The Chad skull (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis aka Toumai) created a raging controversy indeed. Its period (6 - 7 million years) is not in question. It seems the only question asked now is whether the 'Chad Skull' belonged to early human or ape. The refuters telling that the skull belongs to a different species other than homo-sapiens and their rivals assert that the skull is of an early human. Each group have their own arguments and still nobody could prove anything. Toumai appears to be a ticking bomb in the very foundation of 'humans from earlier apes' theory. It would be a fun to hear that early Humans lived couple of million years before 'evolution of humans from apes' took place.! Wow, let's dig deep & find some skulls of humans inside the stomach of some fossilized skeletons of Dinosaurus Rex.
If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
I think Raithere and James have both answerd the post very similarly. So I will respond to Raithere's post on this one, but please James, interrupt us anytime you think you have a question.
What you are describing is an incomplete science. A 50% effort. Let me explain using my field of knowledge again. As a water resource engineer. I can't simply say that water simply exist in abundance, thus I will limit my study to hydraulics, the science of water/fluid behavior. This is absurd, because without knowing the source from which the water comes from and the process by which it transports in the system....I will not be able to assess the full magnitude of my problem. Thus water resource engineers study hydrology, Meteorology, and hydraulics. Yet, mechanical engineers only study hydraulics. They could care less where the fluids come from, yet they will give you in detail equation after equation in regards to the complex behavior of fluids under several flow regimes that being laminar, turbulent, or transient. Just like evolutionists, they could care less where the water comes from, yet they'll classify life without knowing the definition or source of life. That's an incomplete science. A disaster waiting to happen.
Do you see what I'm talking about??. You are not a bit concerned with studying the science of our land health. Why is our universe seeded with life? why is this life balanced? And how can you answer any of those questions without knowledge in regards to the source of this life? How would you know anything about the shape of our universe without knowing the most frequent most occuring dominating event that have shaped our life the way it is??
Raithere, the problem I see with everyone here is that they view the evolution problem from a diametrically opposite pole than what I see. You seem to view the changes within our system to be caused by evolution, while I view evolution as a mere adaptation to the life symphony that is playing from a unique source that I like to call god.
For example, let's say that god is in charge of sending water down to our earth. Although I'm sure you would rather not assume such a thing. The water as it hits the ground will travel down the least resistive path. The river will be narrow and fast as it cuts through rock and slow and flat as it cuts through sand. It will meander through the sand, form riffles and pools to maintain a minimum level of energy, and it will fall off the cliff of a rock mountain to dissipate the excess energy. And when we want to develop the floodplains and construct walls, the river will incise and complain about a wall that doens't belong there. The river has not been really shaped by it's evolution....Rather the evolution has been shaped or an adaptation to the influencing resource. If we could map all the stages to the rive evolution, we would be able to tell exactly how much resource have we been getting over the years, still we would not be able to predict the future resources, yet we may be able to predict how our land will behave under an array of conditions.
Raithere said:
What you are describing is an incomplete science. A 50% effort. Let me explain using my field of knowledge again. As a water resource engineer. I can't simply say that water simply exist in abundance, thus I will limit my study to hydraulics, the science of water/fluid behavior. This is absurd, because without knowing the source from which the water comes from and the process by which it transports in the system....I will not be able to assess the full magnitude of my problem. Thus water resource engineers study hydrology, Meteorology, and hydraulics. Yet, mechanical engineers only study hydraulics. They could care less where the fluids come from, yet they will give you in detail equation after equation in regards to the complex behavior of fluids under several flow regimes that being laminar, turbulent, or transient. Just like evolutionists, they could care less where the water comes from, yet they'll classify life without knowing the definition or source of life. That's an incomplete science. A disaster waiting to happen.
Raithere said:
Do you see what I'm talking about??. You are not a bit concerned with studying the science of our land health. Why is our universe seeded with life? why is this life balanced? And how can you answer any of those questions without knowledge in regards to the source of this life? How would you know anything about the shape of our universe without knowing the most frequent most occuring dominating event that have shaped our life the way it is??
Raithere, the problem I see with everyone here is that they view the evolution problem from a diametrically opposite pole than what I see. You seem to view the changes within our system to be caused by evolution, while I view evolution as a mere adaptation to the life symphony that is playing from a unique source that I like to call god.
