Well honestly I said all this because of this post
You appeared to be extremely butt hurt for some reason.
Also I like how my reply to your bit about the atheists and how that makes Islam somehow right wasn't included when you quoted me.
Well honestly I said all this because of this post
You appeared to be extremely butt hurt for some reason.
Also I like how my reply to your bit about the atheists and how that makes Islam somehow right wasn't included when you quoted me.
A lot of creationists get pissed off and throw out insults and get agitated when someone mentions evolution.
You are coming off pretty biased with the whole discussion about the religious extreme minority then talking about how most atheists are like that.
Just sayin bro.
Last edited by Dosbag; 12-03-2011 at 09:12 AM.
Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HRLvfbauA
Not to drag stuff from other threads in here, but why do you feel qualified to preach about Islam when you (seemed to have) considered lesbianism okay, but male homosexually bad, just because one sexually appeals to you and the other one doesn't? Do you not feel that's pretty hypocritical, or were you just making a bad joke?
Send SMS messages using Simba
Please do not send me a PM asking for help; I will not be able to help you! Post in a relevant thread or make your own! And always remember to search first!
I want to know why people not of the Islam religion should be constrained by Islams teachings - is it not enough to "know" that a person who disobeys the teachings will suffer an eternity in hell? I believe the Koran states or implies that Allah is the judge of all humans (maybe including Mohammed in the judging,) so I honestly don't see how that means that it is right or correct to hold non-believers to scripture. I would say that it would be sufficient to know that they face damnation. Of course, if you're a particularly benevolent person, you may feel it your personal duty to help convert people to Islam and encourage them to abide by its teachings, but one cannot do that when the object of your attention is dead or afraid for his life.
If you think this is unfair of me, I'd like to point out the abortion debate that wages, with the "pro"-abortion crowd generally being atheists and anti-abortion crowd generally being Catholics and other, more stringent religious people. That some extremists (in this debate) go as far as to kill abortion doctors shows that these are even on a greater level of individual evil than the rioting and death threats of the Mohammed controversy.
To bring this back to the topic of Creationism in school, the Holy Books state that God made everything, but what more is there to the topic? How can you turn Creationism in to more than one sentence? What scientifically rigorous evidence is there to support it or logical arguments that exist without flawed reasoning? Is there something that can only exist because of an intelligent designer and that cannot be explained by a series of slightly different modifications or mutations? If Creationism is a scientifically valid hypothesis, what evidence is there that can disprove it? If Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, why should it be taught to children as anything other than a faith-based hypothesis rather than claiming there to be flaws in evolution that don't exist? Why is Creationism the only alternative to evolution - is it impossible that an advanced alien civilisation designed us and all life on the planet as something like a giant Petri-dish?
By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.
How is it that you can recognize "some aspects" of evolution? To me, that means you are saying well... microorganisms, insects, plants, and animals can evolve, but I didn't. It is just as logical to say, well I only believe in some aspects of gravity... maybe you would care to elaborate?
METAL HEAD FOR LIFE!!!
"Logic never changes, just the syntax" - Kyle Undefined?
Remember, The Edit Button Is There For A Reason!!!
There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They both work by the same mechanism. Think about meiosis, think about genetic mutations, deletions, additions, and think about how these variations in genomes allow for differentiation of microorganism species. These are things that us "macro organisms" go through as well, but the key difference is the rate of reproduction. Bacteria can evolve much quicker as they reproduce at an extremely fast rate, which could lead to one falsely thinking that only small microscopic organisms evolve. Scale the time frame to millions and billions of years instead of mere days, and you can have an enormous array of genetic diversity. Evolution is evolution. The exact lineage pathways can be debated, but as I said earlier in the thread, the genomic data is growing and at an exponential rate.
METAL HEAD FOR LIFE!!!
Yeah, of course in Islam being gay is 100% haram (forbidden). Be it male to male or female to female. I was just making a "bad" joke.
Every religion feels it should be the religion of all Humanity. All atheists feel everyone should be atheist, all Christians feel that everyone should be a Christian, and of course all Muslims believe that Mohammad's message (Islam) was the final message of God after Jesus and it should be followed by everyone.
