₦airaland Forum

[quote author=MightyKabex post=38508456][/quote]Can't you respond without copying and pasting from your Islamic websites? First of all:

1. Leave Jesus out of this, you are the one that started this dialog so stop using the Bible when it's convenient for you yet you condemn it. Jesus said Christians shouldn't judge in the sense that we shouldn't take authoritative attitudes towards others and condemn them i.e. be the judge and executioner. However, Jesus didn't take nonsense from anyone, he called the Pharisees and Sadducees vipers and hypocrites because that is what they were. So, please put things into perspective
2. Regarding your statement about Deuteronomy 11:30 - Bros, stop being intellectually dishonest. We all use the common examples to describe at what time we see the sun in the morning and at what time we don't see it in the evening. We say things like - the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. That is a metaphoric expression saying - I see the sun over here at this time and at another time, I see it over there. The verse in Deuteronomy did exactly the same thing, it was a memorable passage, as attesting the true position of the speaker, east of Jordan, over against Jericho. The sun has been seen by travellers from that very spot going down exactly in the remarkable gap between Ebal and Gerizim. In summary, the speaker was giving you a description of where he say the sun. That verse doesn't imply literal meaning except of course you don't know how to read
3. Notice that the Quran does not say that the sun appeared to be setting in muddy water or what have you. The text clearly says the Zul-Qarnain found THE PLACE where the sun actually sets and rises. This is not a metaphoric expression, it is stating he knows where it sets which is what people are questioning.

Take some time and examine the text again instead of re-writing and pasting Imams you haven't even heard of in your life

@poster

It's difficult to respond to you when you are not coherent. Can you state one of two objections you have about the Bible and the Quran and let us discuss. You seem to be all over the place without making any real point

enieme:
hmm, this ur conclusiob sha.!
if i may ask, are u muslim or non muslim? Cos u dont semm knowledeablevenough to have the authority to proclaim such judgements

My conclusion? So, what is written in the Quran is now my conclusion abi? Have I stated or written anything that is incorrect?

I don't seem knowledgeable to pass judgments? What is wrong with you? I am stating what the Quran said and the authentic narrative from Al-Bukhari on the events discussed; can't you review what I have said and let Allah guide you to draw the right conclusion? Why are you being biased even before you looked at the evidence?

I am a human being, I believe in Almighty God and His prophets - you go figure whether I am a muslim or not

If stoning satan is an act of worship as you claim, can you throw light on the following:

1. Why do we have to go to mecca alone to perform this worship? satan is a jinn, he is not physical even though he can take physical forms
2. Did Allah ever instruct muslims to do such?

The Quran is the ultimate and final authority on everything Islamic. Allah never endorsed such practice. Hundreds of million of muslims travel to mecca to perform these rites; the kissing of stones and other forms of worship of inanimate objects. Allah forbids such in Surah 5:90 and Surah 21:66

However, Muhammad kissed and worshiped these objects in Mecca directly disobeying Allah. The question now is - is Mohammad word greater than that of Allah instructions of Allah?

zaicon1:
Some people brain cells became dead in their mothers womb Stoning the devil and all other rituals done was first practice by Abraham the father of faith who built the mosque.At least Muslims worship on the true path, unlike those who called Jesus(Allah's Prophet) the son of God,or god respectively. Those that other man made religion that copy islamic pilgrimage just go to Jerusalem,Rome e.t.c for tourist attraction, their religion have no bases.what were they expecting to happen when they couldn't take turns as instructed by the authorities. Nevertheless these the Saudi authorities should take responsibility and make necessary arrangement against such stampede in future

Which true path are you worshiping on? Did Abraham stone a rock and called it satan? The idolatry in Mecca is appalling. For you to objectively take a look at your beliefs - instead, you are blaming others

McCarlito:
Whites have always believed the notion that anything black is bad..
Now they're blaming African Blacks...
Chai!! Africa don suffer...

Arabs are not whites - get the facts straight

Very nice article.

You raised several points that I am compelled to respond to. The reason I am responding is because you didn't follow up with any Quranic reference or an authentic Hadith to backup your points. For example, you said:

If women in the Muslim World today don’t have their rights, it is not because Islam didn’t give them rights. Alien traditions have overshadowed the teachings of Islam, either through ignorance or the impact of colonialism. Most of the so-called modern reforms in the status of women appeared after the West abandoned religion for secularism. Those in the West who claim to follow the Judeo-Christian tradition really follow the values of Western liberalism

Western values and liberalism doesn't extend to countries under Sharia law i.e Saudi Arabia and Iran practices Sharia and Islam before America or Europe as we know it existed. The last time I checked, Sharia law is the governing law in these lands. As you know in Islam, a woman can't leave the house without the permission or her husband (if she has one), her father or her brothers. A woman testimony in Islam is worth less than that of a man by Islamic jurisprudence Surah 2:282. Even when it comes to inheritance, the Quran favors the male over the female (I may not know why it did so) but it certainly doesn't over the female the same equal terms it offers the male. So, to say otherwise is an exaggeration on your part.

In England and America less than fifty years ago, a woman could not buy a house or car without the co-signature of a male "guardian"! In Contrast, Islamic Law guaranteed rights to women over 1400 years ago that were unheard of in the West until the 1900s.

