Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[Abtigiis]

Dear Naden,

 

(1) The search for where we came from and how we become what we are today(which I think is the essence of evolutionary theories) is tantamount to an expensive research launched by an adult man who wants to know the details of what happened the night he was sired. Among the reasrch questions will be:

 

-Was the mother on top that particular evening

 

- Did the event took place in the sitting room or in the bedroom

 

- What are the chances that he( the offspring) would have been a She, had he been concieved at the third shot and not at the first round as his null hypothesis said

 

What I am trying to say there (and please don't mind the cheeky nature of the analogy) is that I fee l the discussion on evolution is trivial and has little practical relevance in our lives today. It is really inconsequential to the life of the adult above to know how he came about and while the exercise of knowing this fact might be enchanting, the end result adds little value. As such, little do I read about Darwin et al.

 

The fact that I don't know much about this subject doesn't mean I play second fiddle to you in other areas. For example, I know Enrique Iglasias is going to be the replacement for Javier Mascherano in the Argentine soccer team that is struggling to qualify. I know Antonio Banderas is the new coach of the Basque side Osasuna. I know Craig Bellamy is the distant relative of Lakhdar Ballomy of Algeria.

 

 

(2) Look at some of your reasoning in your attempt to prove the theories of evolution are more sound than the decalrations of Holy texts.

You said: In 1998, he did a turnabout and published a book called 'My Father Adam' where he contends that Adam, the first creature, may NOT be Adam, the nabi, mentioned in the Quran.....I read the book when it came out and it is very thin on science. And there is a strong suspicion that a seminal part is lifted directly from a more learned Syrian scholar. Nonetheless, Shaheen essentially agrees that present man evolved from 'less-formed' series of ancestors. .

 

Now, tell me how is this going to prove anything. You didn't say what truth the said daaci-turned-Darwin man stumbled upon!!! It is not enough proof of the validity of the evolution theories that one man who was religious turned away from what he used to believe in. It is like me telling you that Yusuf Islam (Cat Steven) was a non-believer, but finally found the light and hence Islam is the true path. Isn't it?

 

You again said: Since we share nearly 95% of our DNA with present day chimpanzees, is it so far fetched that we would have a common ancestor? There is evidence of the genus, Homo, across several continents, and it is thought to have branched off from a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago.

 

Again, it is 'it is thought' blah blah. Who thought? This sounds like George Charamba's column on the sunday herald here where he makes outrageous references to ghostly analysts who 'thought' that Morgan Tsvangari's move to join the inclusive government is a plot hatched up by the colonial West to undermine the Third Chimuranga (liberation). Not that there is a problem in the assertion by itself, but the analogy with Naden here is that both are referring to one side of the debate to sell their points.

 

Well, Naden, It is also thought that since no one knows the common ancestor you are alluding to, it must be GOD! How about that for a reply to your outrageous nonesense!!!!!

 

(3) There is no harm in you trying to impart knowledge on what you know and what you say is no doubt fascinating, but to throw at us as facts proven beyond reasonable doubt is a bit too insulting to our intelligene, if you can concede we have any.

[Ms DD]

I see the atheists came out to play. Why we have to listen to nacnacdooda..I will never know. Yes, you left your faith and there are others like you, so be gone with your cries. We have our faith and you are faithless, so lets move on!

[Qandalawi]

11 pages, gosh this is too much to read!

 

How many atheists do we have in SOL, please list them for me so I know, I hardly visit this site. Do this service for me as your Muslim brother so that I know them next time when I engage with them Kufaarta.

[Abtigiis]

^ So far inta la hubo,

 

Naden

JohnnyB

Ramsade

Cara/Arac

Somalia09

Warsame -kani waa Gaal quamn (Christian)

 

Inta aan la hubin laakin laga shakisan yahay,

 

Ngonge

Mr.Somalia

 

Inta Muslinka ah ee la hubo

 

Sheekh Nuur

Aaliyah

Haneefah

 

 

Sidaa ula soco, DucaQabe!