For example, let's say that god is in charge of sending water down to our earth. Although I'm sure you would rather not assume such a thing. The water as it hits the ground will travel down the least resistive path. The river will be narrow and fast as it cuts through rock and slow and flat as it cuts through sand. It will meander through the sand, form riffles and pools to maintain a minimum level of energy, and it will fall off the cliff of a rock mountain to dissipate the excess energy. And when we want to develop the floodplains and construct walls, the river will incise and complain about a wall that doens't belong there. The river has not been really shaped by it's evolution....Rather the evolution has been shaped or an adaptation to the influencing resource. If we could map all the stages to the rive evolution, we would be able to tell exactly how much resource have we been getting over the years, still we would not be able to predict the future resources, yet we may be able to predict how our land will behave under an array of conditions.
SnakeLord said:
You will be fool to think I depend only on Harun Yahya, I depend on someone higher than him, on GOD himself who told us in the Noble Quran that he CREATED the humans, so no matter what BS you spitt, it wont have any affect at all.
The only LIAR is you and your ILLUSIONISTS henchmen who believe in fairtale called the evolution !!
Harun yahya did not find the CHAD SKULL you fool, it was discovered by another scientists and it confirmed to them that the evolution is all but BULLSHIT.
Harun yahya was reporting the discovery of the skull and how this discovery SANK the evolution bullshit for ever, he never lied, let us read the BBC take on that:
Skull find sparks controversy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2118055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2125244.stm
WATCH THE BBC VIDEO ABOUT THIS DISCOVERY:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38128000/rm/_38128328_skull19_ghosh_vi.ram
When some statements are true, the ones who get embarrassed by them say they are OUT OF CONTEXT...Daniel Lieberman statement regarding this discovery IS CONTEXT itself dude.
I gave you the sources, why you dont go and borrow the book from your local library, maybe you will learn something new today !!
The only idiot is YOU, why supposedly famous ILLUSIONIST (evolutionist ) would describe this discovery as small nuclear bomb ?? why, if the evolution nonesense, is very well established, he refered to this discover as small nuclear bomb ????????????????????????????????
let me quote what he said ( from the National Geography ):
In a statement issued by Nature, which reported the discovery in its July 11 issue, anthropology professor Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said the new find "will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."
"One of the most important things this skull tells us is how much we don't know," he said in a phone interview. "It suggests how diverse hominids might have been in Africa, and shows that lots of things were going on in Africa that we can't imagine."
I suggest you read the article first, it seems you dont know what you are talking about !! my point was this discovery SHOKE the evolution nonesense from its bases and made famous scientists scratching their heads !! not like you who is sitting scratching his ass !
How about these distinguished scientists who acutally AGREE with harun yahya, and in fact, were in one of his conferences ?
Prof FLIERMANS:
Modern biochemistry proves that organisms are marvelously designed and this fact alone proves the existance of the Creator."
PROF.DUANE GISH:
"The fossil record refutes the evolutionary theory and it demonstrates that species appeared on Earth
fully formed and well designed. This is a concrete evidence for that they were created by God."
PROF.DAVID MENTON:
"I am examining the anatomical features of living things for 30 years. What I saw has always been the evidence of God's creation."
PROF. EDWARD
BOUDREAUX:
"The world we live in, and its natural laws are very precisely set up by the Creator for the benefit of us, humans."
http://www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit20.php
After all the above damming evidence, you guys, the ILLUSIONISTS, are ON THE RUN, you got to get out from your evolution illusion and raise your heads out from your dark holes and smell the fresh air of creation and God's perfection, dont let this verse from the Noble Quran applys on you:
''The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom'' (The Noble Quran 2:171 )
everneo said:
EXACTLY, I am waiting to see how the ILLUSIONISTS will interpret this EARTHQUAKE discovery, you know, the more we read, the more fossils we find, the more the evolution BS collapses.
I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures....
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
to answer the question about the evolution of the eye. If you take a water/lipid solution, lipid bilayers will spontaniously form, and will then roll up into spheres. These spheres also respond to light.
How?