Women couldn't vote in these countries as well but they weren't because of religious reasons. That is why there is a separation of church and state in the West. The society evolves and decides that such privileges should be given to all people irrespective of their sex. That is what a pluralistic society is all about - it includes everyone. Islam has some work to do in this regard.

Numerous verses of the Quran state that men and women are equal in the site of Allah; the only thing that distinguishes people in His site is their level of God-consciousness

Equality before God and the law should be the same whether you are a man or a woman; that is what equality is all about. In Surah 2:228, the Quran teaches that men are above women. In Western Liberalism, men are not above women, men are equal to women in all aspects. The difference between individuals is their pursuit of happiness but they are the same under the law.

Islam teaches that a woman is a full person under the law, and is the spiritual equal of a male. Women have the right to own property, to operate a business, and to receive equal pay for equal work. Women are allowed total control of their wealth. They cannot be married against their will, and they are allowed to keep their own name when married. They have the right to inherit property and to have their marriage dissolved in the case of neglect or mistreatment. Islam does not consider woman an “evil temptress,” and thus does not blame woman for Original Sin (a doctrine that Islam rejects). Women in Islam participate in all forms of worship that men participate in.

I am not debating that women don't have "some" rights in Islam. The issue here is that women is Islam don't have the same rights accorded to men in Islam. The equality laws in Islam are dualistic and not pluralistic. You have one set of laws for men in certain instances and different set of laws for women.

Prophet Muhammad’s mission stopped many of the horrible practices against women that were present in the society of his time. He actually harnessed the unrestricted polygamy of the Arabs of the time, and put many laws in place to protect the well-being of women. In his Farewell Sermon just weeks before his death, he summarized the teachings of Islam to the believers in a final farewell. His last words were “Be kind to women!”

He did say women were unintelligent and lacking in knowledge

Bukhari (6:301)

. Her are the words of Aisha:

Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'" These are the words of Muhammad's favorite wife, complaining of the role assigned to women under Islam

There is a lot I can say but I will leave it here for now. I think Islam has contributed some positive values women play under Islamic law but there are ugly history that we have running through the pages of the Quran and Hadith. Over-looking them or playing pretend doesn't help the dialog

As-salamu alaykum

Peterken05

alexis, sorry for replying late, have been busy lately.

No shaking, it happens

before we go further, what is science?

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science

You are referring to natural science and I agree with you

Intelligent Design advocates’ hostility towards naturalism and desire to replace it with supernatural speculation received detailed analysis so it is not science because of the following reasons;

1). ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and

(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

You seem to be mixing Intelligent Design with Religion. Intelligent design is a scientific theory just the same way you have the theory of evolution. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection. You raised several points but yet never supported them in anyway. Let me break it down for you:

1. Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method? = The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.

2. Evidence for Design in Physics and Cosmology = The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That’s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, “[a] common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed.

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible? = No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Platoand Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

4. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design? = Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers, and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, geneticist Norman Nevin (emeritus) at Queen’s University of Belfast, mathematician Granville Sewell at the University of Texas, El Paso, and medical geneticist Michael Denton. Research centers for intelligent design include the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, led by Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University; and the Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Douglas Axe, formerly a research scientist at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge.

I don't want to bombard you with too much info, I suggest you review what I have posted.

so you are telling me someone designed everything.

I am telling you nothing comes out of nothing - THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. It is scientific fact in our day and age that our universe had a beginning. So, if the universe wasn't eternal and had a beginning; where did it come from?

Asking the question another way - if you see a beautiful painting; would you assume that the painting had no origin? Did the painting pop out of no where?

you think The inner solar system is a shooting gallery. And look how long it took for multicellular life to evolve—3.5 billion years! Obviously not a good design. Then there are the earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis that we experience on this planet. who designed this shit.

Dude, why are you ignorant; did I ever claim our solar system is a shooting gallery? Can you please present some facts when debating

And consider all the natural diseases. Lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and ALS. The list goes on and on. But that’s not all. Our limited human vision system can only perceive a narrow band of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. what about others? who designed our eyes not to see others?

Who designed your brain to figure out ways to observe the electromagnetic spectrum? Stop using logical fallacy to prove the extremes. It shows you know little about the subject at hand

We have to eat constantly because we’re warm-blooded. So we’re always looking for food. And what about carbon monoxide? You can’t smell it or taste, but you breath it in and “your dead.”

You should be asking yourself why aren't humans on Pluto or Saturn but on earth which is just PERFECT for human life? Think about next time before you talk about carbon momoxide

This is all simply stupid design. The problem is, if you look for what is intelligent, and yes you can find some things that are really beautiful, and really—“hey, that’s clever,” such as the ball-socket of the shoulder. There are a lot of things you can point to, but then you stop looking at all the things that confound that revelation. And so, if I came upon a frozen waterfall, and it just struck me for all its beauty, I would then turn over the rock and try to find a millipede, or some kind of deadly newt, and put that in context, and realize, of course, the universe is not here for us

So, you have left the origins of the universe an jumped to why intelligent design is not feasible? Before we continue, I asked you some simple questions that you haven't addressed:

1. Either our universe is eternal and never had a beginning i.e. it existed eternally
2. Either our universe is not eternal and does have a beginning i.e. it was created or came about in some-way

What is your science position on the above?

Peterken05

this is your problem

What is my problem; you asked me a question and I answered you. You can't provide a response and you are pointing fingers

'God is the un-caused first cause, not created, outside time and
space and eternal. So, God can't be created because creation
started with Him. If you want proof, I can provide one.'

