NOT MADE BY NATURE! Just because
something exists in nature doesn't mean it
was invented or made by Nature. If all the
chemicals necessary to make a cell were
left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would
have no ability to organize them into a
cell. It takes an already existing cell to
bring about another cell. The cell exists
and reproduces in nature but Nature
didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't
originate the cell or any form of life.


Natural laws can explain how an airplane
or living cell works, but it's irrational to
believe that mere undirected natural laws
can bring about an airplane or a cell.
Once you have a complete and living cell
then the genetic program and biological
machinery exist to direct the formation of
more cells, but how could the cell have
originated naturally when no directing
code and mechanisms existed in nature?
All of the founders of modern science
believed in God.

Read my Internet article:
HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES
ATHEISM

Only evolution within "kinds" is
genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs,
cats, etc.), but not evolution across
"kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human).
How did species survive if their vital
tissues, organs, reproductive systems were
still evolving? Survival of the fittest would
actually have prevented evolution across
kinds!

Read my Internet article: WAR
AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition). I
discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk
DNA," genetics, mutations, natural
selection, fossils, genetic and biological
similarities between species.
Natural selection doesn't produce
biological traits or variations. It can only
"select" from biological variations that are
possible and which have survival value.
The real issue is what biological variations
are possible, not natural selection. Only
limited evolution, variations of already
existing genes and traits are possible.
Nature is mindless and has no ability to
design and program entirely new genes
for entirely new traits.


What about genetic and biological
similarities between species? Genetic
information, like other forms of
information, cannot happen by chance, so
it is more logical to believe that genetic
and biological similarities between all
forms of life are due to a common
Designer who designed similar functions
for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all
forms of life are biologically related! Also,
"Junk DNA" isn't junk. These "non-
coding" segments of DNA have recently
been found to be vital in regulating gene
expression (i.e. when, where, and how
genes are expressed). Read my popular
Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE
REFUTES ATHEISM
Read my popular Internet article, HOW
DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE
SUPPORTING CREATION
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Seriously, I do not think there is anybody that is an Atheist. I believe we only have people that have managed to deceive themselves that they are Atheists.

This author has said things that I might have said if I was idle enough to engage Atheists. No need for me to do that, he has done a decent job.

http://science.time.com/2013/12/20/critters-so-ugly-they-have-to-mate-with-themselves/slide/komodo-dragons/

Alfa Seltzer: what does this have to do with 72 virgins?

You tell me, I would like to know too.

maclatunji:

You tell me, I would like to know too.

I'm not a muslim. You are.

Interesting stuff. I'll check out your articles and your website. I've always believed that science proves creation, rather than disproves it. Thanks.

Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Well i expect one who studied theology to be biased when it comes to the issue of creation.

Heres is one of the comments on the site: Oh golly gee you have a B.A. in Biology from the University of Funkytown?
I suppose Oxford Biology Professor Richard Dawkins was wrong after all. Someone should give him a call!

Alfa Seltzer:

I'm not a muslim. You are.

Watch it

This thread should be closed.

Not one atom of sense in the op

"evolution of kinds"
"forensic science refutes atheism"


This thread contains false information

1) Atheism is not evolution
2) Science can not and does not refute atheism.

Logicboy03: This thread should be closed.

Not one atom of sense in the op

"evolution of kinds"
"forensic science refutes atheism"


This thread contains false information

1) Atheism is not evolution
2) Science can not and does not refute atheism.

Such veheminence in your declaration LB.

maclatunji: NOT MADE BY NATURE! Just because
something exists in nature doesn't mean it
was invented or made by Nature. If all the
chemicals necessary to make a cell were
left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would
have no ability to organize them into a
cell. It takes an already existing cell to
bring about another cell. The cell exists
and reproduces in nature but Nature
didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't
originate the cell or any form of life.