The fats are hydrophillic on one side and hydrophobic on the other. As the molecules float around in the water, repelled by the water on one side and attracted to it on the other, they will occationally run into other lipid molecules. Having two or three lipid molecules, hydrophobic end toward each other, is a structure supported by the physical forces of the solution, as gravity is pulling all the molecules down, and the solution's containter is redirecting that force into a limited volume. you end up with a force pressing the molecules toward each other. Those molecules that have an opposite charge on the outside of there external atoms/bonds, therefore, have no energy which pushes them out of a hydrophobic-hydrophobic interaction, and energy that pushes them into such and interaction.
After a number of lipid molecules have bumped themselves into a flat-ish bi-layer, where the hydrophobic ends are competely covered from the water molecules, the sheet may form a sphere (the physics on this I'm not 100% on, though I would bet that once the bending ability of the sheet becomes such that the edges of the sheet can aproach each other, then may h-bond or something similar.
once these lipid-spheres exist, without any appearent outside influence, they move away from light sources. Again, why?
Because each of the lipids in the sphere vibrate and shift - they are not static. Each molecule is made up of moving and shifting atoms and sub-atomic particles. If light is shown on these spheres, one side recieves more photonic energy than the other, causing an inbalance vibration in the sphere. This causes an inbalanced displacement of the water surrounding the lipid-spheres, so they move.
The above is an example of a non-living (?) thing which is photo-sensitive. There are many things in the world which react to light without being able to "see." Like plants. They do not have fully developed eyes, but can detect and react to light. Certain plants in higher longitudinal areas (such as the artic), actually move over the course of a day to keep the surface of the leaves/flowers pointed directly at the sun for the 5 hours or so that the sun if above the horizon. This is due to the same principal as above- the molecules on one side of the plant stems recieve more light, and this creates and imbalance. In these plants, that imbalance involves the creation of structural sugars, which strech out the side farther from the sun, causing the stem to warp toward the light source.
as I said before, a half-form eye can very much see. Just not in focus as your eyes see. Bees can see ultra violet light, and your eyes cannot.
As has been brought up before, you see to think that things in evolution must pop into existance. They don't. They evolve in stages over time. In the case of the eye, I could readily see a photo-sensitive area being selected for via evolution. A clear protectivie covering then evolviing, as it would allow the individual to reproduce for a longer period of time. The protective covering thickening over tie for the same purpose. However, this thickening also warps the light, reducing the effectiveness of the light-sensing organ. So those with thinner membranes or slightly curved membranes (where the thickening is compensated for by the curve of the membrane) would be more likely to survive. continue this change over thousands of generations; some having slightly better eyes than their parents, some with worse. Each generation tending toward thicker membranes with curvature or thinner membranes. Then once the thicker membranes with curvature gets to the point where thicker is no longer helpful, but more curvature is, you get that half of the population out-competeing the thinner-membrane group. They have the benifits of the thicker covering, and can also "see" the light source more accuratly. Motion detection becomes yet another factor which comes into the picture, and the thick membrane eventually becomes the lens as we know know it.
This may have even hapened more than once, eye structure evolving at the same time in different populations...fish eyes work significantly differently from mammaelian eyes. Some species of fish even have two lenses, each which focus light diffferently. This allows them to see both above and below the water at the same time.
PM
And what about human heredity, which has been asked multiple times so far? The combination of racial features in children?
DR Lou:
I didn't think you were talkking to PM directly, I was just using him as an example. I still disagree that sexual reproduction requires evolution to be a inherent part of the system. while is is most likely that vthey are the same thing - and this can be backed up many times over by tracing ancestry and predicting phenotypical traits based on genetic parentage - I simply cannot say that they are 100% positivly intertwined. More like a 99.99% chance. A small but vitally important .01%
Science doesn't prove anything 100%. It simply provides the most likely answer. There is still a chance that there is a God which works as a slight of hand magician; through heredity-like actions, giving false leads to researchers. I don't know why such a being would do that, and I personaly neither believe that, or see the value in spending much energy contimplating that possibility. But it is still a posibility, isn't it?
How?