You asked me a question, I provided an answer and you can't respond accordingly so you are trying to side-step

are we still talking science here?

Of course, I can scientifically draw conclusions that our universe has an intelligent design. If you are willing to challenge my responses; I will engage you.

Asking you to show proof is synonymous to asking you to preach.

Cha, I am dealing with another evolutionist. Listen, there are only two outcomes here:

1. Either our universe is eternal and never had a beginning i.e. it existed eternally
2. Either our universe is not eternal and does have a beginning i.e. it was created or came about in some-way

Now, from the above; which is more scientific? Whilst you are looking that up, please refer to the KALAM Cosmological Argument. I will particularly appreciate if you could throw some light on the argument and if it's scientific

Would reply your mention later, alexis

No shaking, I am waiting for your response.

Peterken05

theology was reffered as queen of science in the middle ages.
theology was seen as a science in the Middle Ages.
Thomas Aquinas considered theology a science because it
encounters special and general revelation.
I dont think i would call it science, since it is based on revelations (mostly special).
And moreso, the holybook is not a reliable tool itself when it come to knowing more about god but many theologians failed to accept this.

I have referred to the definition of the sciences. Theology is not a physical or natural science so the criteria for the natural sciences isn't the same as theology but that is another matter - that point has been made and pretty clear

A single person reflecting on
the meaning of a religious text might be said to be "doing"
theology in some manner. So i'm still skeptical.

Of course you are

Wissenschaft was misinterpreted by 19th century Americans
visiting German universities to mean "pure science," untainted
by social purposes and opposed to the liberal arts.

I specifically told you that theology in the Wissenschaft context is the study on an object; in this case God. I can study human beings, I can study demonology; I can study energy in the same way I can study God. I never claimed that it was a natural or physical science

ID discourages us from looking and
asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later
found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not
have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and
recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated
into evolutionary theory.

It shows your level of understanding on the subject. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection. Evolution doesn't explain how life started; it has no idea. It's claims falls under it's own weight.

Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called "specified complexity" or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin’s theory doesn’t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

If you want evidence of intelligent design - I will be happy to indulge you

If you wanna talk about ID answer this 1st question Who designed the designer?

The common school-boy atheist argument. Sounds like Richard Darwkins all over again . The concept of God has never been that of a created entity. Ancients and even us know that "created" gods are called idols so if that is what you are referring to then you have your question mixed up.

God is the un-caused first cause, not created, outside time and space and eternal. So, God can't be created because creation started with Him. If you want proof, I can provide one.

Now, I have a question for you? Was our universe created or is it eternal?

Peterken05

@alexis,

i dont know what you're saying about depression or arrogance.
I dont know about nature scientist and cosmologist debunking evolution theory either. Why would a cosmologist debunked evolution?
I still cant grasp what you're trying to say.

Can you quote me on what I said about depression or arrogance. Also, I not quite clear on your statement regarding nature scientist and evolution. This was the statement you made:

@alexis, i know you're a fan of intelligent design, thats yo ur problem, intelligent design is flawed right from start, its not scientific.

And I responded:

It depends on what science you are talking about my friend. In summary, science is knowledge of a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws. You have the physical and natural sciences like physics and biology which use "natural" scientific methods to explain and understand how things work i.e. to get knowledge

Then you have theology, which is a science that studies a particular object - God. Howbeit not a natural science but still a science as it deals with the knowledge of the meta-physical and of God, His laws, His principles, His person and how He relates to us.

The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft (I suggest you look up this word) was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is "a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation." This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study.

So, if you are trying to prove intelligent design or God in a lab; it's similar to be asking you to scientifically prove that you ate dinner with your family at Christmas 5 years ago. I hope you get my point

Please respond accordingly

AgentOfAllah

Alexis, we started on a wrong footing. I occasionally get frustrated when I feel someone is intentionally trying not to understand my point. Let's push the reset button and start again:

No problem mate, I might have come across on the wrong foot as well.

In evolutionary biology, it doesn't make sense to separate Micro and Macro evolution. One leads to the other, and I have used the little free time I found to formulate a proof using mathematical formalisms (this is why I like mathematics. It fits into any science). I have named the proof after you, but I hope you have a little bit of mathematics background. If not, don't worry, I will provide a visually appealing example of the mathematical statements for good measure. See the proof below (I have attached it as an image because Nairaland cannot accept compound formula):
https://s22.postimg.org/urkjfrlk1/Slide1.jpg
https://s27.postimg.org/85l8qkm0z/Slide2.jpg

Unfortunately, I can't view the images, can you send their direct link so I can refer to them

So to say micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is to make a mathematically illogical statement, which shifts the burden of proof on you. Hence, you must show that the LIM(t→ ΔT) (m) =/=M according to equation 5.

I am not sure the equation 5 you are referring to but if it was listed in the images above, I couldn't view them so I can't respond until I see it. My stance is this = Evolution has carried the weight of micro-evolution but it's certainly not creative. There is nothing illogical about that statement.

For example, if you were accumulating brown grains of sand in a De rica can, one after the other, eventually you'll have a heap of brown sand. A heap of brown sand looks nothing like a grain of brown sand, yet you know one results in another. Supposing you continue to accumulate into another De rica container, and high winds come and mixed your brown sand with white sand, by the time your next De rica can is filled, you'll have a mixture of white and brown heap of sand, which will look nothing like the brown heap of sand or the initial brown grain

.