No Muslim should put a gun to someones head and say "YOU MUST BE A MUSLIM AND YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW EVERYTHING THE QURAN SAYS". You want to draw the prophet Mohammad? That is your decisin, but don't expect people to welcome it. If you want to achieve world peace, dissing other religions is not a start. Especially when stability is at a stake.
When we make dawa (preaching Islam to other people) to other people we do it because we want to send our message out. We are not afraid for you life, because in the end we Muslims believe that it's gods decision to choose who goes to hell and who doesn't. Its the persons decision to make that choice to become a Muslims or not. It's not up to Muslims to say "IF YOUR NOT A MUSLIM YOUR GOING TO HELL" Heck, I know many non-Muslims who are better than Muslims.
We believe in the big bang or something similar to it. We believe that somethings did infact originate from micro-orgasms. Basically we believe everything that is stated in the Quran, and everything about Evolution is indeed in the Quran. But we believe man was created separately. We don't believe he evolved from a specific species.
Interesting argument you have there mixster. I shall talk about it in my paper if you don't mind.To bring this back to the topic of Creationism in school, the Holy Books state that God made everything, but what more is there to the topic? How can you turn Creationism in to more than one sentence? What scientifically rigorous evidence is there to support it or logical arguments that exist without flawed reasoning? Is there something that can only exist because of an intelligent designer and that cannot be explained by a series of slightly different modifications or mutations? If Creationism is a scientifically valid hypothesis, what evidence is there that can disprove it? If Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, why should it be taught to children as anything other than a faith-based hypothesis rather than claiming there to be flaws in evolution that don't exist? Why is Creationism the only alternative to evolution - is it impossible that an advanced alien civilisation designed us and all life on the planet as something like a giant Petri-dish?
Last edited by kingarabian; 12-04-2011 at 10:18 PM.
Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.
Let's talk about meiosis. It is again one of the great mysteries of science.
Let's say that you magically create a ribosome, magically create exclusively L-type proteins, and magically create an ocean filling planetary macro-organism that can pass around genetic information.
One problem with that model is that for every "good" gene that could randomly pop into existence there would be hundreds, thousands, or millions of "bad" genes. These would contain information that would counteract the processes necessary for life, either by actively interfering with them, or simply by exhausting all the resources without creating something of value.
So, there must be a mechanism in place to keep and enrich good genes while excluding bad or non-productive ones. If you're a giant planetary macro-organism with leaky membranes, how do you ever overcome the million to one problem?
But let's say you wave your magic wand and a bacterium pops into existence. It has enriched enough good genes while excluding bad genes to be able to survive, grow, and replicate itself.
So now, after going through all of that "purifying selection", where every selective pressure is pushing you to keep your genes intact, what would then make any such early organism go through meiosis and voluntarily throw away 50% of their precious genome?
It's another puzzle that doesn't "fit" into the whole evolutionary philosophy. More magical mystery that most "evolutionists" don't even know they don't know.
I think evolution happened for sure.
I am Christian.
I believe that evolution and creationism do not collide with each other.
I am not going to try to impose my specific religious beliefs, but I feel the need to say one thing.
We do not know the origin of the universe. In my opinion, it must have been some sort of higher power. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If you can come up with an explanation of the origin of the universe that makes sense, then please do so. It's the age-old question we'll never have an answer for.
Last edited by Dosbag; 12-05-2011 at 12:13 PM.
How about they just teach us the truth: We don't know.
Since I have an extre few minutes before next class I'd also like to add that in Norway we are forced to learn about several religions, including all the directions of christianity, islam, and ... I don't know the english word for the name of jews' religion, but that too. Also we can choose a religion of our choice to learn about. I'm going for buddhism! (Even tho' many say it's not a religion).
I think it's an excellent system which allows every person to decide for themselves which religion, if any, they want to follow.
Last edited by Emaziz; 12-05-2011 at 12:55 PM.
Okay, let's talk your own inability to imagine how something can be feasible in terms of propagating genes makes an entire field of science incorrect.