Natural laws can explain how an airplane
or living cell works, but it's irrational to
believe that mere undirected natural laws
can bring about an airplane or a cell.
Once you have a complete and living cell
then the genetic program and biological
machinery exist to direct the formation of
more cells, but how could the cell have
originated naturally when no directing
code and mechanisms existed in nature?
All of the founders of modern science
believed in God.

Read my Internet article:
HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES
ATHEISM

Only evolution within "kinds" is
genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs,
cats, etc.), but not evolution across
"kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human).
How did species survive if their vital
tissues, organs, reproductive systems were
still evolving? Survival of the fittest would
actually have prevented evolution across
kinds!

Read my Internet article: WAR
AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition). I
discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk
DNA," genetics, mutations, natural
selection, fossils, genetic and biological
similarities between species.
Natural selection doesn't produce
biological traits or variations. It can only
"select" from biological variations that are
possible and which have survival value.
The real issue is what biological variations
are possible, not natural selection. Only
limited evolution, variations of already
existing genes and traits are possible.
Nature is mindless and has no ability to
design and program entirely new genes
for entirely new traits.


What about genetic and biological
similarities between species? Genetic
information, like other forms of
information, cannot happen by chance, so
it is more logical to believe that genetic
and biological similarities between all
forms of life are due to a common
Designer who designed similar functions
for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all
forms of life are biologically related! Also,
"Junk DNA" isn't junk. These "non-
coding" segments of DNA have recently
been found to be vital in regulating gene
expression (i.e. when, where, and how
genes are expressed). Read my popular
Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE
REFUTES ATHEISM
Read my popular Internet article, HOW
DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE
SUPPORTING CREATION
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Complete self-serving baloney, especially coming from a theologist.
What do can we really expect from a theologist except convoluted logic to reinforce a dogmatic belief?

These talks of the improbability of this and improbability of that stems from a lack of real understanding of statistical analysis.

Also , I find it funny that the writer says " Only evolution within "kinds" is
genetically possible ".

Wow, so the writer does accept evolution, but now wants to define it's limits?.

I rest my case.

Interesting, so religion is now in support of evolutionary biology. I thought they said their God created everything as it is within six days. This is interesting.

Did Quran or Bible teach you about DNA or forensic sciences? So what do you have to say about the evolutionary history of prehistoric men who roamed the earth millions of years ago(as evidenced by fossils) , long before your Adam and Eve story? Or did your holy books talk about this too?

^Your case is no case at all. So far, I see ad hominems and no attempt to logically disprove his excellent analysis. This is an analogy of what Atheists are saying:

1. I am an intelligent being.

2. I come from nothing.


We say:

1, Nothing is zero.

2. Zero is unitelligent

Conclusion:

1. You say you come from nothing

2. Nothing is zero

3. And zero is unintelligent

4. Therefore you have no intelligence because you are essentially zero.

Rebuttal:

1. You insist you are intelligent

2. We say you must have come from something intelligent to have intelligence.

In essence, an Atheist insults himself as "nothing" everytime he says he has no creator.

As for evolution, re-read the OP again. If you do not get it, then there is little need engaging you as you might never get it.

-QED

Logicboy03:


Much more than vehemence....there is disgust, irritation and venom in that comment.


This animal called Maclatunji would not even tolerate criticism of islam in his section but he will come here to post lies and misinformation about atheism. Yeah right, science disproves atheism-smh

This thread should be closed. But th, Islam and xtianity have greater rights than atheism.

Intellectually weak people insult others when they have nothing convincing to present. It does not take much to crush the concept of Atheism.

Cyrexx :


^Your case is no case at all. So far, I see ad hominems and begging the question and no attempt to logically prove your convoluted analysis. This is an analogy of what Religionists are saying:

1. I am an intelligent being.

2. I came from God

3. God came from nothing.


We say:

1. You can't attempt to solve a problem by bringing a bigger problem

2. Bringing God to explain the reality of our world is no explanation at all since you can't describe this god and prove his existence.