The above example is a good logic. The mixture of white heap of sands with existing brown heap of sands by wind producing a mixture of both white and brown mixtures of sand. Mathematically, this is a sound logic

Now consider the following example:

Assuming your name is Alexis Methuselah the Second, and you have been gifted with two superpowers, namely the power of longevity which will make you live for more than 10,000 years, as well as the power to make someone sleep for a long time before waking them up. Now, because you will live for so long, you wished to kill boredom, so you develop a hobby, breeding red-Birdy. Now, while you're busy with your breeding, your naughty son saw your red- Birdy and started startling it, so you sent you naughty son to sleep until your breeding experiment is done. Your breeding experiment, represented by the matrix below, is carried out with especial interest in three different features as follows:

Try A: Mate only the off-springs of red Birdy with the largest bone structures.
Try B: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures and darkest colours.
Try c: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures, darkest colours and Biggest beaks.

Find the result below:
https://s30.postimg.org/vfu7w0klt/Slide3.jpg
Red-Birdy Matrix

I am unable to see the image, can you provide a working link to the image so I can view it

10,000 years later, you're happy with the outcome of your breeding experiment. You now have three new species of red Birdy: Big-red-Birdy (BRB), Big Black-red-Birdy (BBRB) and Big-Beaked-Black-red-Birdy (BBBRB). So you decide to wake little Alexis up and show him your beautiful birds. Little Alexis will say "Oh daddy, when did you buy these three different kinds of birds". But you know better, so you'll say "Son, I didn't buy them. They are off-springs of a common ancestor 'S' the red-Birdy". Your son says, "No, I don't believe that such a small red-Birdy can produce a BBBRB that looks nothing like it, unless you prove it to me at this instant". You will have no way of proving this to your son in a lab because if you take two little red-Birdies, they will never be able to produce one BBBRB. You'll need exactly the same amount of time and similar conditions to reproduce BBBRB to your son. Alternatively, you show your son that there are DNA signatures of little red-Birdy in BBBRB, and your son is thenafter, satisfied.

I think you misunderstood me. The above described the micro-evolution of birds. My contention is that you didn't use the birds to give rise to a different animal that is not a bird. After the 10,000 years, the animals are still birds howbeit small or large. There is a common misconception that scientists/individuals who reject evolutionary theory must believe that species are fixed and unchangeable. However, that is incorrect. Non-evolutionary scientists accept that species can change, but they believe that biological change has natural limits. Instead of the single evolutionary "tree of life", according to which all living things have arisen from a single common ancestor, non-evolutionary scientists characterize the relationships between different living things as an orchard of trees.

Each tree in the orchard represents a distinctly different group of organisms – what we might call a Basic Type – and each originated separately. In this non-evolutionary view, they cannot be traced back to a universal common ancestor. Nevertheless, each Basic Type is a broad group probably encompassing many species. While each Basic Type originated separately, a great deal of variation has occurred within the created group. For instance, all dogs – including wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs – probably belong to the same Basic Type. However, dogs are distinctly different from, and unrelated to, other groups (e.g. cats, bears, weasels).

Likewise, when you ask for proof of a fish or single cell becoming human, that is not a reasonable request, not only because of the length of time involved in evolution, but also the fact that many of the conditions have since changed, which cannot be replicated.

Either I didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood me; If I didn't make myself clear, my apologies. My question was - if you claim that complex forms i.e. humans came from single forms i.e. amoeba, there should be gradual transformation proof that we can observe i.e. fossils. Also, we should have many many examples of these fossils showing these transformations and transitions. I wasn't expecting you to show me how an amoeba changed into a man. I was expecting you to provide proof showing the gradual change leading up to complex forms.

For example, there once was an ice-age, which for sure, caused living organisms to evolve so as to survive the harsh climate. Such evolutionary events cannot be replicated today, without the ice-age conditions. As such, to prove evolution, we depend on DNA signatures that all living organisms share, as well as fossil records. DNA signatures and fossil records are scientifically observable and repeatable. So the question one has to ask is: Why do all living things share these signatures? The answer to that question is that the differences in the DNA of all living things were micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. Everyday, we observe the micro-evolutionary events take place in the lab and in nature, and we have no reason to assume it just stops there. Since you're the one assuming it stops there, the burden of proof is on you to show that such an assumption is valid.

I am not assuming it stops there, I am asking for proof. You talked about DNA signature and how it proves we are all similar and share the same ancestry. That is a logical conclusion but it provides no proof as to why we are different. It's similar to saying, Queen Elizabeth is a human being and you are a human being so you have a right to the throne of England. Your claim as a human being has nothing to do with your claim to the throne of England or how you are related to the Queen.