[N.O.R.F]

^Naden is a believer (she has already stated as such).

 

Originally posted by Naden:

Norfsky, I am not really sure what sort of answer you're searching for when you haven't examined some of the evolutionary evidence yourself. Even a wiki and some googling maybe better than nothing at this stage.

 

Since we share nearly 95% of our DNA with present day chimpanzees, is it so far fetched that we would have a common ancestor? There is evidence of the genus,

Homo

, across several continents, and it is thought to have branched off from a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago.

 

I'll give you an example of a debate that has been raging among muslim scholars in the face of this evidence. Abdel-Saboor Shaheen, a Muslim Scholar and well-known Daciya, waged a war of sorts in the early 90s against some Muslim scientists who agreed that early versions existed of today's man. He argued that these theories contradicted religious texts' conception of Adam (much like what his Christian counterparts do).

 

In 1998, he did a turnabout and published a book called 'My Father Adam' where he contends that Adam, the first creature, may NOT be Adam, the nabi, mentioned in the Quran.

 

I read the book when it came out and it is very thin on science. And there is a strong suspicion that a seminal part is lifted directly from a more learned Syrian scholar. Nonetheless, Shaheen essentially agrees that present man evolved from 'less-formed' series of ancestors.

 

This complete turnabout earned him the expected wrath of other muslim scholars and daciya. Fortunately for him, the very writers he was accusing of kufr and testifying against in courts came to his aid with support. Curiously, he continues to wage his takfeeri war against anyone with whom he disagrees.

 

One or two Muslim scholars are now postulating that the appearance of

Homo Sapiens

(sapien is Latin for intelligent) is nafkh el-roh into the less intelligent ancestor. They argue that this is how God preferred Adam's lineage over others.

 

Frankly, Norf, and please don't take offense with this but I'm not sure what you can gain from engaging in evolution discussions when you're so woefully misinformed.

 

I say use this passion that you have to gain some insights based on knowledge. Others may learn something from you as well.

Naden,

 

Unfortunately you seem to have adopted the very same tactics being employed by the other evolutionists in this thread. I was hoping for a more fruitful discussion even if I what I have read is solely from the net.

 

What you have done there is state that you believe Humans have a common ancestor with Chimps. You’re entitled to that opinion. However, what I was looking for here is answers to the questions raised by creationists. None on this forum have attempted that yet. Requesting me to read and research around the topic is not what debating is about. What I would expect as a minimum is some sort of rebuttal to the following from your favourite Turk.

 

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

 

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 4 to 5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic "categories" are listed:

 

1. Australopithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australopithecus)

 

2. Homo habilis

 

3. Homo erectus

 

4. Homo sapiens

 

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged "Australopithecus", which means "southern ape". Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built (robust), while others are smaller and delicate (gracile).

 

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very much different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo.

 

Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be.

 

Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.69

 

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia", it was reported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise

the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia" 70

 

Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

 

Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

 

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

evolutiondeceit.com

[Cara.]

Norfsky, you don't seem to understand how debates work. You can only have a debate when people who have done their research on a topic present differing viewpoints on that same topic. When one person is self-admittedly ignorant about something, except for what they've read in propaganda leaflets, and demonstrates their failure to grasp even simple elements of the topic, then things get a little tedious. Of course, your argument would be, "why do I have to read about evolution from an evolutionist's perspective when I don't even believe in it?"

 

The answer is two-fold.

 

1. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory proposed and accepted by biologists everywhere (yes, Muslims too). For you to know nothing about it except what non-biologists write on their websites is a true disservice to yourself. Go learn something about it because it is the paradigm on which modern biology is based. Even you don't want to accept it, every layperson should have a general knowledge of contemporary scientific theories.