The fats are hydrophillic on one side and hydrophobic on the other. As the molecules float around in the water, repelled by the water on one side and attracted to it on the other, they will occationally run into other lipid molecules. Having two or three lipid molecules, hydrophobic end toward each other, is a structure supported by the physical forces of the solution, as gravity is pulling all the molecules down, and the solution's containter is redirecting that force into a limited volume. you end up with a force pressing the molecules toward each other. Those molecules that have an opposite charge on the outside of there external atoms/bonds, therefore, have no energy which pushes them out of a hydrophobic-hydrophobic interaction, and energy that pushes them into such and interaction.
After a number of lipid molecules have bumped themselves into a flat-ish bi-layer, where the hydrophobic ends are competely covered from the water molecules, the sheet may form a sphere (the physics on this I'm not 100% on, though I would bet that once the bending ability of the sheet becomes such that the edges of the sheet can aproach each other, then may h-bond or something similar.
once these lipid-spheres exist, without any appearent outside influence, they move away from light sources. Again, why?
Because each of the lipids in the sphere vibrate and shift - they are not static. Each molecule is made up of moving and shifting atoms and sub-atomic particles. If light is shown on these spheres, one side recieves more photonic energy than the other, causing an inbalance vibration in the sphere. This causes an inbalanced displacement of the water surrounding the lipid-spheres, so they move.
The above is an example of a non-living (?) thing which is photo-sensitive. There are many things in the world which react to light without being able to "see." Like plants. They do not have fully developed eyes, but can detect and react to light. Certain plants in higher longitudinal areas (such as the artic), actually move over the course of a day to keep the surface of the leaves/flowers pointed directly at the sun for the 5 hours or so that the sun if above the horizon. This is due to the same principal as above- the molecules on one side of the plant stems recieve more light, and this creates and imbalance. In these plants, that imbalance involves the creation of structural sugars, which strech out the side farther from the sun, causing the stem to warp toward the light source.
as I said before, a half-form eye can very much see. Just not in focus as your eyes see. Bees can see ultra violet light, and your eyes cannot.
As has been brought up before, you see to think that things in evolution must pop into existance. They don't. They evolve in stages over time. In the case of the eye, I could readily see a photo-sensitive area being selected for via evolution. A clear protectivie covering then evolviing, as it would allow the individual to reproduce for a longer period of time. The protective covering thickening over tie for the same purpose. However, this thickening also warps the light, reducing the effectiveness of the light-sensing organ. So those with thinner membranes or slightly curved membranes (where the thickening is compensated for by the curve of the membrane) would be more likely to survive. continue this change over thousands of generations; some having slightly better eyes than their parents, some with worse. Each generation tending toward thicker membranes with curvature or thinner membranes. Then once the thicker membranes with curvature gets to the point where thicker is no longer helpful, but more curvature is, you get that half of the population out-competeing the thinner-membrane group. They have the benifits of the thicker covering, and can also "see" the light source more accuratly. Motion detection becomes yet another factor which comes into the picture, and the thick membrane eventually becomes the lens as we know know it.
This may have even hapened more than once, eye structure evolving at the same time in different populations...fish eyes work significantly differently from mammaelian eyes. Some species of fish even have two lenses, each which focus light diffferently. This allows them to see both above and below the water at the same time.
PM
And what about human heredity, which has been asked multiple times so far? The combination of racial features in children?
DR Lou:
I didn't think you were talkking to PM directly, I was just using him as an example. I still disagree that sexual reproduction requires evolution to be a inherent part of the system. while is is most likely that vthey are the same thing - and this can be backed up many times over by tracing ancestry and predicting phenotypical traits based on genetic parentage - I simply cannot say that they are 100% positivly intertwined. More like a 99.99% chance. A small but vitally important .01%
Science doesn't prove anything 100%. It simply provides the most likely answer. There is still a chance that there is a God which works as a slight of hand magician; through heredity-like actions, giving false leads to researchers. I don't know why such a being would do that, and I personaly neither believe that, or see the value in spending much energy contimplating that possibility. But it is still a posibility, isn't it?
Last edited:
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Proud_Muslim said:EXACTLY, I am waiting to see how the ILLUSIONISTS will interpret this EARTHQUAKE discovery, you know, the more we read, the more fossils we find, the more the evolution BS collapses.