I will present some facts from the fossil records regarding macro-evolution and I hope you can do them justice:

1. If indeed all creatures share the same ancestry, we should see gradual evolutionary transformation trends. Can you provide a fossil record showing gradual transformation change from one biological specie to a different biological specie. The example of the bird example you gave doesn't fall into this category as the result of my super-powers still produced another bird.
2. We should be able to see many examples of transitional forms documenting this evolutionary process. Since we all came from the same source, there should be many many examples of fossils showing these gradual transitions i.e. for example, what was the original form of the jellyfish
3. The fossil records doesn't look anything like gradual transformation. Instead, we see sudden appearance of new life forms, new biological groups, showing up explosively in the fossil records
4. We see the absence or the near absence of transitional intermediates
5. Instead of seeing gradual changes over time, we see stasis
6. Perfect examples of sudden appearance of fossil records without traceable and gradual trends is something known as the "Cambrian Explosion" which dates back to 540 million years ago when the fossil records show a variety of explosion of complex multi-cellular animal life.
7. For the first time in earths history, we see 50% to 80% of animal phyla that have ever existed and they show up in a window of time that is arguably within 2-3 million year window
8. Virtually, out of nowhere appear these incredible diversification of complex animal forms and life
9. Now, when you look at the fossil records, you see nothing that looks like complex animal life from simple forms. It's life showing up out of virtually nowhere.

A renowned evolutionary biologist named Simon Conway Morris who studied the Cambrian Explosion said this:

"William Buckland knew about it, Charles Darwin characteristically agonized over it, and we still do not fully understand it. It, of course, is the seemingly abrupt appearance of animals in the Cambrian explosion"

The Cambrian explosive simply makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. This is what Charles Darwin wrote about the Cambrian explosion and this comes from the book The Origin of Species

"There is another and allied difficulty which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kindgom suddenly appear in the lowest know fossiliferous rocks. To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian systems, I can give no satisfactory answer"

In other words, the Cambrian explosion was well known. Darwin hoped that future studies will uncover this mystery but here we are 150 years later; the fossil records look the same as it looked then. To be clear, we know of many more fossils than Darwin knew in his day but the nature of the Cambrian explosion is still the same today as it was in Darwin's time. Why is that?

Here is what Richard Dawkins said in his book the blind watch maker about the Cambrian Explosion:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks vintage about 600 million years are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though there were just planted there without any evolutionary history"

This goes to show that the Cambrian explosion challenges the evolutionary i.e. macro-evolution paradigm. This challenge is not posed by me, it is posed by the fossil records, a fossil record that supposedly justifies biological evolution

I hope you understand evolution better now

I understood evolution; all I asked for was proof of macro-evolution

Peterken05:
@alexis, i know you're a fan of intelligent design, thats yo ur problem, intelligent design is flawed right from start, its not scientific.

It depends on what science you are talking about my friend. In summary, science is knowledge of a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws. You have the physical and natural sciences like physics and biology which use "natural" scientific methods to explain and understand how things work i.e. to get knowledge

Then you have theology, which is a science that studies a particular object - God. Howbeit not a natural science but still a science as it deals with the knowledge of the meta-physical and of God, His laws, His principles, His person and how He relates to us.

The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft (I suggest you look up this word) was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is "a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation." This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study.

So, if you are trying to prove intelligent design or God in a lab; it's similar to be asking you to scientifically prove that you ate dinner with your family at Christmas 5 years ago. I hope you get my point

Liekiller:
You got a link above informing you about how it is testable. You are the one going around in circles.

All I did was ask you for one example. You gave me a link showing no traceable and gradual evidence. I have asked you to give me a specific example

Liekiller:
You got a link above informing you about how it is testable. You are the one going around in circles.

Remember, I asked about an example, could you mention one and elaborate?

Liekiller:
you really need to get over Darwin. He was the one who suggested the general idea of evolution. Ever since his idea has been refined, added to and modified. Did you even read that link? But he was right. Nothing has been able to falsify it so far, instead all new disciplines involved have confirmed it over and over again.
No, you are not making claim of evolution. You are making claim of intelligent design which is backed up by ZERO evidence and science. And I have a feeling you know that. There is good reason for you to avoid that discussion.

You are here again going around in circles. If you want to discuss intelligent design, I will happy to indulge you. I will respond with the statement I made earlier:

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

Liekiller:
I mean that you continue to challenge us to "prove" evolution, but when you are asked to provide evidence for your ideas you ignore it and come around with insults, if anything. Anyway, have a good read

What evidence do you want me to provide? I am not the one making claim of macro-evolution. Evolution states that we evolved from simple organisms to complex ones; the burden of proof is on the evolutionary process to confirm that. I am using the same standard that scientist use to confirm if macro-evolution is true - an observable, repeatable experimental process. This same process applies to micro-evolution and we can easily observe and repeat it but we can't do the same of macro-evolution

Darwin didn't provide any proof that simple organism spawned into complex entities. He made that conclusion after observing birds and beaks.

It's similar to you asking me to prove God when I made the claim He exist and I tell you to provide evidence that you don't believe in him.

Liekiller

Sorry, I took that as part of the other question. But then again do I have any obligation to adress each of your questions when you bring forth nothing? Well anyway, we are certainly all interested in that, but there is no definite answer.

What do you mean when I bring forth nothing?

Here is a review what science has so far: http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/unravel.htm. I also find this whole article useful to demonstrate the type of science that is involved in evolutionary biology nowadays.

I will take a look at it, thanks

Liekiller:
I think this is the main question here. YOU ARE RIGHT. And guess what, evolutionary biology never attempted to, does not and never will answer that question, because that's not a question within its scope. Evolutionary biology does not address the "WHY" question. So all your efforts in distorting biology are futile. There is no reason for it. As far as I'm concerned anyone can claim that something "created" the initial step of life if they must. So far we don't have scientific proof how it happened, and maybe we never will.
Apart from that... I'm not even going to reply to any "intelligent design" propositions. It's not science. If you wish to claim it is then go right ahead and bring out the testable evidence. The claim "but it's obvious" is NOT testable evidence.