 

2. The other reason is that it facilitates discussion and the true exchange of ideas. Even if you don't believe in evolution, you want to know as much about it as you can so that most of the time isn't spent correcting gross misconceptions instead of getting to the good stuff. It would be like me engaging in a debate about Islam and asking-

 

If Adam's parents were angels, as every Muslim must believe, how come we don't have wings?

 

Why does Islam call for daily beatings of little girls? That's what it says in a Christian anti-Islam booklet I skimmed today, and I trust these people know everything about Islam so I don't have to!

 

If the Qur'an is the inerrant word of god, why are there no mention of aliens? Aliens are real, because I was abducted by a spaceship last weekend, yet the Qur'an fails to mention this simple fact!

 

Fielding such questions would be tedious and irritating, wouldn't they? How can you have a discussion about tawheed, good and evil, the purpose of man and other truly interesting and profound aspects of your faith if you're busy explaining that Islam doesn't prescribe child beatings?

 

Case in point, your cut and paste above:

 

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time.

Can you see where the failure in logic happens here? Go on, pretend for an instant that you're a biologist and see why this is not a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. One important skill in debates is to understand and present your opponent's line of argument as they would likely have presented it themselves. So I bet you're thinking, "Well, I guess a biologist would say here that Homo erectus didn't go up in a puff of smoke just because one line of descendants branched off to become different species. Anymore than that my family in Somalia cease to exist because I moved to Britain and become a British citizen."

 

Well done! Now you will raise more interesting questions, like "then how did speciation occur? Why would Homo sapiens branch off if Homo erectus is still loitering around and possibly interbreeding with Homo sapiens?" And I will feel put on the spot and actually have to think!

[Castro]

^^^^ Hush, you son* of a chimp.

 

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tolka:

^ So far inta la hubo,

 

Naden

JohnnyB

Ramsade

Cara/Arac

Somalia09

Warsame -kani waa Gaal quamn (Christian)

 

Inta aan la hubin laakin laga shakisan yahay,

 

Ngonge

Mr.Somalia

 

Inta Muslinka ah ee la hubo

 

Sheekh Nuur

Aaliyah

Haneefah

Actually, Mr. Viagra, so far, and though it's only the first quarter, the uninquisitive sons of Adam are down by three touchdowns and a field goal to the descendants of apes. Surely one team brought their Pro Bowlers and the other brought the cheerleaders.

 

* Hola señorita (señora? ), que passo?

[Mr. Somalia]

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tolka:

 

Inta aan la hubin laakin laga shakisan yahay,

 

Ngonge

Mr.Somalia

^^

 

Horta, let me begin by first proclaiming, for ALL to see, that I bear witness that there is no god except Allah(SWT). And I ALSO bear witness that Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) is indeed the last messenger of Allah.

 

Now, A&T-- Xabashyahow Orthodoxka ah-- waa dambe sheekadaas raqiiska ah yaana lagaa maqlin!

 

p.s

A&T ninyahow, ma iga hubtaa that this thread's flaming infidel, Arac is indeed our Cara? :confused:

[N.O.R.F]

Cara,

 

I’m assuming you have been following this thread. A little re-cap is required none the less.

 

What we have requested from the Atheists, on a number of occasions, is what they believe to be the origins of humans. This was presented to us by Raamsade. He said Humans descended from Apes or Ape-like creatures. Subsequently, I posted an excerpt from a book by one of evolution’s main modern era opponents. Naden and you object to my use of HY’s work. What you both seem to find contentious in his work is not clear. All you’ve stated is that he is merely wrong and I should take your word for it and read more on the subject (something you both seem to have spent years studying). However, there are others doing the same thing (writing about evolution’s short-comings).

 

Now is that what you would call a debate? “I know more than you so will not engage you until you have done your share of reading”. A debate does no necessarily require both parties to be ‘read-up’ on the subject. It requires both parties to try and PROVE they are correct. So far, there has been reluctance from your side however tedious it may feel for you. Merely stating this person’s opinion won’t wash because he/she is wrong doesn’t do justice to your years as a biologist.