I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures....
UM, you said above that you believed in evolution...
you may want to clarify that you feel sorry for those who believe in "human evolution."
Proud_Muslim said:I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures....
I believe in evolution and I'm not at all sad. I'm a little disturbed by your misplaced pity, but it does little to bum me out.
Actually, I suppose I'm wrong.
I don't necessarily believe in evolution in terms of origins of species.. it simply seems more plausible than any other explanation I've heard. That's mostly because I can observe direct evidence of it in my every day surroundings. I guess I do believe in evolution in terms of its usefullness as descriptive of the behavior of certain types of systems.
So I think really it's people who have to be right about whatever assertion regarding the origins of species, regarding the nature of the universe or regarding religion that really seem sad to me. The strongest thing I think is a valid statement from a person is "I think I'm right.". That I can relate to. "I know I'm right." leads to dead people.
Regardless, the people that seem sad to me from that angle aren't necessarily so as whatever belief that I hold in such personal disdain, could be the source of great joy for them and though I do reject it as such on a personal level, I find some joy in that they find joy from whatever source, be it bullshit or not.
I will answer this two ways:
The PM way) god is just ILLUSION nonsense bullshit.
MY way) It's a book written by men who didn't understand much about their world. They hadn't dug up any fossils, and had no way of figuring out evolutionary paths. It's a seriously hard task even today, what makes you think an arab in a desert would know better?
Now now, it's you and Harun Halfwit who are trying to use quotes against evolution which, if you read the whole thing instead of just one line, actually support evolution.
See that's a lie. Nothing here has been sunk, but actually the complete opposite.
-- The skull is so old that it comes from a time when the creatures which were to become modern humans had not long diverged from the line that would become chimpanzees.--
Does that claim evolution bs is sunk? I don't think so.
-- Sahelanthropus tchadensis, as the find has been named, may turn out to be a direct human ancestor or it may prove to be a member of a side branch of our family tree. --
Does that?
-- The Chadian skull hailed this week as the most important anthropological find in living memory is not what it seems, rival researchers claimed on Friday.--
Sorry, my English isn't superb, what's a "rival"?
-- It, too, got a frosty reception from rival researchers, who were also critical of the team's decision to remove the fossils from Kenya.--
Ah, they're jealous heh... :bugeye:
-- The science of anthropology is known to be fiercely competitive, with each new discovery received with cool scepticism by the rival groups who are all digging in different parts of Africa--
What does "fiercly competitive" mean? Rival groups?
What you need to understand is that the find in no way 'sinks evolution'. Here's a better way of seeing it:
-- Many of those scientists who have so far commented on the discovery say it supports a theory of hominid evolution that has many branches - and many dead ends.
We should not look at human emergence as a simple ladder with a missing link at the bottom, they argue. --
Science isn't as quick to draw a conclusion as you religious folk who are willing to rely solely on some old words. What this does do though, is show man's history is far from complete - but was not the case of: *bling* *magic wand wave* *mankind appears from thin air, made with a bit of clay and mud*
Have you even watched it? It clearly supports evolution. They even go so far as to call it "our oldest ancestor". Does that not tell you something PM?
I don't understand why you keep giving me links that concur with evolution, if you're trying to debunk it. That is really really.... stupid.
Seems you didn't check the link. If you want to remain an ignorant pig your whole life, that is your choice - but you have no position with which to argue any of this because of that.
I've read the sources several times over, and find it amusing that they all support evolution, which you for some bizarre little reason keep trying to debunk. I do learn something new everyday, it seems you're too caught up in your own stupidity to be able to learn anything.
Again, you'd know the answer to this if you checked the link, and read the whole article instead of the one line handed to you by a halfwitted creationist. I am not here to babysit you however, so I suggest if you really do want the answer to that question with twenty question marks, you go and read the article.
While of course, you think it was all done with a magic wand and some clay. Science doesn't just stand up, read some text from an old book and say "case closed". There are new discoveries all the time which aid and assist science in determining truth, instead of your preferred fiction. The case itself supports evolution, that's the point you keep missing.
It aids and assists evolution, that's the point you keep missing. I understand we can't expect much intelligence from a person made out of plasticine, but do try harder please.
