osama Bin Laden is still at large and why Muslims are mistrusted world over.

Originally posted by BiLaaL: As for verses of the Quran concerning the big bang theory, refer to the following links. The Big Bang The Quran on the Expanding Universe and the Big Bang Theory This is a lie Muslims never get tired of telling. But there is no merit to it. The entire Quranic cosmology consists of Sky (Sama'a in 7 physical layers) and Earth (ard in 7 layers). There is no mention of galaxies, solar systems, black holes... so how can Quran be talking about the Big Bang? Of course, the Quran doesn't as I will show tomorrow or on the weekend when I got more spare time.

Originally posted by G G: 3-D colouring and designing the iris of the dinosaurs and cashing in on them in various museums and shows and et cetera is indeed using imagination. Sorry to burst your bubble but science relies on objective and verifiable facts not on cartoons and drawings. The fossil record is REAL and deadly for Creationism. Creationists are fond of employing red herrings and straw man arguments. I guess when you can't handle the evidence and powerful arguments for Evolution you try your luck at anything. Originally posted by G G: Artificially joining a human skull and jawbones of an orang-utan on the other hand is good old lying. Or to be more specific in this case: forgery. I'm not sure the specifics of the forgery you describe above but there have been a number of supposed fossils that were clear forgeries. Forgeries notwithstanding, science has the built-in mechanism for correcting its own mistakes and forgeries. Science is tentative and subject to revision. It is also open discipline where questioning and critical scrutiny form integral pillars. If scientists are shown a particular data/evidence is bogus, they have no qualms rejecting it. Thus, when some scientists do fudge the numbers/data of their experiments, they're ultimately found by NONE other than their peers, i.e. other scientists. That's exactly what happened with those few cases of forgeries. Scientists ultimately exposed them and were rejected as forgeries. Contrast that to Theism where ideas are accepted on authority and dogma even when the evidence contradicts it. Originally posted by G G: It raises the question, why do it, hmm? For the same reason Theists fabricate bogus evidences for their believes. Originally posted by G G: I agree with you. It is no wonder evolutionary theory saw daylight in Europe which was the capital of Christianity. Yes, it's no wonder because Europe produced such people as Voltaire, Descartes, Spinoza, Comte, Kant, Hume etc who defanged Chritianity and stripped it of all respectability with their piercing intellect. Originally posted by G G: The Bible is inconsistent, has factual errors and very few believe it to be the true words of God. Many Christians would disagree with you and it's wonderful so few believe it to be the true word of God. It would be disconcerting if that wasn't the case. Originally posted by G G: I challenge you to find lies in the Quran however. Why would I? The Quran is just a book written by mortal men. There is nothing special about it. I only care about claims made by Islamic apologists about miraculous scientific facts in the Quran. Originally posted by G G: Even better; I urge you to find anything that supports the view that prophet Muhammed (sas) was a dishonest man or had bad character - Again, why would I? You know I reject the whole notion of prophet-hood. Mohammed was just 7th century arab leader albeit extraordinary one. His conduct can only be judged by the moral standards of his time not ours. Since I'm not a person calling for people to emulate Mohammed in the 21st century, I don't need to find faults with his actions and believes; it's actually you who has to defend him. Originally posted by G G: unlike that old chap Darwin who was quite bit of a racist and sexist, Darwin was a man of his time and reflected the common views back then. So it's not surprising that he held some views that would today be considered bigoted. Having said Darwin was ahead of his time in other respects and liberal in that he was an ardent abolitionist. Muslims of his time were busy dealing in slavery, specially black Negros like yourself. Originally posted by G G: "I look different from my parents - frankly, I'm much better looking - therefore my ancestors must have looked like real apes!" Since that is NOT what Evolution theory postulates, let me know when you're interested in discussing the facts. Originally posted by G G: You gotta give it to some evolutionary geneticist though, since without their awesome imagination we wouldn't have my favourite comic X-Men! I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons. Originally posted by G G: 1. Does the fact that something is thought to have evolved from something, in your opinion, constitute for a scientific fact? If there is objective and verifiable (falsifiable) evidence for it exists, absolutely yes. Originally posted by G G: 2. Why do you claim Archaepteryx to be an intermediate when evolutionary scientist don't agree upon it? SJ Gould called it an odd mosaic if I remember correctly, and according to evotheory Arch is an extinct subbranch which doesn't lead to modern birds. Archeopteryx IS an intermediate fossil, the so-called missing link Creationists ask for. Well, now you got it. Rather than be graceful in defeat, Creationists become sour losers denying even the evidence they asked for. Second, SJ Gould (and scientists in general) did NOT say Archeopteryx was not an intermediate. Stop copy and pasting discredited Creationists lies. Originally posted by G G: Whales have structures which evolutionist interpret as hind legs. Nonsense. Whales have vestigial hind limbs that are leftovers from when they walked on land. But this is just one evidence from morphology/anatomy. Another evidence that whales once were land dwelling animals comes from their hearts. All fish have 2 chambered heart while Whales, formerly terrestrial mammals, have 4. Do you think that is mere coincidence? Originally posted by G G: Please provide some from your mountain of evidence, and we'll have a closer look at that. Here is non-exclusive list: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis (my favorite), Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba. Originally posted by G G: So you may be able to use some of that conclusive and "irrefutable" evidence and tell us whether, according to evolutionary theory, Australopithecus is actually humans' ancestor or not? Australopithecus, you know, those ape-like creatures? There were different kind of species of Australopithecus, which one are you referring. Lets take, for arguments sake, Australopithecus Afarensis. This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes. And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans. Originally posted by G G: "Their bodies were not made of hard stuff?" Whatever is that supposed to mean, did they not have bones? You do now how fossilization works, don't you? And why there are plant fossils - or is your answer perhaps that their "bodies were made of hard stuff"? Yes, they did not have bones since most animals are insects. This is why most fossils consist of hard stuff like bones, teeth, claws. We rarely find skin or tissue. The species that leave best and most fossils are those that: lived for long time, had hard body parts, were numerous and lived over large geographical area. Plant fossils are discovered, far less than animals, precisely because they're more ubiquitous and live in many different ecosystems. Originally posted by G G: This is ill-informed. A mutation is a mutation. It doesn't "slowly add to the genetic diversity" because mutations are off-shoots, and they do not transmit to descendants. A person who has a mutation isn't a new species, but a patient. This is what I meant when earlier I said GG's conception of Genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish. Mutations are merely mistakes from copying the genetic material during cell division (reproductive cells). These mutations add to the genetic diversity by adding new mutations on top of inherited mutations. Perhaps GG should stop watching X-Men and start reading High School biology textbook. Originally posted by G G: Weren't you just arguing that birds evolved from dinosaurs? If an asteroid hit Earth and caused the mass death of dinosaurs (as the most popular theory goes), wouldn't there be more evidence of intermediates? Since at the time of their death they'd be already in the mutation process into another species (more those Arch birdies than Rexes). The fact that there are more dinosaurs than intermediates implies that freak-show birds like the Arch were a species of their own (just like many evos think) and not descendants of dinos. I don't completely follow what you're saying but let me correct a couple of mistakes. First, there are more and more evidence for intermediates between dinosaurs and birds. I just gave you an incomplete list including some recent findings in China. Second, Archeopteryx were their own species (as are all species) but they had features that were not completely dinosaur or completely bird, hence their status as intermediate species. Originally posted by G G: We have different genetic make-up which makes us look different from our parents, this is NOT the same thing as mutation. They're not? Please, enlighten us. For example, tell us where we look for those mutations? You're clueless, aren't you? Originally posted by G G: This is news, seeing as life apparently evolved from a single cell. There are still single celled organisms. That alone demonstrates Evolution doesn't proceed ahead from less complex to more complex. Today we have both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells co-existing; simple and complex organisms co-inhabiting this planet. There is no discernible trend of complexity. Originally posted by G G: DNA changes, but the number of chromosomes does not increase (can miss). Actually both can and do change although chromosomal increase is both rare and often lethal. Originally posted by G G: Shock horror! Oh no! Does this mean I'm a mutant? Yes, like in the X-Men cartoons. Originally posted by G G: Why not? Because omniscient, omnipotent creator knows the outcome before the test on earth. Before God creates you, He already knows your destiny otherwise he's not omniscient. He chose, out of His free will, to create you knowing ahead of time where you will end up. Thus, the test on earth is meaningless and free will is an illusion. It's like a teacher who pre-assigns grades before the students take the test; the act of taking the test will have no impact on the grades you get.