You are not addressing the entire question I raised; we have both agreed that science can't address the origin of life. This was what I said:

Nor does it explain the existence of the mutating replicator on which it depends

Simple to complex forms need a mutating replicator; a way to copy itself. If life started as A SINGLE ORGANISM; how did it replicate; how did it change; how did it "evolve" from one cell to a different cell. I am asking HOW questions, not WHY questions.

You seem to be doing what every evolutionist does; ignore the core scientific query and brush it aside as irrelevant.

Liekiller

respectable scientists eh? "it has nothing to do with their faith"? SUUUUUUREEEEEEEEEE

I will suggest you listen to debates say between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins or between William Craig and Lawrence Krauss. Whenever an issue is debated i.e. evolution, facts and logic are presented. Whenever religion is brought up; then religion is discussed. The topics are clearly defined. It is on the path of atheists and evolutionists that contrast religion and science with false dichotomy. One can be a scientist even if one is a theist.

"William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. "

"Professor John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician, philosopher of science and Christian apologist who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. [...] He is a leading voice defending the notion of the relationship between science and religion. Lennox is considered to be a leading figure of the evangelical intelligentsia movement."

You don't have to copy and paste it from Google,

See, we are talking about biology here, not philosophy and theology. Biologists are the only "respectable scientists" in this field. Or will you ask an aeronautic engineer when you want to form an opinion about linguistics?! Please!!According to scientists, it is science. It uses scientific methods. It doesn't matter if it fits into your own personal definition. Period. Listen, your only problem here is that you are outrageously biased, and the reason for this is very clear. You feel that evolution threatens your belief. I understand that. What I don't understand though is why you don't get information other than what you find on biased creationist websites. If you are not truly fanatic you should actually find it simple to accept evolution (by that I mean its scientific version and not the creationist lies about it) AND be a Christian. All it really requires is to read genesis as an allegory. Millions of Christians around the world do that. The only thing "believing in evolution" threatens is the incest stories in genesis. No big loss I'd say.

The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution. Nor does it explain the existence of the mutating replicator on which it depends. The language of life, the genetic code of life has scarcely changed at all. So the question is raised - how did it develop; how did it evolve from a simple organism as you claim to a complex one.

Now, let's get down to the simple origin of life - the cell. The cell is an information processor, what we have in the biological mirco-molecules is something that Physics and Chemistry don't know and don't claim to know in the sense that, you have got a signalling system, you have got a code, you have got a translator of the code. Now, in every other area where we see anything like this - the inference up to intelligent design is INSTANT and IMMEDIATE.

It seems to be without going further into it that if you look at the cell as an information processor machine, it then can be simulated by a turing machine which is a kind of an abstract computer and if you know anything about computers, you know this - JUNK IN - JUNK OUT. This is born out of the sophistication of what the cell is and what it does. Now, Chemistry and Physics do not have the capacity to produce these things. You can't produce it by evolution because evolution can't get going until you have a mutating replicator. So, somehow, it has to happen. I AM INTERESTED IN HOW IT HAPPENED. That is all I am asking

If I was biased, I will not admit to micro-evolution; I will not admit to evolution that has been observed.

As for your claims that it is not scientific/testable/falsifiable: read here how macroevolution is tested and how it could be falsified (but hasn't been so far)

You ignored my response on this

AgentOfAllah:
^^^ Hahaha...He calls it personal smearing! He smeared himself with his lies. I merely pointed out his cheap tactics and pedantic maneuvers. Abeg go siddon jarre, you're clearly ignorant!!

Coming from some-one who compared the birth of a child to the evolution of humans from an amoeba? Dude, go and stand in front of a mirror

Liekiller

No i won't. I really don't have time for this. The evidence is all out there, you can easily find it yourself. As i said before we "evolutionists" are arguing for what is considered state-of-the-art science and a proven fact by pretty much everybody except christian fanatics. As such it's YOU who has to prove your point. Ours has been proven a zillion times. I have not seen any of that from you. All you do is come around calling us foolish, however without providing proof that the science we "believe in" is factually wrong or providing an alternative falsifiable theory. Just because you dislike and fear a scientific theory does NOT make it wrong, sorry

Christian fanatics? Really - do yourself a favor do more research. There are many respectable scientists that do not believe in macro-evolution and it has nothing to do with their faith - refer to John Lennox and William Lane Craig to mention a few. I have never denied micro-evolution or any other evolution that can be observed and repeated and I don't know where you got that idea from.

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

AgentOfAllah

So we result to personal smearing once we can't debate facts anymore. Very pitiful

He called Jellyfish a fish

My intent was to refer to it as a non vertebrate showing that humans are vertebrates and jellyfishes are not. That was the point I was making, I did make a mistake of calling a jellyfish a fish and I never did deny that. So, to come and smear me for that is really pitiful

He claimed all animals don't have the same ancestry, and that the inability of different kinds to produce off-springs when they mate is proof of this claim: I said okay, explain the existence of hybrid species like Lion+Tiger=Liger. His response? I said hmmm...let's add a cheetah to the equation then, why is it that Lion+Cheetah=/=Litah or Cheetah+Tiger=/=Cheegar? I got no coherent explanation, just this: Pretending my question had anything to do with natural crossbreeding, or, perhaps, suffering from a case of selective cognitive disorder.

