₦airaland Forum

AgentOfAllah

LOL... Pointing out the flaw in your self-referential question has nothing to do with semantics. It's a cognitive failure on your part. Your question simply makes no sense. Stop being arrogant and accept correction when you're wrong.

Sorry Boss - the same cocky attitude you employ when you want to avoid addressing the main questions I posted

AgentOfAllah

Your question is self-referential and dumb. It doesn't deserve an answer. Is a white paper white? If I pour water inside a cup is the water inside the cup a cup contained water? If I wrote an English sentence with letters from the English alphabet, will my sentence read as Chinese?

How will it not be dumb to someone who is stu.p.id? You tend to argue more about semantics than to address questions brought before you.

AgentOfAllah

You're obviously bereft of any point left to make. You're not my physics teacher!

May God have mercy on your physics teacher

Stop lying Mr. Mendalescent. You did not quote any source. Here is your big opportunity to prove that I'm a liar, and you're being gobsmackingly casual about it. Let me quote you again:

You are so daft. Stupi.dity at it highest. Did I or did I include this as reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

AgentOfAllah

So I'm asking again, could you give the exact quotation of Darwin in quotation marks. I'm asking for a single line and reference detail where Darwin said the above. I have read the link you shared, and nowhere in that link did Darwin say such a thing. Either provide the quote or admit your second of numerous mistakes, keeping your words in mind: "We all make mistakes and an honest person should admit it when he has made one".

You are not been honest mate. There are so many things Darwin never quoted word for word in his book that are true about him. Darwin never quoted he was a Christian in his book yet we know he was a Christian at one time from historical records. So, I can't argue from silence and only idiots do. For example, I don't need to say I am 30 years old; you only need to look at my birth certificate and it will confirm it. Try and use your brain man

Please explain why a Lion's sperm and a tiger's egg produces a liger.

So Darwin was talking about a Lion sperm and a Tiger's egg when he said complex life came from simple organism?

My request was simple. Show me how you came from your great-grandparents. I don't care if they are humans or goats or fish, demonstrate your emergence in a repeatable scientific manner. SO FAR, YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR EMERGENCE IN A REPEATABLE MANNER, so your claim that you're from your great-grandparents is a laughable, false claim. And you're gullible to believe you came from your great-grandparents.

Dude, you are still avoiding the premise. Are you personally referring me as a person or are you referring to the process? You seem to discussing legal issues instead of scientific ones. I was born from the consummation of marriage between two heterosexual human beings of the opposite sex in a natural manner. That process applies to me personally as well as to you as well. The same process can be used to produce another human being - THE PROCESS IS REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE AND PROVABLE. I am asking you to use the same process to support your Darwinian argument - It's not hard Bros so stop playing pretend.

I don't care if two humans can produce a third human, I'm only asking for repeatable scientific proof that can be observed in a science lab that you are a descendant of your great-grandparents. I hope you are beginning to see how ridiculous it gets when you start asking for the impossible. You claim DNA links you to your great-grandparents. Why is the DNA result linking you to your great-grandparents any more plausible than the one linking you to an old-world monkey? You don't have a coherent idea, you're just happy being a perfunctory observer. Yes, I know what repeatable is, and since your claim is that you came from your great-grandparent, please reproduce that claim.

There is nothing impossible about the question. You are the jumping around and playing stu.pid. Two monkeys can't produce a human-being; neither can two human beings produce a monkey. Now, that statement is either true or false. The test of truth is simple:

1. If the product of two monkeys is a monkey then the statement is true
2. If the product of two monkeys is not a monkey then the statement is false
3. The same applies to the humans

You are here playing semantics and have used all kinds of logic to evade the question. To think that I was speaking with someone who is objective.

To be clear, you don't disagree with the supposition that complexity can emerge from simplicity, which is why I used the childbirth anecdote.

Cha - dude, you have taken misrepresentation to a new level. You claimed the semen of a HUMAN man and the egg of a HUMAN woman was similar in comparison between an amoeba evolving into human being. That was what I disagreed with; I never disagreed with stages of evolution of a child.