Originally posted by Mr. Somalia: Raamsade , how did you come to your conclusion that there is no God? By the same way that led you to reject all Gods except Allah.

Originally posted by Garmaqaate: I understand them because the idea of "God" automatically comes with "life after death", "Justice and punishment and rewards". Exactly! Theists preach and attempt to convert others with the expectation of heavenly rewards. They believe that if they don't try to convert heathens, they may end up in hell. It's sort of done under coercion. What, then, is there to "understand?" These proselytizers are mere automatons following the directives and commandments of others without exercising an iota of independent thought. Originally posted by Garmaqaate: What i do not understand and can not understand are the preachers and the clergy of this "atheist" religion. You're feigning incredulity. What you can't fathom doesn't exist. There are no atheist preachers and clergy I know of and certainly there is no atheist religion. Atheism is mere personal statement of disbelieve in any defined God/s. Nothing more; nothing less. It is also the only logically defensible position regarding the existence of God. Any rational and objective inquiry into the existence of God would require Atheist position otherwise, and if you take Theist position, you'll be committing confirmation bias. There is no Atheist: theology, orthodoxy, holy texts, prayers and rituals, no heaven and hell schemes, no prophets, no miracles etc. Everything we normally associate with religions is absent in Atheism. You yourself are an atheist vis-a-vis other Gods except Allah; atheists go one step further and reject your Allah was well. This equating of Atheism with religion smacks of desperation from you and shows you've ran out of arguments against Atheism. Originally posted by Garmaqaate: I call it a religion because why else will they preach, pontificate and try to explain and emphasise the righteousness of their stand when in essence they are telling anyone who listens to them "life is not important", or essentially "there is no reason to life". Yeah, Atheists preach so much so that this 6 page long thread was started by a rabid atheist! While we're at it, many groups "preach, pontificate and try to explain and emphasis the righteousness of their stand" but you don't call them religions. Think of the NRA, NCAA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and so on. So, preaching and articulating one's positions and views doesn't constitute as belonging to a religion. And you're lying when you assert Atheists say "life is not important." I've never met or heard of ANY atheist ever express such view. Why would they? Atheists KNOW that this life is all they have. On the other hand, theists DO believe that THIS life is not important; the important life is the hereafter. That's why they fly planes into buildings hoping to earn a place in the afterlife and boast how they hate this life and love the afterlife. Originally posted by Garmaqaate: If there is no life after death then essentially you are saying you are here for the duration you are here on earth... In essence what the atheist is telling you is we have evolved into what we are because our parents were lucky to survive disasters and reproduce and in the end their survival was futile because we will all perish anyway. Meaning life on earth is meaningless. Life has very profound meaning to me as an Atheist and I hope to every other human being. The problem is that most people have a little understanding of their world and how it operates. This ignorance leads them to be narcissists believing the whole universe is there just for them and think of themselves as pinnacle of all living organisms. It is this human narcissism informed by ignorance that has originally led to desires for the afterlife. In reality most potential humans who had a chance in this life never made it as most fertilized eggs never implant. Those of us who are fortunate to experience life are the privileged few; we shouldn't even be here. And if we shouldn't be here, why the desire to live on in another life? Who entitled you to this or any other life? And when it comes time for me to depart this world, I'll think of all those who didn't make it and how privileged I am. Originally posted by Garmaqaate: What "hope" is there in such an idea? The hope is: living this life is an honor; this life is all you got and should make most of it instead of wasting your energy and time preparing for imaginary afterlife.