First of all, LUCA was still composed of cells which replicate. Genes that inhibited its ability to replicate would lead to the death of the cell and death of the genes, including those that led to its death. So, that magic purifying selection you were talking about was good old natural selection at its purest. Problem one, solved.
Second of all, meiosis isn't really that complicated of a thing. Once you understand that meiosis is a requirement for sexual reproduction, then you can understand that the shuffling of genes allows there to be a gene pool and a larger gene pool is much more resilient and can produce much "fitter" offspring than the small gene pool of a single organism. If my word on this topic isn't good enough, go have a look at the wikipedia page on Evolution of sexual reproduction or, if wikipedia isn't good enough, go look at what it references under further reading: many scientists with their theories of why its valuable.
Of course, that doesn't directly address the origin, but assuming evolution then the production of "fitter" offspring would lead to sexual reproduction becoming widespread.
If we wish to start asking the other side to explain things though, could someone tell me why the human eye is flawed (the blind spot) if we have an omniscient and omnipotent creator? It seems to me that He could very well have not given us a blind spot since other creatures don't have one and I can't really think of any kind of advantage for it. Before anyone cries evolution, I'd like to say that the evolutionary cost of fixing the eye exceeds the evolutionary cost of the blind spot imparts on us, so that's why evolution hasn't fixed it for us.
By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.
^This.
Additionally, tara, we must consider that meiosis itself is a product of evolution. Mitosis was the original means of cellular replication, and as mixter said, genetic variation is beneficial to the species. No set of DNA is perfect for every environment, and therefore diversity is selected for. As to your point about losing 50% of genetic variation and it being a waste, I can see the logic of what you are trying to say, but the very fact that the organism survived to reproduce means that it was not a waste. Think of it more like a beneficial swapping of genetic information. The other 50% of genetic information is extremely important, which is why I think animals have developed such complex ways to choose mates.
On a side note, I think that your choice of including the word "magically" in:
does not help your credibility at all. On the contrary, it just shows the lack of knowledge you have for organic and bio-chemistry. If you would care to point out what sort of biblical magic you need to create ribosomes, L-type proteins, or phospholipid bilayer membranes, then by all means do.Let's say that you magically create a ribosome, magically create exclusively L-type proteins, and magically create an ocean filling planetary macro-organism that can pass around genetic information.
i
METAL HEAD FOR LIFE!!!
The evolutionary philosophy has a hard and fast rule that you cannot work toward a goal. There is no evolutionary intent. There's no long-term strategy. Every step along an evolutionary progression must have a selective advantage in its own right.
It might be very beneficial over the long term to develop sexual reproduction, but unless you can explain it in the context of those rules, it's not an argument for evolution at all.
These sorts of questions are things that evolutionary scientists grapple with. In a way, evolutionary science is doomed to fail, because of the nature of science.
Science is not able to explain random, one-off, "miraculous" events. It's good at describing and explaining common, reproducible events. But the entire premise of Abiogenesis is that crazy, miraculous-seeming events must have happened thousands of times over billions of years. Asking science to explain that is like asking a physicist why a certain photon of light in a quantum mechanics experiment hit one plate instead of another.
There simply may be no scientific answer to the question, because some things just happen randomly, and science isn't designed to explain it. Embracing science means a willingness to embrace the limits of science as well.
It's natural for people to develop faith in science. You see for yourself that A, B, and C are true, so you are more willing to accept that X, Y, and Z are also true even though you haven't studied it for yourself. You see and believe that evolution is true, so you accept that Abiogenesis is true, without a full understanding of it.
Developing faith in God is ultimately the same process. You learn for yourself that A, B, and C are true, so you are more likely to accept that X, Y, and Z are also true, without a full and complete understanding.
When someone asks why you believe in X, Y, or Z, or even starts mocking that belief, it's natural to be defensive. Perhaps you respond by explaining A, B, and C instead. That's true for both Creationism and Abiogenesis, as we've seen in this very thread.
Perhaps we should all stop mocking each others' beliefs and stop arguing over "unknowable" questions, which exist both in science and religion. And we should certainly stop teaching kids in public school that science is "infallible", or pushing the Abiogenesis fairy tale as fact.