So your assumption that a complex animal cannot emerge from a simple lifeform is not at all grounded in science.

This has never been my contention so I really don't know why you are mis-representing me. It's truly pathetic

Your only contention is that one "kind" cannot emerge from another. You're absolutely wrong though. I mentioned liger before, but there are several hybrid species. Can you please explain why genetic hybrids exist?

Of everything listed there - are they different animals? Is a Liger not a CAT; are they of different KINDS? The African Elephant and the Asian elephant - are the off-springs and products not an elephant? You are supporting my argument Bros and in the process making yourself look very very stupi.d. You are supporting an amoeba evolving into a human being - how is that comparable between two animals of the same KIND? Cha - stupi.dity at it's pinnacle

AgentOfAllah

You keep forcing me to repeat myself. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is not a source at all, it is a repository of sources. When I share a Wiki link with you, you can trace the statements in that link to their original peer-reviewed sources directly from Wikipedia. I have not shared those peer-reviewed links with you because this is not a formal discussion, however, IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PART OF THAT LINK YOU WISH TO CONTEST, LET ME KNOW AND I PROMISE TO PULL OUT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Capish

Gosh! Can you use wikipedia as a reference or source in academia ie. say your physics assignment?

Hahaha...Coming from someone who puts fabricated words into Darwin's pen and/or quotes him out of context/misquotes him, from 3rd hand sources like a christian apologetic site with liminal ulterior motive. The one time I quoted Darwin, I quoted directly from his book! And for what it is worth, Wikipedia is still more neutral than your apologetic site, so please, spare me the sanctimonious pontification.

Did I not quote the sources regarding Darwin and provided references for you to check? Are all of Darwins comments, communications and life recorded in his book? You get brain at all?

[quote author=AgentOfAllah post=27723744]

Yes. Newton's laws fail in quantum systems. For example, newton's 2nd law states that F=ma, and it assumes constant mass. This equation is rubbished as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light because at such speeds, mass is no more constant, we start to talk of effective mass. Also, the first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest. but if you were at rest on a merry-go-round, you'll feel a force trying to fling you off the merry-go-round. Hence, the limit of this law is that it only works provided the frame of reference is inertial. The earth is in constant movement, so Newton's law is just a very good approximation of reality, not an accurate one

Of course, Newtons laws don't apply to every situation i.e sub atomic particles, quantum systems. Perhaps I should have worded the question properly or defined it better. My question is - to the situations the laws apply, are there any exceptions?

AgentOfAllah:
Yes to both.

Can you tell me what exceptions there are to scientific law citing the scientific laws and the exceptions

Liekiller:
bros, you have already admitted you're a troll using your other profile. I take your word for it. Let me guess, another jobless American kid on social welfare? How much of our time do you still want to waste? You're clearly not as dumb as you pretend to be (ever since you use this profile you are able to string sensible sentences together, haha), so what's your point?

You seem to be mistaken me for someone else. Look at my posts, they go as far as 2006. I stated that alexis and alexis007 are two different people, I don't know who alexis007 is. So, it appear you have me mixed up with someone else.

If you don't want to debate, no problem. If you want to, let's have an honest objective discussion.

My points are:

1. If complex life came from simple organism as claimed by Darwin and evolutionist, shouldn't there be multiple examples and instances were we can reproduce the same in this day and age? If we are here today because we came from simple organisms, surely we should be able to prove it in everyday life and it should be a common occurrence
2. At what point did different KIND of species started to originate from the single/simple organism?
3. Can you provide specific fossil examples showing the lineage of how one specie developed into another kind of specie

I look forward to your response

AgentofAllah

Can you please address these questions:

If scientific theories are superior to scientific laws as you claim, can you please answer these questions:

1. Are there any exceptions to a scientific law?
2. Are there any exceptions to a scientific theory?

Liekiller:
FOSSILS. GENETICS. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. ATAVISMS. AND SO ON.

Let's get specific and use one case example so we are not running and chasing our tails. Darwin claimed that complex organisms came from simple organisms i.e. from an amoeba came a human. To be sure we are on the same page, is my statement correct?