 

Your inference that this theory is accepted by all biologists everywhere doesn’t answer the questions asked either. The same questions which have led to state schools accepting that evidence is indeed limited and that evolution will now be taught as a theory only and no longer as fact. Propaganda? Have a number of biologists not reverted from their pro evolution stance over the years? You see, what I see and hear in the news or on the net indicate that the evolution theory has been challenged without much in the way of a fight back from Darwinists. Maybe you believe the opposite to be true but until you state how and why you think this, I will have no option but to believe what I see and hear.

 

What you will need to accept is that not everyone has studied the subject or read any books on it. However, there should always be a ‘reasonable’ threshold for those more informed to at least attempt answering what to them may be the most basic of questions/common misconceptions (something we have been doing on anything Islam for our resident nay sayers). This has not occurred here. You haven’t even attempted answering my earlier questions.

 

If however you feel I’m not worthy then that's up to you but those questions won’t disappear.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tolka:

Dear Naden,

 

(1) The search for where we came from and how we become what we are today(which I think is the essence of evolutionary theories) is tantamount to an expensive research launched by an adult man who wants to know the details of what happened the night he was sired. Among the reasrch questions will be:

 

-Was the mother on top that particular evening

 

- Did the event took place in the sitting room or in the bedroom

 

- What are the chances that he( the offspring) would have been a She, had he been concieved at the third shot and not at the first round as his null hypothesis said

 

What I am trying to say there (and please don't mind the cheeky nature of the analogy) is that I fee l the discussion on evolution is trivial and has little practical relevance in our lives today. It is really inconsequential to the life of the adult above to know how he came about and while the exercise of knowing this fact might be enchanting, the end result adds little value. As such, little do I read about Darwin et al.

 

The fact that I don't know much about this subject doesn't mean I play second fiddle to you in other areas. For example, I know Enrique Iglasias is going to be the replacement for Javier Mascherano in the Argentine soccer team that is struggling to qualify. I know Antonio Banderas is the new coach of the Basque side Osasuna. I know Craig Bellamy is the distant relative of Lakhdar Ballomy of Algeria.

 

 

(2) Look at some of your reasoning in your attempt to prove the theories of evolution are more sound than the decalrations of Holy texts.

You said:

In 1998, he did a turnabout and published a book called 'My Father Adam' where he contends that Adam, the first creature, may NOT be Adam, the nabi, mentioned in the Quran.....I read the book when it came out and it is very thin on science. And there is a strong suspicion that a seminal part is lifted directly from a more learned Syrian scholar. Nonetheless, Shaheen essentially agrees that present man evolved from 'less-formed' series of ancestors.

.

 

Now, tell me how is this going to prove anything. You didn't say what truth the said daaci-turned-Darwin man stumbled upon!!! It is not enough proof of the validity of the evolution theories that one man who was religious turned away from what he used to believe in. It is like me telling you that Yusuf Islam (Cat Steven) was a non-believer, but finally found the light and hence Islam is the true path. Isn't it?

 

You again said:

Since we share nearly 95% of our DNA with present day chimpanzees, is it so far fetched that we would have a common ancestor? There is evidence of the genus, Homo, across several continents, and it is thought to have branched off from a common ancestor approximately 5-7 million years ago.

 

Again, it is 'it is thought' blah blah. Who thought? This sounds like George Charamba's column on the sunday herald here where he makes outrageous references to ghostly analysts who 'thought' that Morgan Tsvangari's move to join the inclusive government is a plot hatched up by the colonial West to undermine the Third Chimuranga (liberation). Not that there is a problem in the assertion by itself, but the analogy with Naden here is that both are referring to one side of the debate to sell their points.

 

Well, Naden, It is also thought that since no one knows the common ancestor you are alluding to, it must be GOD! How about that for a reply to your outrageous nonesense!!!!!