Originally posted by Dhubad.: They would overrun these misguided Sufi boyz had they not being supported by Ethiopians and you know that...! The Salaafi boys (i.e. Alshabaab) claim to have vanquished C. Yuusuf's "misguided" boys supported by 50,000 Ethiopian troops but ... they can't defeat a bunch of untrained former camel herders armed by Ethiopia? Something is rotten in the state of Salaafism.

Originally posted by Garmaqaate: I only see a problem, a conflict if i may say so, when a supposedly non-religious person criticizes religion That "conflict" would never exist if the pious kept their piety to themselves and not tried to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Originally posted by G G: The original argument went:"God exists and here is the proof/reasoning for why He exists - now it's your turn to explain why He doesn't exist." Again, there is no such thing as proof only evidence and reason. Lets, arguendo, change proof to evidence. Furthermore, let us drop all evidence for God's existence since we know you can't produce any evidence for God's existence that's perceptible to the human senses. Supposed miracles are discounted for obvious reasons. We're now left with reasons (that is logically sound reasons) for God existence. Do you have any? I ask because none have been presented thusfar. And even though this thread was ostensibly about Atheism, people have been attacking the scientific theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by The_Siren: *Sighs* you know you've given me naught else but disagree for the sake of it and without proving anything of any real substance to the equation. First of all there is no such thing as prove in the real world only evidence and arguments. So no one can prove anything notwithstanding the colloquial use of the word "prove." More pertinently, I have comprehensibly demolished your pathetic and error-filled screed on Evolution. The terse response in your last post against your more prolix earlier posts indicates I've done pretty good job. Originally posted by The_Siren: I truly don't have either the energy or care as for the genetic aspects of evolution? Intellectually laziness is characteristic of creationists. This is why you prefer the more lazy "God did it" to the more complex, enriching, enlightening and factually accurate Evolution theory. Originally posted by The_Siren: Natural selection can only take you as far microevolution but macro? *lifts a brow* This micro vs macro evolution bifurcation is an old obsession of creationists in an attempt to skirt the unassailable evidence for evolution. You won't find this in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For your information, MACRO-evolution is observed fact and the evidence for it is quite copious. Originally posted by The_Siren: But I shall leave you with this birds don't have teeth? Eh?... Indeed then what do you call that? lacerations? Those are not teeth but serrations on the bird's bill. Teeth are made of enamel -- that white stuff -- and modern birds don't have 'em that's why they're birds. Do you know anything about bird's digestive system? About crops? Gizzards? Confusing bird serrations for teeth bears out what I said earlier. You are truly ignorant of what you're so against - Evolution Theory. I don't fault you though. You're a victim of religious indoctrination which makes you believe in things where there is no evidence and reject in theories backed by plenty of evidence. Originally posted by The_Siren: I would suggest that anyone whose truly interested look but the evidence and research themselves instead of taking it on peoples word. What an ironic statement coming from a creationist of all people!