AgentOfAllah

Don't try to save your face. You're a liar, and I called you out. You mendaciously accused me of "copying and pasting" from Wikipedia now you changed your accusation from "copy and paste" to posting a link. Which is still a lie. I hyperlinked a word which I used in my text, but I didn't copy and paste from wiki or post a link. When a word is hyperlinked, you don't have to click on it. I only hyperlinked it because I thought it might be useful, but the hyperlink played no role in the content or quality of my text.

Save face? Are you for real? It seems your ego has gotten to your arse .

On Wikipedia, do you mean to claim that there are no factual contents? We're having a scientific discussion, yes, but it's not a formal discussion, so I can use Wikipedia as a reference. Like I earlier said, tackle the message, not the messenger. If you wish to contest anything in the particular Wikipedia article I shared because it is scientifically inaccurate, please do so, then we can discuss further. But dismissing it because it is from Wikipedia is an informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem or "poisoning the well", which is a disingenuous thing to do. But then again, you're no stranger to dishonesty, are you? And yes, in case you didn't notice, I hyperlinked your fallacy to Wikipedia so you can educate yourself.

No, I simply asked you to provide references from authoritative sources. When you refer to a scientific statement, you refer to a journal to references posted by academia etc. I am saying wikipedia is not an authoritative source. If I am quoting Darwin, I don't refer to wikipedia as my source or reference because it can be edited an uploaded by anyone - If you have a hard time comprehending that; then you need medication.

AgentOfAllah

I think I see where your coming from. You're quoting a Christian apologetic site (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=610) which probably misquoted/intentionally misconstrued Darwin. I'll excuse that. Now I'm asking you to provide me with a specific reference where Darwin made such a claim. (Darwin, 1959, 2:202) is not a reference because it does not tell me where to look. Kindly reference the book/journal and page number (like I did when I referenced the origin of species). If it's from a journal, also provide the year, volume and issue numbers. I have access to all manuscripts ever published in the history of science, so please show me where Darwin made such a claim. Contrary to what your fake apologetic site claims, evolution does not talk about the origin of life, it assumes the a priori existence of life, much like Newton's work on gravity does not speculate on the source of gravity, but assumes the existence of gravity

Of course I am a theists, not only that; the reason the evolution model of simple life to complex life makes no sense is that there are no recorded examples of it happening. There are two issues here:

1. The claim that complex life came from single organism was never proven by anyone. Darwin observed birds and said the the changes in the beaks of the birds mean that humans evolved from amoeba. And that is simple not true. Theists don't doubt micro-evolution or evolution that can be observed i.e. adaptation and that has never been my argument. My argument is that evolution doesn't provide proof of simple life to complex life or from one KIND to another KIND. That has always been my stand and that is all I have asked you to provide proof on. Instead you have mentioned similarities to prove we all came from an amoeba.
2. Darwin claimed life came from non-life at some point in his life. I am including a link from the "US National Library of Medicine". Please read the whole account and references before you respond. I hate having to address the same issue over and over again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

Glad you haven't sacrificed all of your honesty on the alter of blind faith.

We all make mistakes and an honest person should admit it when he has made one.

Every time a sperm cell fertilises an egg, it becomes a single cell organism. With time, this single cell becomes a complex being via mitosis, so your assumption that complexity cannot emerge from a single entity is hokum!

These are not the claims of the evolution we are talking about. And to use this as an example is very dis-honest on your part. The sperm of a man and the egg of a woman are unique in that they are both from humans i.e. the same KIND. A human sperm and a human egg doesn't produce an alien. The sperm is not of a donkey and the egg is not that of a lion and that is what you are describing. You have attempted several times to give examples that are not related to the case. All I am asking is this - if indeed the Darwin theory of simple life from i.e. amoeba to a complex life form, say a fish. Can it be replicated? YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ADDRESS THIS CLAIM

If you want me to show you evidence of a fish producing a human offspring, you first repeat the process of your great-grandparents giving birth to your grandparents, and then your parents and then you.