 

(3) There is no harm in you trying to impart knowledge on what you know and what you say is no doubt fascinating, but to throw at us as facts proven beyond reasonable doubt is a bit too insulting to our intelligene, if you can concede we have any.

This Abtigiis & Tolka has some compelling points for Ethiests to contemplate. Will they listen, I ask?

[Cara.]

Norfsky, since we can't even seem to agree on the best way to partake in a discussion, let's agree to disagree and save ourselves the trouble.

 

Nada Castro, and for the correct salutation, please consult Ngonge

[5]

I am back! It feels like I've been away for ages Hope you believers had a wonderful Eid. I sure did alhamdulillaah

 

Because my jokes and references to popular culture are obviously going to waste here, I'm going to button up my coat and sit straight with an expressionless face. Lets roll out the red carpet for some serious seriousness.

 

Ramsaade wrote:

 

 

Your current knowledge of dinosaurs comes from the fossil record not what scientists speculate. Deal with the evidence for Evolution!

 

This doesn't make sense. We know dinosaurs were alive because we have the fossil evidence. Beyond that ---> a lot of speculation and suggestions but no real hard evidence.

 

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?

 

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.

 

The evidence above (for human evolution) and the other evidence you ignored for the transition between between dinosaurs and birds.

 

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?

 

So, you see the chances of any false finding being readily accepted by the scientific community is fleetingly small.

 

This was not my point with my sarcastic remarks. If you remember, you originally said that scientists are guilty of using their imagination but that they weren't the only ones. Then you concluded: "Scientists use their imagination to come up with conceptual frameworks that explain observed facts". --> Scientists use their imagination but they use it for good cause. I thought this was conceited and flawed, and whenever this happens, the little devil called sarcasm kicks in.

 

I said at the time when Darwin was fervent abolitionist, Muslims, especially arabs muslims were selling and buying black African slaves with alacrity.

 

Posted by Ramsaade on September 18, 2009 05:01AM:

Muslims of his time were dealing in slavery, specially black Negroes like yourself.

 

This is complete non sequitur as it doesn't logically follow from anything previously written. I didn't say anything about Muslim slaves

 

Logically thinking I'm not Muslim?

 

Evolutionary Theory postulates that all currently living organisms evolved from one or few original living organisms.

 

Your source, please (the text in italic)

 

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.

 

You're probably not familiar with Ernst Mayr's 'What Evolution is'. In the preface Dr. J. Diamond says there isn't a better book about evolution and there won't be.

In it, Mayr says the approach of stripping every phenomenon down to a gene and trying to follow up evolutionarily route is doomed to fail. 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.

 

Now. Should I believe your explanation of evolutionary theory, or Ernst Mayr's?

 

I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i s.

 

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.

 

You can bash creationists as much as you want. This doesn't take away the fact that you have no knowledge of the evolutionary theory. I deliberately refrained from using any names, and you gave the core of incidents, to see how you would respond. You were not familiar with some of the best known forgeries in evolution: the Piltdown Man & the Nebraska Man, you did not know SJ Gould's reaction to Archaeopteryx, my dumbing down of words lead you to miss the truth in my X-men remark (saltation).

 

De Vries's Mutation Theory, which is NOT taught in schools

 

Please point out where I claimed it was.

 

(meaning you're reading this nonesense from Creationist websites), has long been discredited and we know have better knowledge about genetics.

 

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.

 

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?

 

And this is why I don't call myself a creationist. I call myself a Muslim. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, as that's what Christians believe, as they did some maths based on certain verses of the Bible and that's the number they came up. I don't have to sweat that. The planet can be 600 billion years for as much as I care. The Quran doesn't mention dinosaurs, so your argument is void.

 

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.

 

I told you my reason - and what makes you think I didn't?

 

I gave a list of those transitional fossils. And you accuse me of copy and pasting. You're a joke and charlatan.

 

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.

 

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?