Norfsky, I'm here but your evidence for the Theory of Special Creation or Creationism is not here. What happened? Lost "faith" in your own evidence for the creation of adam and eve? You can't in good honesty ask me to provide evidence for human evolution when you can't produce evidence for the "special" creation of Adam and Eve mere thousands of years ago. Originally posted by The_Siren: I really didn’t want to post anything here I think you shouldn't have either since you haven't acquitted yourself honorably here as we will see. Originally posted by The_Siren: Some aspects of Evolution and so called comparative anatomy is not dissimilar to those wondrous fairy tales children hear in books. Why? Well do scientists not have to use their “imagination” to see how a certain muscle from a hind leg of a (50 million year old creature) would have moved in a creature deemed to be its modern day ancestor? Scientists are guilty of using their imagination but they're not the only ones. Religious people also use their imagination and have come up with a impressive body of myths and fairy tales for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But for you to equate the process of science (which works) to fairy tales betrays either woeful ignorance of how science works or deliberate misrepresentation. In either case you're in the wrong. Scientists use their imagination to come up with conceptual frameworks that explain observed facts. For example, scientists have come up with the theory of Gravity to explain the fact of gravity. Similarly, scientists have come up with the theory of Evolution to explain the fact of evolution. But what distinguishes fruitful product of human imagination from non-fruitful ones is empirical evidence. Science goes where the evidence leads. If the outcome of the imagination of scientists don't conform to the empirical evidence, the former must give way to the latter. Originally posted by The_Siren: An example of which is the that whole-Jurassic park bird fiasco that put it into the average Joes head that “birds” have indeed evolved from dinosaurs. Is that so? Well what was the evidence for this blasé attempt at understanding? Oh yes well its because one palaeontologist just happened to have found a Fossil (Archaeopteryx) which is thought to be the missing link between birds and reptiles First, it wasn't one specimen of Archeopteryx that was discovered but several over many years. Second, Archeopteryx is just but one evidence for the descent of modern birds from dinosaurs. Third, long before the theory of evolution and suggestions that birds descended from dinosaurs appeared, people including famous creationists like Linnaeus have been pointing out the close similarities between birds and reptiles. Fourth, the significance of Archeopteryx was that it solved the puzzle of how land-dwelling, flightless dinosaurs led to birds with wings capable of flight. Your insinuation above -- that scientists today believe birds descended from dinosaurs because and only because of Archeopteryx fossil -- demonstrates you're a novice and don't know what you're talking about. Originally posted by The_Siren: Now what these paradigms of unearthly scientific splendour perhaps seemed to have forgotten at the time is that modern day geese for example have also got teeth, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make but once again you're clueless. Birds don't have teeth. What they instead have is the genes that code for teeth and we occasionally see birds with teeth just like we occasionally see whales with hind legs. Evolution Theory beautifully explains these observations. Originally posted by The_Siren: there are also some species of birds living today which have claws on their wings. You mean birds like Hoatzin? The bird lives in the jungles of the Amazon and obviously needs to grasp trees. The fact that mother nature met this need by having it grow some claws is not anything unusual. After all we have some dinosaurs fossils showing clear birds features like feathers and airsacks then we found younger fossils of early birds that looked more like dinosaurs than birds and lastly we find even much younger fossils of modern birds with still identifiable dinosaur features. Birds like Hoatzin probably fits in the last category. Again, what is your point? Originally posted by The_Siren: Simply because of a superficial link one easilt comes to the conclusion that this is “proof” that birds came from dinosaurs? Well, you're simply mistaken. The evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs is massive and continuing to pile up. We have evidences from varied fields as paleontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, behavior, biogeography... all collaborating each other. Originally posted by The_Siren: Well my friends there is no fossil record to date where one can make an irrefutable claim that for example birds came from dinosaurs and thus equally and more humorously (much to the disdain of eager-Darwinists) humans from a greater ape. I'm curious, what kind of evidence will convince you that birds descended from dinosaurs? Second, humans DID descend from aep-like creatures and there is conclusive and "irrefutable" evidence if you so care to know I'm happy to disabuse you of your ignorance. Originally posted by The_Siren: Well its hard to just “believe” if the existence of a “water-tight” argument fails at a several hurdles. Ie, incomplete fossil records, genetic-irregulariti es (which is why neo-darwisnism came about because the initial theory of Darwin’s evolution-went against the basic principles of genetics altogether) First, the fossil record TODAY is more complete than it was a hundred years ago and will be more complete in the future. Second, most animals that ever lived never fossilized because their bodies were not made of hard stuff. Third, Evolution theory is in accord with genetics. So what genetic-irregulariti es are you on about it? Or are you just making stuff up again? Originally posted by The_Siren: …which brings me to idea of mutations if said mutations are to have a desired positive effect-ie for the purpose of natural selection? And thus survival then how come nearly every human mutation comes a direct result of “hindering” its subject. There you again. Pontificating on things you're ignorant of. The overwhelming majority of mutations are what's called point mutations and they're neither beneficial nor deleterious. So they can't be hindering anything. Instead, they slowly add to the genetic diversity of a population so that when there is environmental pressure for particular traits, Natural Selection can filter the advantageous traits. Originally posted by The_Siren: Ie Sickle cell (Don’t even mention the protective effects of malaria-when there is a 1 in four chance of conceiving a dead baby ie with fatal Sickle cell anaemia while the half carry it and other lot survives without the baggage of carrying a lethal condition. How on earth can that be a benefit? Sickle Cell anemia is a classic example of Natural Selection at work. In malaria prevalent zones, Sickle Cell trait was "selected" for. Why? Because people with only one allele for sickle cell condition were resistant to malarial infections; therefore that trait was selected for. The fact the condition is fatal when a person has the two alleles was worthy trade-off. Isn't Evolution Theory beautiful? It's ability to explain the diversity and puzzles of life is simply unparalleled. Originally posted by The_Siren: Another example is Down syndrome -you’d think that an increase in genetic material and thus increase in the complexity of an orgasm would enhance ones survival options as is suggested by Darwin’s own ideas but neigh-you find that quite the opposite, as today all significantly altering mutations existing within human actually occurs as a detriment to the species and not as an adaptive advantage. This is getting tiresome. Where did you read "an increase in genetic material and thus increase in the complexity of an orgasm would enhance ones survival options?" Dinosaurs were complex but no longer with us. Of course evolution or mutations had nothing to do with their extinction. Each one of us is born with a new set of mutations that we didn't inherit from our parents. These new mutations code for protiens that do pretty much that same thing but slightly differently. That's why we look different from each other otherwise we'll be clones. It is this diversity that natural selection acts upon when there is selective pressure not when "increase in genetic material or complexity." Moreover, Evolution is not directional, ie linear progression from less complex to more complex. And it's not purposeful. Originally posted by The_Siren: Furthermore to this-genetic alterations (mutations) can only ever occur within a set limit of existing genetic material and genetic material is not spontaneously produced like the X-men-(as Stan Lee’s Marvel Comics enterprise want to believe)…No, any deletions, duplications or crosslinking alterations which do occur all do so at the expense of shuffling about new information or…losing certain features/variations in a downward trend. Simply put- I will always be a black arsed qaxooti gazing up at the moon and much to my own chagrin will not sprout majestic wings Icarus himself would be proud of. This is classic creationist quibble and even though it's been explained to you guys countless times, you never get tired of repeating old debunked arguments. Genetic diversity is continuously added to the gene pool of a population. As you I pointed out earlier, you and everyone else is evidence for this fact as you have new mutations different from the ones you inherited from your parents. Originally posted by The_Siren: this notion of free will and does it truly exist? Not if the God of the Bible and Quran exists. There can be no free will in a world lorded over by an all knowing, omnipotent "creator" with free will who created everyone.