My argument was never about ancestry; you brought it up. My question was pretty simple:

1. Can two different KIND of animals give rise to a 3rd different KIND of animal. I asked you specifically, say a DOG and a CAT

You never answered the question and JUMPED directly and asked about a Liger. As if a Liger is a product between two different biological groups. I explained that Lions and Tigers can't breed naturally. You then mentioned brought up the question of a cheetah and a Lion. I asked when you try it, let us know the output.

All the while, my stance was macro-evolution; giving rise to a different KIND from two other different KINDs of animals wasn't possible. You never addressed that yet you continually played pretend

He relentlessly fabricated lies against Darwin, asserting that Darwin said life emerged from non-life: After persistently pressing him to provide verbatim evidence of Darwin making such a profound remark, he provided this: To scrutinise his perverse logic, I asked a simple question: I got no response, just tactless maneuvers.

. Cha!. You play better at semantics that at facts. Did Darwin infer life was possible from non-life? You never did answer me but went off in another direction and twisting my words. Darwin offered that it was a possibility and he said it was a possibility. That was my stance

He claimed evolution was all about the abiogenesis of matter into diverse lifeforms: . Diligently, I called him out on his misleading characterisation of the theory as follows: And then in his typical mendacious manner, his words transmogrified!!! More artless maneuverings!!! This is how a few words can cause the meaning of a statement to evolve. Obviously, Darwin never knew the origin of life, nor did he claim or pretend to know. In fact, he frequently clarified that his work had nothing to do with the origin of life, and even wrote against a scientist in his lifetime, who argued that he should have included the origin of life in his work.

Life starting from chemical reactions in a warm pond is an idea that Darwin proposed. You can play semantics and law all you want. Many scientists have tried to offer theories based on that idea and some have even tried to prove it. So, you can keep hiding behind the wall of denial; I care less.

So is there anything alexis is persistently good at? no doubt there is!

Yes, stupi.dity resides in the same domain with [b]AgentofAllah. The same person who said I should prove that I am an off-spring from my grand-parents. After providing repeatable example, he said that it doesn't meet his criteria and the question was an impossible and foolish one.

Asked him over and over again of how two different biological groups and give rise to a 3rd different biological group as claimed by Darwin; he brought the example of a Lion and Tiger; when I specifically mentioned two different KINDs i.e. a dog and a cat

Asked him how humans can originate from an ameoba - he referred to a baby been born from the sperm and egg of human beings. It amazes me the lengths that some evolutionists will go to prove stupi.dity

Liekiller:
More lies. There are loads of transitional fossils. Furthermore EVERY species could be considered "intermediate" since the change is GRADUAL and does not stop at some point or jump from one form to a radically different form. Every form is therefore in between the previous and the next form. Apart from that you don't seem to understand the process of fossilization, else you'd easily see why you can't expect to find "billions" of fossils for every branch of the tree.

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

You keep talking without presenting a complete example. You keep saying I don't know what I am talking about. Can you please provide an example of a fossil record showing how one biological group "evolved" into another biological group with different properties showing complete transitional and gradual change at each stage for us to study.

Please make sure there are no near absence of intermediaries; also explain in stages the Cambrian explosion and how they actually came about step by step to put things into perspective. If you want more information about it, read up what Darwin said on the cambrian explosion

Liekiller

Actually, in a reasonable world, YOU are the one who is in the position to prove your point. Evolution is proven, whether you like it or not. So if we are realistic you would have to prove why it is not true, which of course you can't, because you don't even understand the basics of it and secodly even those who do understand it have not been able to falsify it the past 150 years..

I am continually amazed at how eagerly some embrace the evolution theory which proposes that eons of time passes while creatures make the minute changes that eventually makes them into a new creature. With those billions of changes, surely there would be billions of examples in the fossil record of intermediate species or billions of examples we can easily reproduce. There is however, not one example of an intermediate specimen. We find some extinct species fossils, we continue to find formerly unknown species fossils, but still no intermediate fossils. Why do you think that is? Because Charlie's theory is simply imagination.

AgentOfAllah

Aaah!! The tyranny of the ignorant mind is relentless.

Coming from someone who is still trying to prove humans came from an amoeba!

I'll leave the readers to determine who the disingenuous and incoherent babbler is.

The most objective thing you have said since you started this discussion.

AgentOfAllah:

Yes, Yahweh also created the earth before the sun according to genesis. How can the earth exist without a sun to orbit? By balancing its centripetal and centrifugal forces

This is a good response to the above. Saves me time trying to explain it: http://www.reasons.org/videos/did-god-create-the-earth-before-the-sun-and-moon

AgentOfAllah

Good...what took you so long?

You seem to be like a kid that I have to hand hold and show him everything

Darwin was a naturalist, so, naturally, he did believe that it was probable that life emerged from non-life, but he was always very clear that this was just a conjecture, not science. This sentiment was most eloquently conveyed in a letter he wrote to Julius Viktor Carus. You'll find reference to this letter in pages 34-35 of the NCBI link. In it, he said:

And that has been my argument; he expressed that it could have been a possibility and he said it. This is a man who said humans came from an amoeba because he observed birds with similar beaks but with different sizes.