You keep making yourself look stu.pid by stating such. It shows how much you know about the topic you are discussing. It is at this point where intellects put their brains down and run off in the opposite direction. All my family are humans; there are no fishes, goats or apes in our lineage and that is why I am a human. We are of the same KIND. . If you want me to say it in another language, I will try to . My proof is repeatable, it can be observed and experimented. All I ask is you to the same

If that process is scientific but unrepeatable, then I wonder why you think science requires that evolutionary facts must be repeatable to be true.

Dude, why are you arguing blindly. Are you saying that two humans can or can't produce a third human? You seem to be saying that since there is no record of my grand-parents having sex to give birth to my parents and than to me; it it means it's not repeatable - is that your claim?

There are tools were use, e.g. DNA sequencing, to verify them, very much in the same way DNA tests can verify your great-grandparents.

Repeatable means you can reproduce the claim. For example, my grand-parents where humans and when humans have sex they produce off-spring. I can repeat that process; I can observe it and say, when they have sex what happens after that i.e. fertilization of the sperm and egg etc. I can draw conclusive results stating that when two humans mate; they can produce another human being.

Now, try and do the same with two different animals or in your case from simple forms of an amoeba and see how it produces a more complex animal. This has always been my claim and you seem to be dancing in a circle in addressing it

Peterken05:
i'm tired

Where does biology show with proof that you can get one kind of specie from another kind of specie?

AgentOfAllah

Given your mendacious antecedents of fabricating nonsense, I really don't think you could, but I'll still ask anyway: Can you cite where Darwin said the above? You know when someone has reached the point of desperation when they have to stoop to the inelegance of mendacity to earn cheap points.

You are not only stu.pid but blind as well. This was what I posted:

According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202)

Another reason to ignore you. You think a jellyfish is a fish, when actually, it is a zooplankton. This is the same person trying to debate evolution, and he doesn't even know the basics. I guess you've never heard of the word "misnomer" before. I would be shocked if you don't think seahorses are actual horses. We should coin a new word for people like you, ignolatry; that is, the worship of ignorance. You don't deserve my time!

My mistake. My intent was to state that jellyfishes are not vetebrates as humans yet the claim that we are all came from a single organism doesn't hold water. I admit that I made an error.

*yawn* ...Boring

Coming from someone who can't refute what I posted. Cha!. The claims here are simple; if we indeed did come from single cell organism, we should be able to repeat the process. So far, you haven't come close to providing an example of how to repeat such process.

AgentOfAllah

You're a shameless, pathetic LIAR If my mathematical reasoning was too complex for you, you could simply have asked me to break it down, and I would even have been happy to share with you the freshly plotted figures of the reference plots to enhance your understanding, instead your arrogance compelled you to wrongfully accuse me of copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Share the Wikipedia link I copied from if you are truthful. Olodo!

You have summed up your mathematical reasoning quite well. We are off-springs of fishes and amoeba - you are arrived at that conclusion because someone else said so. . Look, I hardly have time for idio.ts. You have posted wikipedia several times even when I stated that scientists and serious researchers don't refer to wikipedia. Since you want to know which link you posted - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

AgentOfAllah

Is there scientific evidence linking man and fish? Yes! This evidence is deeply rooted in genetic, anatomic and morphological data, and such evidences are acquired independent from each other, yet, they converge. Furthermore, they are observable and repeatable; and as concrete as the DNA evidence linking you to your great-grandparents.

We have been over this 1001 times already . You are playing semantics and want to argue just to prove you can argue. My claim is simple - man and fish are different species of different kind of animals; do we share some similarities - yes; I never denied that but we are separate kinds. Man is unique, fish is unique and every kind of animal is unique. So, our similarities doesn't prove our origin.

For example, a dog feel pains, emotions and can even dream. Those are similarities in humans as well. Does that mean the dog and man are of the same kind because we share those similarities? NO!

If, however, you can show me a repeatable and observable evidence that you came from your great-grandparents that has nothing to do with your genes, anatomy and morphology; then I just might find another kind of repeatable and observable evidence for you.If you choose to ignore the things linking us to fish and all other living organisms, then you'll have to ask your god why it has chosen to confuse us with these things, some of them, unnecessary remnants from our evolutionary past.