Yes, they're all creationists- none of whom have shown anything that is of worry to 'real' science. C'mon PM, if they had have done something of worth, if they had have proved something that goes against evolution aside from mere supposition, the world would know about it. They're in the same league as Harun Yahya with their "Well camels have eyelashes which shows god made them to take man through the desert". That is not science.
Seriously, take some time and check out a bit about them. Furthermore, these scientists you have mentioned don't believe in Allah. Does that mean they're right? Well PM?
You have yet to show any. All your links do is support evolution.
No, we're all rolling around on the ground laughing at you.
If I'm writing a book that I wish to use to ensnare the weak minded or down trodden - what else might I say? I would definately tell you "oh and by the way if anyone tells you this book is dumb you tell them 'you're dumb'".... well, if I had no respect for your intelligence I mean. Even if I didn't respect your intellect I probably wouldn't tell you that because it's unethical.
wesmorris said:
Do you see how shallow minded you are? You didn't even do an objective criticism of the verse. Allow me.
''The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom'' (The Noble Quran 2:171 )
First, you must understand what entails faith:
Do you have faith that you can be a good father Wes?
Do you have faith that you can be a good husband Wes?
Do you have faith in science?
Without faith in whatever it is that you set your heart in doing, you are literally void of wisdom, void of understanding, because you're pursuing something that you don't believe in nor have faith in it's merit. How can the Quran be unethical in questioning people's faith? It's unethical not to question faith for god's sake?
Look at all our requirements for PhD. Prior to any findings or experments, all students must write up proposals demonstrating their faith in whatever it is that they are set on examining and spending so much money on? They must demonstrate the faith merit which they have in the value of their research. Without that, they are goats being herded, just like the Quran so brilliantly have put it.
Well said sister Flores, very well answered.
Those illusionists cant accept defeat, they want to continue believing in what they want to believe in, I have no problem with them, I just feel sorry for them.
Anyway, I will be away for about 2-3 weeks, I will be attending a course about Islam and the west and western muslims...I will leave the forum for you dear sister, I trust you and your understanding of Islam, I trust your arguments and your way of presenting your thoughts, I learnt a lot from you, I truly did...May Allah bless you and reward you for every letter you wrote and will write in the way of Islam.
Those illusionists cant accept defeat, they want to continue believing in what they want to believe in, I have no problem with them, I just feel sorry for them.
Anyway, I will be away for about 2-3 weeks, I will be attending a course about Islam and the west and western muslims...I will leave the forum for you dear sister, I trust you and your understanding of Islam, I trust your arguments and your way of presenting your thoughts, I learnt a lot from you, I truly did...May Allah bless you and reward you for every letter you wrote and will write in the way of Islam.
Flores said:
I don't think it warrants further criticism, and there is no such thing as an objective criticism.
As if I have a choice.
Do you assume that I don't?
I suspect that I can. It depends on when you're referring to.
I suspect that I can. It depends on when you're referring to.
I have faith in reason. Science generally falls under the blanket of that faith.
That is debatable but it didn't seem to be talking about that. Ah, upon re-reading I see my error. I assumed it was talking about faith in your faith you see, faith in allah, faith in the "Noble Q'uran". The context in which I see faith used in religion lead me to assume it. Hence my criticism may be in error if speaking to the general case of faith, pending the debate mentioned above. If that were indeed the case I would call it superfluous in the sense that regardless of one's proclamation, pretty much all humans have faith in something.
I was under the impression that is was claiming that people's faith is due only to the contents of the Quran.
The only point I was making: If a book is written to take advantage of you, a key indicator might be when I tell you stuff like "have faith in ME". Ya know? Somewhat simple, not particularly tough.. maybe didn't need to be mentioned, but it was just the thought that came from his quote and I felt like posting it. I might have been presumptuous about it, but still doubt that I was, as that line seemed to be talking about a specific faith rather than faith in general. Rather, it seems that "faith" in the context of any formalized religion is always about that formalized religion. So I think my rather simple point is valid.
Sometimes, yeah. What about you? I noticed you didn't ask me about how profound I am? Either way the answer would have been the same I suppose.