Conclusion:

1. You say you come from God

2. God came from nothing

2. Nothing is zero

3. And zero is unintelligent

4. Therefore your assertion is baseless because telling me that God came from nothing is no intelligent statement at all.

5. If you were to tell me everything came from god then you must describe this god and tell me where he came from and stop begging the question.

Rebuttal:

1. You insist you are intelligent

2. We say you must have come from something intelligent to have intelligence.

3. Applying the logic further, God must have come from something intelligent to have intelligence or else all the above statement is moot.

In essence, a Religionist insults himself as "nothing" everytime he says there is a creator who came from "nothing" .

As for evolution, dump your religious books and go and read real scientific books on the subject . If you do not get it, then there is little need engaging you as you might never get it.

-QED

You are free to ban me if you like cos that's what you are very good at.

I would be shocked if anyone does not believe in microevolution: which basically means that animals and plants can experience minor changes over time but not to the extent that an amoeba would become a human being. That is just laughable.

Through microevolution, wild animals can become domesticated, symbiosis may occur, parasitism may emerge. A classic example is HIV.

The virus has evolved to take advantage of the moral decadence of men towards homosexuality to spread quickly amongst the general population.

The next slip for human beings I forecast is bestiality, if this becomes widespread, expect new diseases unseen before in humans.

These examples are easy to comprehend for those who want to.

There is a lot of discussion of evolution by theists, I present a few links to readers:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/657/

cyrexx:

You are free to ban me if you like cos that's what you are very good at.

#LOL #Pele

maclatunji:

Intellectually weak people insult others when they have nothing convincing to present. It does not take much to crush the concept of Atheism.

Even more lies.
Did I not point out the flaws in your argument?

Atheism is not evolution. An argumebt against evolution is not and argument against atheism.


Furthernmore, your op fails when it tries to claim that there are acceptable kinds of evolution.

@maclatunji

You know the problem with you quasi-intellectual theologians, you always start all your arguments from a non-scientific viewpoint of finding means to justify an already pre-determined end, you then adopt any pseudo-knowledge to help, you root your argument in bases totally unagreeable to atheists/agnostics & when we see little or no point debating you in an arena you've built to your utmost convenience, you lay claim to the supremacy of your fallacies.

Atheism/agnosticism requires the highest of level of of intellectual honesty because while you agree you do not know it all, you are willing to follow the trail of human discoveries over generations rather than accept philosophical attempts in the form of ancient religions with blatant deficiencies as the way and close your mind to everything else.

I leave you with the words of an ancient arab scholar in the post-mohammedan age: 'You can pick a quest for true knowledge or religion, not both'

PS: For the christian evangelists who might be thinking this is just about Islam, nope it isn't. For the truly discerning, Islam is as much an attempted revision of Christianity in much the same way Christianity is revised Judaism

maclatunji: NOT MADE BY NATURE! Just because
something exists in nature doesn't mean it
was invented or made by Nature. If all the
chemicals necessary to make a cell were
left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would
have no ability to organize them into a
cell. It takes an already existing cell to
bring about another cell. The cell exists
and reproduces in nature but Nature
didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't
originate the cell or any form of life.


Natural laws can explain how an airplane
or living cell works, but it's irrational to
believe that mere undirected natural laws
can bring about an airplane or a cell.
Once you have a complete and living cell
then the genetic program and biological
machinery exist to direct the formation of
more cells, but how could the cell have
originated naturally when no directing
code and mechanisms existed in nature?
All of the founders of modern science
believed in God.

Read my Internet article:
HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES
ATHEISM

Only evolution within "kinds" is
genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs,
cats, etc.), but not evolution across
"kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human).
How did species survive if their vital
tissues, organs, reproductive systems were
still evolving? Survival of the fittest would
actually have prevented evolution across
kinds!