But for all his conjectures and hopes, one thing is irrefutably true about Darwin. He saw a clear distinction between the question of origin of species and that of the origin of life. To him, these were fundamentally different questions, and he believed his theory of evolution answered only the former, not the latter. You'll find this theme in many of his correspondences. An example of this was a letter he wrote to George Wallich in 1882 (NCBI, Pg 35)

I never denied that, I said in addition to the evolution of life and species he supported, he also referred to the possibility of life from non-life.

Having been presented with the facts about Darwin's theory, I hope you will now be humble enough to admit you were wrong, and desist from torturing us with your fabrications.

Fabrications? Are you serious? You used on your mouth to admit that Darwin thought life from non-life was a possibility yet you claim I fabricated it?

AgentOfAllah

My question wasn't that of nature, but of possibility. It is possible to crossbreed a lion and a tiger, wether naturally or unnaturally, with an offspring, and you said this is possible because they are of the same kind (I.e., cats). I asked you why cheetahs can't crossbreed with lions and tigers in the same way lions and tigers crossbreed. After all, cheetahs are also cats.

Dude, the evolution that Darwin talked about were all natural. Since you have lost that point, you want to prove evolution in a lab - it is truly pathetic and dishonest. It's similar to asking why can't rays mate with sharks since they are all fishes. I am amazed at how far you want to go to prove your evolution

The theory of evolution can give you a coherent reason why such curious crossbreeding phenomenon sometimes happens. The explanation is thus: These animals share the same ancestry. Some are much further divided on the evolutionary clad than others. So, even though lions, cheetahs, tigers and domestic cats are all cats, some are much closer to the common ancestor than others, so they produce offsprings (albeit sterile, but occasionally fertile too), while those that are distant are completely cross-cladistically sterile. This would explain why humans cannot crossbreed with other apes for example, but this does not make our claim to a common ancestry any less legitimate than the claim a cheetah has to being a cat, in spite of the fact that it cannot crossbreed with lions and tigers.

I have never argued ancestry - you seem to be turning 360 degrees back to that every time. Darwin observed birds beak growing differently; that was ALL he observed and came to the conclusion that if that was possible, it was also possible for us to evolve from an amoeba. My stance is that is simply not true. If an amoeba is in it's on class, how did it evolve into another class and so on and so forth. You can take that explanation as plausible but I am very curious and want to know exactly how it happened.

The very existence of hybrid species is evidence in itself of evolution. Otherwise, you'll have to give a better scientific explanation than "because they are cats" as to why tigers and lions, which are so obviously different from each other, can crossbreed; because not all cats crossbreed.

Hybrid species are observable Bros. My contention was never against micro-evolution. A lion or tiger can't naturally cross-breed, I have told you this 1001 times but you are ignoring it. The same way a Saint Bernard can't cross-breed with a Cheewawa or an Eagle can't cross-breed with a vulture - so if you leave natural mating that Darwin spoke about and want to confirm your own evolution in a lab; you are entitled to test why a lion and cheetah in a lab and tell us about it.

Mind you, all domestic dog species can crossbreed. The problem between a Chihuahua and a saint Bernard is not that of genetic impossibility, it is of a physical nature. Obviously, a female Chihuahua will not cope under the circumstances, but vice versa, it will most definitely work.

Did I not raise that point earlier? Physical limitations, differences in location, social interactions etc. The same way a lion and tiger can't physically mate is because of physical constraints hence the reason it has to be done in a lab. A wolf is a dog but it will not mate with an African jackal because of the same constraints. You are desperately trying to prove evolution in a lab but it's making you look very very dishonest and stup.id

AgentOfAllah

So basically, you don't have any reference for the words you attributed to Darwin. You sir, harped on and on with certainty about how Darwin said life came from non-life, You sir, fabricated lies against Darwin, hoping to win cheap argument points, then balked under a simple request for reference. You have no coherence, credibility and integrity.

Stupi.dity at it's highest. You don't proof, you want your proof. Whenever, I provide a reference or quote; you stupi.d idi.ot will ignore it and said Darwin never said it.

Show some objectivity and dignity and read this: http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/polar_essay1.jsp

Read what the National Science Foundation quoted Darwin as saying in a letter written in 1871 to botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin envisioned:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

Later, you will open your stinking mouth and say it's a hoax or that I am fabricating and lying. Your stupi.dity transcends any kind of help

AgentOfAllah

Good, now tell me why a cheetah can't crossbreed with a lion or a tiger, or why domestic cats can't crossbreed with big cats. Following your argument, they are all cats after all, not different "KIND"

Dude, they can't naturally cross-breed just the same way a tiger can't naturally cross-breed with a lion. It has to be done in a lab. A Saint Bernard can't naturally cross-breed with a Cheewawa but they are DOGs - the level of your stupi.dity astonishes me

AgentOfAllah

This is not a reference my friend. Provide the exact quote verbatim. I didn't find the statement you attributed to Darwin in the above link. I'll keep quoting you until you admit you were wrong or you provide the reference and the verbatim quote of Darwin:

You see the same cocky attitude I am talking about? I gave you an example. Darwin was a Christian; Darwin never said it verbatim in his book but historical records show that he was at one point a Christian. So, you can keep repeating the same rub.bi.sh; it doesn't make any difference