Cha - stupi.dity on a whole new level. I have addressed this already but to stroke your ego so you can have a mind organism, I will indulge you.

So, because humans get goose bumps as other animals mean we are of the same KIND? Oh boy - your mother should hear this one Dude, your are using the fallacy of division. You have left science and you are jumping to logic. It's like me claiming that if you have 5 kids by your wife; it's possible that I fathered them since it's only a man that can get a woman pregnant. There are only two possibilities - either you are the father or I am . Just the way there are two possibilities; either humans are fishes or fishes are humans. This has nothing to do with similarities. You keep making a fool of yourself.

I don't understand you. You try to prove a point by using arguments that do the exact opposite? Nothing you've said up there negates what I previously said about scientific laws and theories. Laws are factual observations that are codified into mathematical formalisms, whereas scientific theories are explanations for such laws. Scientific theories start out as hypotheses, and they are tested against these facts called laws. For any hypothesis to become a scientific theory, it must confirm the facts, hence, such a hypothesis must be falsifiable. But scientific theories (not hypotheses) are hierarchically superior to scientific laws because they have broader implications than laws (which have more limited boundary conditions). I think your problem is that you're conflating the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with "scientific theory". Theory is colloquially synonymous with hypothesis, but in science, there is a clear distinction between "hypothesis" and "scientific theory

If scientific theories are superior to scientific laws as you claim, can you please answer these questions:

1. Are there any exceptions to a scientific law?
2. Are there any exceptions to a scientific theory?

Your answer will put this matter to rest

Consider my totally made up hypothesis for gravity: Gravity happens because there are invisible ninjas who love mathematical symmetry and dislike things floating if they exceed a certain mass, so every time such a thing floats, they act in such an organised and predictable fashion as to bring that thing down to earth. The above hypothesis is one that does not contradict the law of gravity, and maybe even supports it, yet it can never become a theory because it is NOT falsifiable. No one will take me seriously if I make such a superfluous proposition.

Excellent example and I agree with it.

Now, all the theories you mentioned above were falsifiable, and subsequently falsified using SCIENTIFIC METHODS, but before that happened, they were the best fit models for the observable facts which they explained. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but also currently the best fit model that describes the presence of diverse lifeforms on earth.

I think this is an honest statement by you and I appreciate it. So far, what I get from you is that most animals have similarities that are common and as a result, we all came from the same place. While there is truth in our similarities, it doesn't prove that we all products of accident over a long period of time

For you to dismiss it as false, you must show that it is false using scientific methods as I previously requested of you. So far, all biological evidences, including genetics, anatomy, physiology, fossil records and many more, point towards the theory of evolution as an accurate model. But you're free to contest this, just make sure you bring forth your own scientific arguments, not just those oft repeated cliches of yours.

I have brought several Bros and you are yet to do justice to them. Your claim is that since we share similarities, we are one and the same. That sounds like a faith based mantra to be as compared to evidence. Let me give you another example. Evolutionist claim that we are 96% the same with chimps i.e. we evolved from chimps - if this is true; can it be repeated?

Please don't come here pretending to know anything when you're clearly oblivious of even the most fundamental scientific concepts. You may think you sound intelligent, but you really don't. Your arguments are just very nauseating to read.

And I honestly think your time is school was a waste as your claims are based "evidences" you can't produce.