Originally posted by [Waranle]: Dear ramsade, But, leaving conceptual issues aside could you please discuss why sub-saharan african countries lag behind. There is no single factor/cause that's behind Africa's underdevelopment. Remember that Economics/Developmen t is not an exact science. You can't go into the laboratory and perform experiments to test our theories and predictions as a biologist or chemist would. Current policy prescriptions by economists and development experts are only inferences from past experience and available evidence which is limited. I tend to gravitate towards empirical studies. For instance, empirical studies show an inverted U-shaped relationship between GDP/capita and environmental pollution. In other words, poor countries have low pollution as they're not industrialized yet but as industrialization kicks-off pollution increases ultimately ebbing as the country reaches post-industrial stage (like in modern liberal democracies) where citizens demand cleaner environment. Other empirical studies show no conclusive relationship -- negative or positive -- between Aid/GDP or capita and growth. My developing point is you should look into empirical studies to gain insights about Africa's lack of development. As I said earlier this topic is very broad and encompasses many other fields outside of economics. Economic development is truly interdisciplinary field. Consequently, I can't give an account of Africa's underdevelopment in one or even several posts. A number of good reasons accounting for Africa's underdevelopment have been mentioned including a couple of mine in my last post. But if I was put on the spot and asked to give one cause above all else, I would say Africa's lack of development is owed to the absence of true agrarian reform. All once agrarian but now developed countries saw massive increases in agricultural productivity before industrialization commenced. In England, agricultural revolution proceeded industrial revolution. The East Asian (Taiwan, post-reform China, Japan, H. kong and South Korea) were built on the back of far-reaching agrarian reforms. India had its Green Revolution and a once famine prone country is now at least self-sufficient in food production. Even communist countries saw the goldmine peasants were sitting on and collectivized agricultural with the purpose of channeling savings (forced) into physical capital formation. No where is the need for agrarian reform in desperate need than in Africa. In the typical African country, agriculture provides employment for 80-90% of the labor force. Despite having some of the best lands and climate in the world, African agriculture is in a dismal state. Africa is the only continent in the world where agricultural output per capital has been declining for the past few decades leading to increasing food imports. Farming in Africa is subsistence oriented, small plot, employing primitive tools with very little modern inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation) and underdeveloped markets. As a result, Africans are stuck in a cycle of poverty. Agrarian reform will bring several benefits to Africa. First, reforms will increase productivity. With increased output hunger and malnutrition will be reduced significantly leading to further increases in productivity as healthy and well-fed worker is more productive. Second, extreme poverty will be dented because farmers now produce more and therefore make more money. Third, farmers will now have higher propensity to save. If governments use the right policy tools -- such as high interest rates to savers -- it can initiate self-sustaining industrialization. Keep in mind that the remarkable economic miracle of East Asian Tigers was not really remarkable nor miracolous if one closely looks at the data. East Asian Tigers had the same labor and technological growth rates as Africa; where they substantially differed was in physical capital. Physical capital are all the things you need to produce other things -- factories, machine tools, office buildings, ships and trains, tractors etc. If African countries could only increase their agricultural productivity and invest their savings in physical capital formation, they stand good chance of catching up with the rest of the developed world. Originally posted by [Waranle]: What is your catch on the population issue? Why is that despite the abundance of natural resources we are as poor as South Korea, Colombia were fifty years ago? I don't subscribe to the Malthusian nightmare theory. Africa is virtually empty continent in comparison to Asia. It can accommodate hundreds of millions more provided that agricultural productivity increases. With respect to the resource abundance conundrum, the Resource Curse theory provides convincing explanations for why seeming resource rich countries are so poor. Look into that theory for more insights.