Proud_Muslim said:
Is that how the Quran tells you to behave? You sound like the Iraqi Information Minister while Bagdad was being over-run.
LOL. Stop. Take a long breath. Take a look at your words and see if they apply to you. Perhaps in a sense they apply to everyone. You should rephrase to include yourself in the group. Generally, it's not so much a matter of "want" (though it seems that way) as "this is how you've wired your brain, for it to changed, it must be re-wired, that takes a lot of effort". People generally aren't motivated to re-wire themselves and end up stuck with their initial presumptions.
So really the "want" comes into play more when people actually want to try to change what they believe in. Of course, why would you change what you believe in when what you believe is already perfect eh?
Can you see how you justify? We all do it to some extent. This keeps us from having to undertake the massive effort of rewiring. I hypothesize that quite often, hell maybe most of the time, it is simply impossible to rewire one's self on a fundamental level like where religion fits. So people like you PM, are likely stuck as you are. It seems as if you're quite pleased with it though, so at least that is good. I hope you bring joy to those you love.
You should rephrase that to include yourself in the group.
Last edited:
Richard Dawkins specifically details the evolution of the eye and also sonar in his book:Proud_Muslim said:And I am still waiting to hear your answers about the EYE evolution question and about the DNA !!
The Blind Watchmaker Each stage of the eye can be found in nature, from photocells, to eyes that are not sealed shut, to eyes that are sealed but without lens, to eyes with lens (like ours), to eyes that are shaped in such a way as to compensate for water diffraction, etc...
and of DNA
The Selfish Gene
With your post it would appear that the entire world is on the verge of dropping evolution and teaching creationism?? Kudos to you!! I mean look at the 5 Prof. you posted.Proud_Muslim said:
I wonder if Universities will drop evolution from the curriculum and replace it with creation “science”? However, when I look at the curriculum it just hasn’t happened. Creation “science” doesn’t appear to be offered anywhere either? Hmmm me thinks something is amiss - because if what you say is true then evolution should be dropped. I mean some of these people have been preaching the “downfall” of evolution for more than a decade – and other for more than a century – yet it’s still being taught year after year including this year!?!?! Hmm? With ALL this amazing evidence these people have against evolution it’s really crazy it’s still taught everywhere? Make’s you think that maybe the professional communities are still fully backing evolution and maybe these other few people you posted are the fringe crack-pots. Just crazy huh.
Summary – nobody is “on the run”
Evolution is still being taught at all credible universities in the world and creation science wouldn’t so much as warrant a scoff. You can post all the posts in the world suggesting that’s not the case - but the reality is all anyone has to do is look at the curriculum and down comes your house of cards.Lastly, you’re a quagmire of statements. In one post you say yeah, evolution is true - just not of humans. Then in another you post that evolutionists are “on the run”?
Because evolution does not address abiogenesis it’s a 50% effort? That doesn’t make any sense. Evolution answers questions about evolution and does a superb job at it. It doesn’t however do so hot of a job at answering questions regarding atomic bonding theories. However the two disciplines are connected. Biological organisms are made of atoms!Flores said:
wesmorris said:
Nah, it is you who sound like BUSH and his WMD claims !!
Proud_Muslim:
<b>Snakelord</b> has been very helpful, and provided you with the original sources referred to by Harun Yahya.
If you had a shred of integrity, you would take time to read those sources. If you disagreed with them, you could point out their flaws.
At the very least, you should start to doubt Harun Yahya, when he paints these articles as being anti-evolution, when in fact everything about them shows that these sources <b>support</b> evolution. If you were smart, you would begin to ask yourself <b>why</b> Harun Yahya would lie and try to deceive other people. It seems to me that Harun Yahya is not a very good Muslim. Or does lying make you a good Muslim these days? I bet the Prophet didn't approve of lying and deceit.
The fact is, many good Muslims believe in evolution, as I have said previously (and referenced for you). Not that that makes a shred of difference as to whether evolution is right or wrong. But it seems to me that you are unwilling to believe anything unless another Muslim believes it first, so I thought I should let you know.