This is the point where you lose any iota of scientific credibility you had left. Seriously, WTF man? The difference between macro and micro evolution is the timescale involved. Both are fundamentally describing the same process. The difference between these two is the same difference you have if you plot a graph on a linear time scale vs plotting it on a logarithmic time scale. Consider my easy example: If you plot a sinusoidal function [y=A*cos(ωt)] on a linear time scale, it has periodic regions of rises and falls. On this linear scale, you will observe that at point ωt=0, y=A, but as ωt tends to 90degs, 'y' drops to zero, then to -A at 180degs and back to 0 at 360 degs. Now, if you take the slope dy/dt, dt being an infinitesimally small change in time at any point on the slope, you'll find that dy is also very small, that you may not observe a large scale change in 'y'. The slope is also periodic. call this the 'MICROevolution' of y. Now, if you convert the 't' axis to log scale (graduating at much larger intervals, by a factor of 10, say). You'll find that the periodicity of 'y' is lost, and is no longer as predictable as on the linear scale. Points on 'y' have changed forms, the whole curve has evolved such that it loses many of the properties of its linear form, and gains many new properties (like cumulative wrinkles due to non periodic slopes), It keeps other properties, like rising and falling slopes, as well as timescale magnitudes. Such a curve is still fundamentally describing a sinusoidal function, yet it bears no resemblance to its linear scale equivalent, only because I changed its timescale of observation from linear to log. Call this 'MACROevolution'. In essence, Macroevolution is the, so called, "snowball effect" of several microevolutional processes which eventually lead to what you call 'KINDS'. All kinds still share many characteristics, and have diverged in others.

When people copy and paste from Wikipedia in an online debate, it bores me. I have addressed this statement above, please refer to it. I am getting physically tired responding to the same thing over and over again.

Your claim that Darwin meant to suggest that one kind suddenly became another is a travestied mischaracterisation of his theory of evolution, which only exposes your gross lack of competence on the subject matter. I doubt you have read the book. You can download a copy, as it's widely available on the internet. In chapter III of his book, "On the origins of species" (page 61), he most eloquently alluded to microevolution as the driving force for speciation when he said "...Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring". He preceded this argument with the arbitrariness of distinctions between species in chapter II using the argument of "Doubtful species" (page 47), which are species that can neither be classified as one or another because they have features of two or more supposedly distinct species. Although, the modern concept of species was defined by Ernst Myers, who contended that species should be defined as reproductively isolated kinds. For example, while all felines are greatly similar genetically, they are mostly reproductively isolated. Although, we have seen that even this definition is a fine line because lions and tigers can mate and produce offsprings, so, as you can see, there is no clear distinction between species, and all species can be traced to converge on one massive evolutionary tree.

Man, your ignorance is appalling. I responded to you and said Darwin didn't say when a fish and croc mates it produces another animal - I have already addressed that. Put on your thinking cap, let us get to the genesis on this matter:

When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he discovered something that greatly interested him. He found several different species of finches which were unique to the islands. The basic differences between these species was the size and shape of their beaks. Some of the finches had short thick beaks, used to crack open seeds, while others had long, thin beaks that could be used to catch insects or drink nectar from flowers. As he studied the birds, he came to the conclusion that the finches were very similar and must have been related. In fact, Darwin believed that the species had originally diverged from a single species of birds. He guessed that long before he had arrived on the islands, a storm must have blown this flock of birds to the Galapagos Islands. To give a very simplified version of Darwin’s hypothesis, he thought the birds with long beaks stayed together and ate insects, while the birds with short, stout beaks were able to survive in different places on the islands where they could find seeds. Eventually, due to drought, climate change, and environmental pressures, each group became its own species through the process of natural selection. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. Here Darwin made a major mistake in his thinking. He did not realize that small changes have limits.

What do the finches really prove? They prove that finches stay finches, and the only documented kind of “evolution” is that of small changes within the same kind of organism. The Grants have been studying the finches for 33 years, and this change in beak size, which amounted to about .6 millimeters in beak length and .8 millimeters in beak depth (“Study: Darwin’s...,” 2006), was “the strongest evolutionary change seen in the 33 years of the study” (Grant and Grant, 2006). Even more ironic is the fact that this “evolutionary” change to a smaller beak that allegedly helped the finches to survive might not be so helpful after all. In the same article for Science, the Grants alluded to research done in 1977 when a drought struck the same island and killed many of the finches. The Grants noted: “Most finches died that year, and mortality was heaviest among those with small beaks” (2006, emp. added). Thus, if G. fortis keeps “evolving” a smaller beak size, a major drought in the future could easily spell the bird’s demise.