^^The lazy argument along with its half-sister the cultural argument are long discredited. It was Max Weber and the Protestants who used to argue that the relative backwardness of Catholic Europe and the relative success of their Protestant counterparts was due to the superior Protestant work ethic. With the economic rise of Catholic Europe, that argument lost traction. There was also similar arguments averred for the inabilities of East Asian countries in realizing their potential. That argument went out of the window as well with the ascent of East Asian Tigers. So the effects of cultural proclivities on economic performance is never deterministic but contingent. It depends on other factors simultaneously at play. For that reason, one should never discount the role culture plays in economic development. Originally posted by [Waranle]: Ramsade, mmm, you make some good points worth exploring. I don't agree with the geographical disadvantage reasoning. Geographical disadvantage might not make imminent sense today with modern transport like airplanes, railroads and highways. But in the old days it made an immense difference. There were only two modes of transportation in the old days : by road or sea. Now, I don't need to expound on why transport by sea was more efficient and productive. Even today, most trade is done by sea on huge container ships. Thus, for trade to occur you needed navigable rivers that connected disparate villages, towns, cities and kingdoms. Trade would have allowed two things crucial for economic development. First, it would have initiated capital accumulation through trade or what Marxists call primitive accumulation. The challenge facing every developing country is securing capital -- to start new factories, build/improve infrastructure, pay civil servants and so on. In the old days before governments began issuing debts (bonds) and had more effective tax collection systems, this was done in two ways: 1)simply stealing from your neighbors and 2) trade. It is trade that African countries have missed out on. Second, even more important than trade was communication. Navigable rivers would have allowed for the diffusion of technology and ideas. The legacy of the lack of internal trade persists to this day. Africa nations have more barriers to trade amongst themselves than they do with the rest of the world. Originally posted by [Waranle]: ( I will be happy to e-mail you a conceptual paper that I am working on non-equilibirium paths to development which takes a historical approach) There's no need, I did my undergraduate in Economics with concentration in development. So I'm fully acquainted with Prebisch-Singer Hypothesis. And since you're into non-equilibrium (assuming by that you mean non-orthodox economics) paths, I recommend you read Prof. Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder (or anything else he writes). He's a South Korean who grew up during his country's remarkable economic miracle and is a critic of unfettered free trade championed by WTO and richer nations. Originally posted by [Waranle]: Why is it that KENYA is lagging when compared to South Korea? Why is Nigeria behind Saudi Arabia? Good questions but difficult to answer. I would start off first by not comparing African countries with non-African countries but with other economically successful countries in Africa like S. Africa, Botswana and Mauritius. What did they do that made them so successful?

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: By the way an atheist cannot really comment on what the shikes stood for, because you really will never get where they are coming from, What an astonishingly bigoted thing to say. Why can't a Somali Atheist comment on Somali history particularly one pertaining to shiikhs and understand what they stood for? Are Somali Atheists inferior beings? What inherent deficiencies prevent them from understanding Shiikhs? I know the ultimate source of this bigotry but I like to hear your reasoning. Originally posted by *Ibtisam: hence why you think them following Islamic laws is bigotry and misogyny. You'd be surprised at how much bigotry, misogyny and other discriminatory attitudes were defended on religious grounds in the past and continues to this day. During the 19th century at the height of the abolitionist movement, there were many Christians justifying slavery on the authority of the Bible while their Muslim counterparts were busy trading black slaves on the authority of the Quran. A little later during the Women's suffrage movement many in the West objected on the grounds that giving women the right to vote would lead to the breakdown of the family and whole hosts of other calamities. If history teaches us anything, there's always people justifying inequality and injustice on religious grounds. And just like their predecessors were defeated and discredited, so will those who currently defend bigotry and misogyny on religious basis.

Originally posted by Fabregas: It's funny how you speak(occasionally) to the Somalis on this forum: as if you're some atheist missionary who has come to civilize and teach them all the things they were not taught in your charles darwin boarding School. What is even more funnier and bizarre is your delusional contention that an anonymous guy on internet forum can actually "civilize" anyone. You don't even know me. Nothing I write here is ever credited to me. I know, as a literal believer, it is in your nature to accept ideas on the authority of others, even if you don't know the others. But let me assure that I'm not here to tell you what to believe and I'm certainly not here to "civilize" you; just expressing my views like everyone else. We're operating in a virtual reality! If you don't like what I have to say, relief is always a mouse click away. Originally posted by Fabregas: Examples include; your pseudo rationalisation in trying to deny Xabashis crossed into Beledweyn. According to the enlightened and liberal, Raamsade, "damn it vas a ze clan militia Alshabab who took Beledweyn and terrorised ze civilians I swear on my beloved Charles Darwin it wasn't them(xabashis)". And then there was you pseudo intellectual celebration of the Tabliq scholars murder with the other athesit nutjob peacenow. "Zey were brobabably terrorist is becuz ze are baakistan and ze having is beardis". So, this is the source of your bizarre and half-crazed outbursts above. You're nursing hurt feelings and grudges over what I've said in other threads. Rather than be brave and express you disagreements right there and then, you skulk and stew. Are you coward, Febragas? A dear advice: never let your emotions get the better of you. Else, you end up making a fool out of yourself. Originally posted by Fabregas: Now comes your historical revisionism in summing u the entire history of Andalus and the subsequent inquisiton to a mere liberation of natives from Islamic Jihadism. Khasaro, Qashin.com, recyled neocon thoughts, indeed. Everything I said is supported by historical documentation including Muslim sources. But since you accused me of revisionism, o you Brave Febragas, could you back it up with historical documentation? The following is the established facts regarding the history of the Iberian peninsula: 1. The peninsula was under Visigothic Christians 2. Rapidly expanding Islamic Empire conquered the peninsula as part of Jihad against unbelievers. 3. Almost immediately, within few years, the Reconquista commenced with various native Christians attempting to regain control of the peninsula for the Christians. 4. Muslim forces were ultimately defeated and expelled from Al-Andalusia in 1492 (Granada was the Muslim's last stand). Do you disagree with any of the above?