 

"Expect to be taken seriously" by whom? Who are you referring to? The readers? You see many people are being taken seriously undeservingly, and many people are ridiculed wrongfully. I'm not concerned with such things.

 

Who preceded Australopithecus?

 

For the record, Australopithecus is NOT the ancestor of modern chimpazees.

 

Just answer the above question.

 

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.

 

At first I wondered why you left out my question which was essential, but then I realized you needed to throw in a few more ad hominems to sound more convincing.

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. 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?

 

Radiometric dating.

 

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?

 

Mutation, along with Theory, means different thing to a scientists than to a layman

 

Which one are you?

 

This is what I've been trying to tell you all along and it seems you have missed or ignored it completely.

 

Please state where. Otherwise I take it you are lying.

 

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.

 

I take it you are the layman. The cell's machinery detects the errors and fixes them. Some errors slip through and that's how many cancers begin.

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.

 

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.

 

You're very desperate to show everyone around you, aren't you? To prevent you from committing ad hominem in your future posts, I will continue the list of all the things GG is, for you: a bonehead, dork, jerk, nitwit, twit, half-wit, dimwit, fathead, silly, goof, imbecile, pinhead, moron, simpleton, fool. Now that that is established and out of the way, we can continue without further speculations of my lack of intelligence.

 

You originally wrote: "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."

 

Mutations do occur but the cells machinery fixes them, as I explained earlier, therefore we don't really have mutations. It's like a burglar trying to brake into your house but your home security making it impossible. He keeps trying, but that doesn't mean you have a burglar in the house. If mutations do slip through, we are not a new specie but a new patient. As a general rule of thumb, if a mutation is passed on to offspring, they will suffer accordingly.

 

These questions are irrelevant to Evolution Theory since the theory assumes the existence of one or few living organisms.

 

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?

 

What do you mean free will is not real for Him? Are you saying God doesn't have free will?

 

God does what He pleases, your free will is real for you (it exists for you) but not for Him (He has predetermined what happens to you). The reason why we are servants of Allah is because we accept He is greater than us, we accept we are nothing without Him and we can never be as great as Him, so we surrender to Him and pray and hope He will be good to us, for He has the power to destroy any flourishing empire and turn its streets into mere dust, just like He has the power to create that flourishing empire. We have no power, He alone has all power.

 

I feel this is appropriate:

 

And most of them do not follow (anything) but conjecture; surely conjecture will not avail aught against the truth; surely Allah is cognizant of what they do.

Surah 10:36

[genius pauper.]

^^^^ i did thought that mr.somali was a muslim,,... when i read some part of this thread.

 

naxnu naxkumu dawaahir, wallaahu yatawala asaraa'ir.

 

MASHA ALLAH.

[Somali09]

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tolka:

I don't see any difference of this scientist from a prophet. None of them offer irrefutable concerete evidence.

 

My cosmic inurance policy or what I call Iiman is helping me to be a good person in this world whatever happens in the next.

 

Somalia09,

I don't know what you are missing. But life without faith must be so void. Me thinks.

So why are you so quick to accept prophets and their fantastical stories without an ounce of evidence?

 

Cosmic insurance policy? Isnt this similar to hedging your bets - just incase God does exist.

What if that god turns out to be Apollo or Baal or Ra?

 

Actually I find not having a faith quite liberating and makes me a better person. Let me ask you hypothetically:

If somehow we are able to produce irrefutable concrete evidence that there is NO god, would you go out and start committing robbery, murder and rape???

[Chocolate and Honey]

I see, what you're after is nac nac iyo wallowing not a decent debate. Please go elsewhere with your fruitless lectures of "liberation." Either you beleive or you dont. Simple. In this case you dont. If you're so liberated and you have seen the light, one would assume that you have better and higher things to acheive, now that a "non-existant diety" is holding you back,no? For your own sake, please stop this rubish, it really makes you sound disoriented and bitter.