In fact, PM, I'm beginning to doubt whether you're actually capable of thinking for yourself. You come across as being of above-average intelligence, so why don't you apply it to anything? Stop accepting things just because a Muslim told you they are true. And, just as importantly, you should stop rejecting things outright just because they are told to you by non-Muslims.
I am reading your Holy Quran. Would you do me the courtesy of reading one of <b>my</b> chosen sources on evolution, or do you think that your faith could not stand the assault?
Is considering the view of a non-Muslim so terrifying to you that you'd rather stand with your fingers in your ears yelling "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!", or is your faith in God powerful enough to learn about other points of view without wavering?
Please read the links Snakelord has given, and see what you think. Nobody can force you to agree with what these people have written, but don't you owe it to yourself at least to look? Or do you want to remain in your cosy little world forever?
Flores:
Much of the above applies equally to you.
Your reply to Raithere was as telling in what you left out as in what you chose to reply to. You and PM are wilfully blind, which is probably the worst form of blindness.
It is telling that PM congratulates you when your knowledge of evolution is clearly so shallow and ill-informed.
Are you interested in learning, or would you prefer to continue to hide your head in the sand along with PM?
<b>Snakelord</b> has been very helpful, and provided you with the original sources referred to by Harun Yahya.
If you had a shred of integrity, you would take time to read those sources. If you disagreed with them, you could point out their flaws.
At the very least, you should start to doubt Harun Yahya, when he paints these articles as being anti-evolution, when in fact everything about them shows that these sources <b>support</b> evolution. If you were smart, you would begin to ask yourself <b>why</b> Harun Yahya would lie and try to deceive other people. It seems to me that Harun Yahya is not a very good Muslim. Or does lying make you a good Muslim these days? I bet the Prophet didn't approve of lying and deceit.
The fact is, many good Muslims believe in evolution, as I have said previously (and referenced for you). Not that that makes a shred of difference as to whether evolution is right or wrong. But it seems to me that you are unwilling to believe anything unless another Muslim believes it first, so I thought I should let you know.
In fact, PM, I'm beginning to doubt whether you're actually capable of thinking for yourself. You come across as being of above-average intelligence, so why don't you apply it to anything? Stop accepting things just because a Muslim told you they are true. And, just as importantly, you should stop rejecting things outright just because they are told to you by non-Muslims.
I am reading your Holy Quran. Would you do me the courtesy of reading one of <b>my</b> chosen sources on evolution, or do you think that your faith could not stand the assault?
Is considering the view of a non-Muslim so terrifying to you that you'd rather stand with your fingers in your ears yelling "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!", or is your faith in God powerful enough to learn about other points of view without wavering?
Please read the links Snakelord has given, and see what you think. Nobody can force you to agree with what these people have written, but don't you owe it to yourself at least to look? Or do you want to remain in your cosy little world forever?
Flores:
Much of the above applies equally to you.
Your reply to Raithere was as telling in what you left out as in what you chose to reply to. You and PM are wilfully blind, which is probably the worst form of blindness.
It is telling that PM congratulates you when your knowledge of evolution is clearly so shallow and ill-informed.
Are you interested in learning, or would you prefer to continue to hide your head in the sand along with PM?
PS:
On the particular topic of the skull found in Chad, this is indeed a very interesting find, and it may mean that our timeline of human <b>evolution</b> need to be reworked. However, it is very important to realise that this find has absolutely no impact at all on the Theory of Evolution itself. The problem here is to determine the chronology and path of human evolution, not to determine whether or not humans evolved. Every anthropologist accepts the fact of human evolution without question. They argue only about the order, the place of origin of related species, and so on.
In fact, this skull would be a tremendous problem for Creationists. They wouldn't even get past the fact that it has been dated at 7 million years old.
On the particular topic of the skull found in Chad, this is indeed a very interesting find, and it may mean that our timeline of human <b>evolution</b> need to be reworked. However, it is very important to realise that this find has absolutely no impact at all on the Theory of Evolution itself. The problem here is to determine the chronology and path of human evolution, not to determine whether or not humans evolved. Every anthropologist accepts the fact of human evolution without question. They argue only about the order, the place of origin of related species, and so on.
In fact, this skull would be a tremendous problem for Creationists. They wouldn't even get past the fact that it has been dated at 7 million years old.