Scientific observation has never produced a single shred of evidence that proves even the possibility of “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.” In fact, all the observable evidence proves that every living organism multiplies “according to its kind” ns and you think you're making intelligent points. What you don't know is that these points are as nonsensical to the biologist as they are to you. No biologist makes such frivolous claims. Evolution is not magic, it talks about a convergent point for all species, not a linear transmogrification from one species to another.

I don't have enough space or time to give you other examples.

To be honest, the pseudo-education you're proudly brandishing as sensible talk makes this debate with you extremely excruciating. If you want to debate the theory of evolution, I expect minimal knowledge of its postulates from you. When you read the books on evolution, you can come and discuss the individual points. Right now, you're merely resorting to red-herring points which are irrelevant to the topic, like fish becoming humans or foxes becoming lions and you think you're making intelligent points. What you don't know is that these points are as nonsensical to the biologist as they are to you. No biologist makes such frivolous claims. Evolution is not magic, it talks about a convergent point for all species, not a linear transmogrification from one species to another

Again, that is simply not true. Evolution talks about changes in KIND from one specie to a different specie. Saying otherwise is untrue and doesn't do any kind of justice to the topic. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. That is the issue here.

I leave you with a food for thought: There are two versions of ignorance, one born out of the lack of knowledge, and the other, from misleading education. It can be said of the latter, that it is the more malignant form because, not only does the ignorant individual not know anything on the subject, they adamantly defend their conviction of ignorance because they tenaciously cling to the presumption that they know.

Yet you haven't told me how we came from an amoeba other than "changes over a long period of time". Darwin’s theory of evolution is false for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it cannot account for the origin of life. According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202). You are trying so hard to ignore such statements.

It only shows how uninformed you are about the subject you claim so much to know about

Peterken05

I think this alexis is different from the other (ignoramus, dogmatic) alexis007, there must be a mixup.

alexis and alexis007 are two different accounts. This is alecis

On scientific law and theory. Scientists do not use the terms that way, evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravitational theory. The reason why modern scientists dont use facts or laws nowadays is because we would always make more findings, more research, so we cant say this is it, nothing can debunked this, no that is not science, that is dogma.

A theory is just a hypothesis, a possible explanation of an event - it is not analytically. In cases of evolution which is not an experimental science; we can't observe, measure or experiment on such theory. For example, how can we experiment of Darwin's claim that we all including trees originate some a single organism - we can't. So, it's not dogma to say that evolution is just a theory because in actuality; that is what it is.

Now, scientific laws rarely change i.e. law of bio-genesis; laws of thermodynamics; law of gravity: These are factual and analytically explanations with provable and repeatable examples - that is why they become laws. For example, the law of bio-genesis is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material. It has been documented that Darwin supported spontaneous generation which suggests that life came from non-living materials.

For example, there was gravitational law and then came the theory of relativity, instead of calling T of relativity a law, theory is been used now because thats the last step in any science proposition or findings. Same goes for germ theory of diseases and
the rest. If you say evolution is under probation, so are all other scientific theories.

You are mixing things up:

1. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

The law tells us exactly what we should do to calculate gravity; it's repeatable, observable and we can replicate and experiment. Now, this law doesn't tell us "why" it happens. This is where scientific theory comes in; to provide a hypothesis or explanation of why it happens.

2. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. It doesn't provide the tools to calculate or measure gravity.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The
NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly
confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The
fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms
have evolved through time.

Of course organisms evolve; I like to call this adaptation. Bacteria adapts to become ore resistant to certain drugs. However, bacteria don't become viruses. This has always been my stand. To claim that complex life-forms are products of simple life form holds no scientific pedigree.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot
see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their
existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in
cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not
make physicists' conclusions less certain.

True but physics and biological are two different sciences. Remember Albert Einstein claim on the origin of the universe. Initially, he said the universe never had a beginning and as a result, he inserted an arbitrary constant to "prove" this. Later, he was invited by Edwin Hubble who used his new telescopes to confirm that the universe is expanding and an expanding universe had an origin.