Originally posted by Norfsky: quote: And there is cornucopia of evidence supporting it PLEASE PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!! What type of evidence are you looking for? There's so much evidence for human evolution from varied fields as: paleontology (fossils), biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, comparative behavior and so on. Being asked such question makes me feel like the lone mosquito in a nudist colony... where do I start?! I'm more than willing to adduce all the available evidence for human evolution with the caveat that you must also adduce evidence for Islam's Theory of Special Creation. It is only fair to test whether you can comply with the same standards you expect from others.

In a shock decision Fifa has banned Chelsea from signing new players till 2011. Is there any precedent for this type of ban? Two transfer window bans seems harsh to me although Chelsea can cope with 'em. read more on the ban at the guardian

This announcement by the elders is more in line with the desires and interests of the people of Hiiraan than the mad follies of Sh. Macow. Alshabaab and their junior partners in crime Xisbul Islam have declared war on Somaliland, Puntland, Ahlu Sunna wal jameeca; they also invaded all other independent parties like the UIC administrations in Sh. Dhexe(jowhar in particular) and Hiiraan. Thus, there is no middle path in this imbroglio. You're either with the government (best alternative) or with Alshabaab. No independent administration in Hiiraan would be save from being invaded by Alshabaab. The elders, for one of the few times, made the correct decision for their people.

Originally posted by Nabaddoon: I just stated my opinion of these honorable men who stood up for what they believed in. They believed in bigotry and misogyny which it seems you share with them. I think they deserved any reprimand that came their way just not capital punishment. Too harsh in my view. That episode highlights unsavory aspect of organized religions -- they're fundamentally and irremediably anti-human progress. No human progress, irrespective of the type, is possible under the rule of organized religions.

Originally posted by GAAROODI: al andalus....if you only new its history. Yes, we do. It was former Christian land that was conquered by Muslim armies in a Jihad against unbelievers who eventually used it (al andalusia) as launching pad for the invasion of the rest of Europe (which they failed at the Battle of Tours). After subjugating and oppressing the natives for centuries, they ultimately rose up and expelled their Muslim overlords. There is more to it of course but that's the history of al andalusia in a nutshell.

Originally posted by G G: Now I would like to talk to you about GOD and this world. Which God? There are so many. Originally posted by G G: How do you think we came to be? Did we really evolve from monkeys as those textbooks tell us? Where have you read those textbooks? No textbook in any accredited and reputable school teaches humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution Theory teaches us that we, humans, and monkeys have evolved from a common ape-like creature. And there is cornucopia of evidence supporting it unlike the creation myth found in Abrahamic religions. Perhaps you should real science books. Originally posted by G G: Where is God In the human imagination. Originally posted by G G: and is there any way we can prove His existence? No, you can't prove the existence what doesn't exist. BTW, in your second post you have touched on so many subjects that no coherent reply will do. Do you wanna pick a point or two and base your argument on them? Also, one doesn't need to know anything about science, the origin of the universe or philosophy for one to reject any religion. This is because any believe system is judged based on its claims. Most religious claims are too absurd to be taken seriously, so I and others have no compulsion in rejecting them.

Africa is not poor, it is actually spectacularly rich. It's just not industrialized. I think what you were getting at was pervasive and chronic underdevelopment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Whole volumes can be (and have been) written on the subject, so nothing we write here will do it true justice. Some of the reasons for Africa's underdevelopment have already been mentioned. I'll mention a couple of more. Africa is geographically disadvantaged. Compared to Europe and Asia, Africa has fewer navigable rivers although it's home to some of the largest rivers in the world (Nile, Zambezi, Niger, Congo etc). Even Adam Smith recognized the importance of rivers for transportation. Without easily accessible mode of transportation, commerce is dead. Looking back in history, most important cities and civilizations were built along the banks of rivers or by the sea/ocean. Whether the Yangtze in China, Indus in India, Euphrates in Iraq, Nile in Egypt or Mediterranean sea for the Greek city states. Water is still important to today's economies as more than 80% of the world's trade is done via shipping over the oceans. A related disadvantage most modern African states face is lack of access to the sea. Africa has more landlocked countries than any other continent in the world hampering trade. Adding to the woes of African countries is the prevalence of weak states. Most African states are too weak to formulate and implement necessary reforms and policies even if governments were entirely benevolent and competent. States in Africa can barely collect taxes, provide basic social services or have absolute monopoly on violence and coercion. Virtually all late industrializing countries (East Asians, Soviet Union, Germany etc) relied on strong state to direct and guide development. Strong state is all the more instrumental today than at any time in the past.

Both hostages ultimately fell into the hands of Alshabaab-Al-Qaeda terrorists. If it had been negotiated deal, both men would have been freed. This is why I think there is some validity to the escape story.

Muuse Cabaade was always a mouthpiece for others, I doubt he'd make big fuss over what his new masters tell him to do.