Read my Internet article: WAR
AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition). I
discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk
DNA," genetics, mutations, natural
selection, fossils, genetic and biological
similarities between species.
Natural selection doesn't produce
biological traits or variations. It can only
"select" from biological variations that are
possible and which have survival value.
The real issue is what biological variations
are possible, not natural selection. Only
limited evolution, variations of already
existing genes and traits are possible.
Nature is mindless and has no ability to
design and program entirely new genes
for entirely new traits.


What about genetic and biological
similarities between species? Genetic
information, like other forms of
information, cannot happen by chance, so
it is more logical to believe that genetic
and biological similarities between all
forms of life are due to a common
Designer who designed similar functions
for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all
forms of life are biologically related! Also,
"Junk DNA" isn't junk. These "non-
coding" segments of DNA have recently
been found to be vital in regulating gene
expression (i.e. when, where, and how
genes are expressed). Read my popular
Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE
REFUTES ATHEISM
Read my popular Internet article, HOW
DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE
SUPPORTING CREATION
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Here is where the problem lies. Muslims, christians when debating each other have been known to use the "you too fallacy". A muslim points out the sanctioned genocide in the bible and a christian also points out the ones commited by uncle mo.

That same failed strategy is what is been used when debating atheists. Knowing fully well, there is nothing about atheism to attack, they shift attack to evolution and the big-bang.

I wonder how many times it will have to be drummed into their ears that, atheism does not equal evolution or the big bang

maclatunji: ^Your case is no case at all. So far, I see ad hominems and no attempt to logically disprove his excellent analysis. This is an analogy of what Atheists are saying:

1. I am an intelligent being.

2. I come from nothing.


We say:

1, Nothing is zero.

2. Zero is unitelligent

Conclusion:

1. You say you come from nothing

2. Nothing is zero

3. And zero is unintelligent

4. Therefore you have no intelligence because you are essentially zero.

Rebuttal:

1. You insist you are intelligent

2. We say you must have come from something intelligent to have intelligence.

In essence, an Atheist insults himself as "nothing" everytime he says he has no creator.

As for evolution, re-read the OP again. If you do not get it, then there is little need engaging you as you might never get it.

-QED

I didn't read the OP but the above argument is beautiful.

cyrexx:

You are free to ban me if you like cos that's what you are very good at.

hehehehe I missed u

maclatunji:

Intellectually weak people insult others when they have nothing convincing to present. It does not take much to crush the concept of Atheism.

expect more insult from these confuse dudes who will take you arround one point just to waste ur time and megabyte.

maclatunji:
A classic example is HIV.
The virus has evolved to take advantage of the moral decadence of men towards homosexuality to spread quickly amongst the general population.

This has to be the most beautiful piece of nonsense I have ever read. Bravo.


Btw, no atheist I know of holds that we come from nothing. That's a misconception. No one knows the origin of life. We can only speculate. And no matter how brilliant your speculation, it would never count for evidence.

Omexonomy: expect more insult from these confuse dudes who will take you arround one point just to waste ur time and megabyte.

You people insult our intelligence and expect not to be given a taste of your own medicine.

aManFromMars:
This has to be the most beautiful piece of nonsense I have ever read. Bravo.


Btw, no atheist I know of holds that we come from nothing. That's a misconception. No one knows the origin of life. We can only speculate. And no matter how brilliant your speculation, it would never count for evidence.

Hahahaha, then do not call yourself an Atheist then, call yourself a 'sceptic'.

maclatunji:

Hahahaha, then do not call yourself an Atheist then, call yourself a 'sceptic'.

Indeed, God is the only true atheist.

Another analogy:

Can anyone tell me the exact moment he fell asleep last night? I can guarantee that no one can.

Atheists reasoning:

1. You cannot tell the exact moment when you fell asleep last night.

2. If you cannot tell the exact moment that you slept, how would you know you slept at all.

3. We say sleep does not exist because you cannot isolate when it happens.

4. In fact, last night you did not sleep at all.

I know I slept for a few hours last night, would you agree sleep does not exist if I cannot isolate it?