Biased would imply i have something against Islam and have nothing against other religions. I don't. Islam is equally as worthless as all other religions.
Yes. Offense is taken, not given. Nobody is directly hurting or taking away any of your rights. You don't have a "right" not to be offended by what somebody else says or does. If i want to sit at home and draw pictures of your prophet i can do so as much as i want, and if i want to exchange these pictures with my friends i can do that as much as i want as well.
You do not have the right to try to stop me, or threaten my life for doing so. Which many Muslims do or have done.
Yes. For all the same reasons stated above. And Christians do a much better job of staying calm about these kinds of things than Muslims do.
I know enough to know that it is as harmful to the human race as most other religions, has a higher percentage of fundamentalists and extremists than other religions, and to this day oppresses what any modern country considers to be basic unalienable human rights.
Religion is a mental plague, an extremely powerful and effective chain-letter that takes advantage of and exploits many flaws and instabilities in the human psyche. By giving people false (and dangerous) feelings of security, belonging, and above all, enlightenment.
When did anybody "verify" such thing?
You don't seem to understand. What Islam is currently going through is what Christianity already went through over the past few hundred years. Islam is no "stronger" than any other religion, it's just more primitive and so are it's followers who are less tolerant of other people's beliefs and actions.
There are many things that cause people to turn to religion. But as time passes it becomes pleasantly clear that rational thought and fact-based beliefs consistently return better results than blind faith-based belief. To this day people who resort to such blind beliefs are people who are uneducated and don't see or feel any immediate benefit from rational thought.
People's lives are improving. Slowly but gradually the world is getting better. And the better the world is the less people need to rely on the cesspool that is all abrahamic religions. Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.
If i find a 3x3foot black box on the ground, there is no way i can know for certain what is inside of it. But i can know for certain what is not inside of it. Such as an elephant or giraffe. We don't have to know what's in the box to know whats not in the box. We don't have to know how life started to know how life didn't start.
We don't know how life started, but we DO know with certainty is that it did not happen 5000 years ago, and that evolution was involved.
It is one thing for people to believe in various things that have no evidence behind them and all have the same chances of being true. But it's another thing for people to believe in things that we know are not true and claim that those beliefs are equal to every body else's.
Furthermore, compromise isn't a universally correct way of solving all problems, and should only be applied when both sides have at least some merit.
Compromising with creationism is the equivalent of someone breaking into your home and declaring that they now own your entire house. And after you resist they then suggest a "compromise" of them only owning one bedroom.
They want the entire house, you want the entire house, so a valid compromise is them only getting part of the house. Am i doing it right?
Last edited by matviy; 12-05-2011 at 08:18 PM.
Last edited by kingarabian; 12-05-2011 at 08:14 PM.
Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.
lmfao, you can't say with certainty that life was not started 5000 years ago.
You just can't. To compare it to something like a 3x3 foot box, thus giving it the appearance of a "no brainer" is not only ridiculous it is a pretty over-reaching statement that you CANNOT backup with infallible evidence.
You can be pretty certain. You cannot, however, be certain.
Yes you can know that.
We know, with the same scientific certainty that got people to the moon, that the earth is SIGNIFICANTLY older than 5000 years, and there were life forms over 5000 years ago.
Using your logic we can never be certain of anything. Earth might not even exist. You might be hooked up to the matrix right now.
All of geometry for instance is based on a handful of axioms that we cannot prove and thus cannot know for "certain". Yet we teach geometry to kids, and apply it to practically everything we have ever built.
Last edited by matviy; 12-05-2011 at 08:22 PM.
LOL WHAT? Yes they will. No scientist will self-dignity will tell you ANYTHING contrary to that. There is a near infinite amount of possible ways to prove that the earth is over 5,000 years old.
This isn't even remotely debatable in any scientific community. Hell, there are organisms alive at this moment that are over 5000 years old.
The only rebuttal that can refute the overwhelming amounts of evidence proving the fact that the earth is much older than 5 or even 10 thousand years is to claim that god deliberately planted that evidence all over the world to try to lead us astray.
Last edited by matviy; 12-05-2011 at 10:41 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)