Originally posted by Somali09: Hi, This has led me to become an ATHEIST. Is there anyone here who shares my opinions? Wlc to Somali Atheist club. You have a right to belief whatever you please even though Islam doesn't allow such right. There is no freedom of religion in Islam. The punishment for apostasy is death in Islam. They stone apostates to death in Iran and Alshabaab slaughters converts to Christianity like goats. So much for "there is no compulsion in religion." But the more pressing issue is your Somali credentials. While I don't like pandering to Somali's bottomless cynicism and paranoia I think this one deserves an allowance. So, what say you? I think the best way to get them off your back is to claim some laandheer clan, badmouth other clans/regions, get original somali moniker (I humbly suggest diinlaawe) and choose Somali region/city as your location. Look at me, I got plausible deniability. I got classic name for moniker and a Somali gobol for location.

Originally posted by Nur: 1. You ask what happens to those who don't worship, yet, a definition of what constitutes WORSHIP is not needed, since we all have a rough idea of what it means ( Good enough for government work) because a proper definition as per a common dictionary is muddying the water, making the argument less clear, thus, a rough idea of the concept is better than a well defined meaning in a discussion. I have substantial experience debating religious folks, especially Muslims, and one thing I've learned is that whenever the going of the debate gets tough, expect red herrings and obfuscations. They're deflection strategies designed to disguise the fact they're losing the debate. Twice I asked you to answer the question: why does God promise hellfire for those who refuse to worship him? Instead of replying to my question you launched a superfluous exercise in defining the word worship. You could have answered my question, instead you chose otherwise. It smacks of dishonesty and I got annoyed. I debate honestly and expect the same from others. Now, could you answer the question asked of you (see above paragraph) thrice thusfar? Originally posted by Nur: 2. An answer of "why Worship"?, can come either from me or from God. When I give an answer to this question, you don't accept, because you need God's answer, yet, for you, God does not Exist, so, you require an answer from someone you believe He does not exist. Two things. First, I want the honest answer; not the watered down version for modern consumption. You know, the version that chimes with modern sensibilities and logic. It's pretty clear that worshiping of Allah is central to Islam and the whole existence of humans on earth is to submit to Allah's will and commandments. Those who obey and worship Allah are promised heaven in the hereafter and those who refuse will go to hell. If you were honest and not bound by religious dogma, you would admit that Allah is indeed needy (why else would he punish those who refuse to obey him?). Rather, we witness the painful mental contortionism from you which goes like: humans worship God to show respect but God will send them to hell if they don't show enough respect. Like I said earlier, it is the price that religious dogma exacts on the faithful. Dogma forces people to accept absurd and contradictory positions. But the more overarching point (philosophical) I was trying to make was that there can be no "reason" for God to command or prohibit anything. If God says don't eat pork, then that is it. There can't be any "reason" for the prohibition because God doesn't use reasoning to make decision. That's what humans do. When you ask for the reason God prohibited or commanded X, Y or Z, you're anthropomorphizing God. This is playing right into the hands of those who say humans invented Gods in their own image. Secondly, I don't agree with any of the core Islamic precepts nor do I believe in Allah. But you do! And I'm debating you. It is perfectly legitimate for me to expose weaknesses in your argument even if that means I cite Allah here and there. Originally posted by Nur: 3. God does not exist, because, if he did, he will not need to be worshiped, he needs to be worshiped, because he punishes those who do not worship Him, hence He does not exist. Actually, no. God doesn't appear to exist because there is no good evidence or reason in support of His existence. The contradiction between His attributes and demands is only the icing on the cake. When something is internally self-refuting and contradictory, it is usually a good sign it is false. Furthermore, the contradiction between a needy and a perfect God is just but one of several. Another obvious contradiction would be Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnipotent (all powerful) God. These are contradictory attributes. And yet another would be a Just and Merciful God. I chose the contradiction between apparently needy and perfect God for its pertinence to this thread. There are so many contradictory attributes of God (the God of Islam, Christianity and Judaism) that one can, on that fact alone, reject God. But that in my view is insufficient; I look for evidence as well. And I find none for God's existence. Originally posted by Nur: which boils down to two possibilities: that you are either created by your parents who are intelligent, or the Universe which is comprehensible but NOT in itself intelligent, since an intelligent Universe that creates complex beings like yourself, indirectly implies a God. I'm a product of my parents and as humans we're product of evolution. The earth, universe and all else that exist are governed by invariant natural laws. There is no evidence for a God behind my "creation" or the workings of our world. Your obsession with a creator bespeaks of your inability or unwillingness to deal with reality. You remind of the saying: "God is imaginary friend for grownups." We're all alone in this world and it's all we got; lets make the best of it. Originally posted by Nur: 4. If you have lived during the Biblical times, and have seen the miracles of Moses and Jesus, you would have believed in God, Yes. And you forgot the miracles of Mohammed like splitting the moon. But why Biblical times only? Why can't God send some miracles to us today so he can dispel our doubts and open our eyes? Instead we got the Amazing Shrinking God. 2000 years ago God was busy displaying his powers with all sorts of miracles like burning bushes, parting of the seas, walking on water and splitting the moon during Mohammed's time. Today, we got no comparable miracles. That alone should give you some thoughts. Originally posted by Nur: but, all of the scriptures are fiction, nothing in them is true, its all human concocted stories and not true hence, there is No God. Not everything in scriptures are untrue but stuff about afterlife, hell and heaven, God and dogmas are untrue.