I am saying all this to tell show you that; if you can't prove something scientifically, you can't claim that it's TRUE.

AgentOfAllah

Now, at great pains, let me destroy the rest of your garbage talk for the sake of posterity, and so that you don't claim that I avoided them.

Don't bother Bros - so far you are close to building an alien ship than to proving your reasoning is actually objective.

No, I asked for scientific evidence, not historical or legal evidence (these two cannot be subjected to scientific tests). Anyway, you offered me DNA tests. Okay, I'll go with that. So you believe DNA can tell about your shared ancestry with your grand parents, but you don't believe it can tell about our shared ancestry with fish? Now who's being conveniently irrational? I scoff at your stupidity!

I never said shared ancestry - THAT IS NOT THE CLAIM HERE. Your claim is that we are of the same KIND, there-fore we are related. The proof of my lineage to my grand parents can be tested an replicated. For one:

1. My grand-parents were humans; we shared 100% in every way possible the very same DNA - ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.
2. Since they were humans, and I am human - if I mate with another human i.e. OF THE SAME KIND - Another human will be born.

Idio.ts like you decide to put your reasoning in the trash-bag when it comes to matters of science. I have repeatedly asked you to provide REPEATABLE, REPLICABLE, OBSERVABLE PROOF that we humans can originate from fish - so far, you have been successful at showing your public stupid.ity than your scientific claims. Your stupi.di.ty is beginning to offend me

Your question is irrelevant because evolution does not claim a linear transmogrification of species as I earlier stated, it rather claims a convergence of all species, which diverged through very subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs.

Stop trying to cover your lies. Macro evolution does claim two similar specie of the same KIND can give rise to a different specie of another KIND. Your claims of "subtle and gradual adaptations to different environmental needs" cannot be proven by science nor can it be proven in a lab. That is why I have stated such claims are beliefs rather than tested science. Your entire premise hinges on claims that you can't prove. I am actually beginning to think you are constipated

Of course a linear transmogrification is not scientific, and I don't know where I ever stated otherwise. The only reason the theory of evolution rules the world of biology today is because it has ample scientific evidence that supports it. You may continue to repeat that stupid claim that it doesn't, but you cannot change the fact.

Evolutionists always do the same thing, you just have to be patient for them to dig their own graves. If you are claiming micro-evolution i.e. species of the same kind produce another specie of the same kind - then you and I shouldn't be having this discussion. However, your claims are that same species of one KIND can give rise to a different specie of a different KIND. This is what Darwinism is all about - all different KINDs of species originated from one single specie which originated from a non-life. Now, you are here twisting your words and saying otherwise.

I don't expect you to accept anything Wikipedia says. However, the claims in the Wikipedia pages I have shared with you have links to peer-reviewed papers publish in reputable scientific journals. I do not intend to bore you with those, but you can always trace them back if you wish to. So don't dismiss it because it's Wikipedia, dismiss it because it is scientifically inaccurate, by showing the inaccuracy in the claim.

I can't respond to a website that anyone can edit and update. You can provide snippets from respected Scientist and universities and I will refer to them and respond accordingly. Scientists don't refer to wikipedia to lay claims. You can attempt to do the same on your thesis in school and wait for the response from your professor.

Since you have read Darwin's theory, and know everything there is to know about it, kindly show me where Darwin stated humans can cross a fish with a croc to produce a new kind of animal. If you don't, you're a liar!

Darwin claim is that we all i.e every single KIND of animal, plant and living thing came from the same ancestor? The dog, cat, croc, elephant, humans, whales, flowers, flies etc were genetically modified "over a long" period of time and that gave rise to complex creatures. If you can prove with facts, conduct scientific repeatable and observable process "what actually happened" "OVER THE LONG PERIOD" of time to. He even went further to say that all living things came from non-life. So, these are his claims (Yours as well)

1. Life came from non-life: I will leave this bone for you to crack later
2. Single & simple life form somehow evolved into trees, bats, cock roaches, moths, sharks, jelly-fish, humans, lions, apes, honey badger etc.
3. Darwin never stated if you crossed a fish with a croc it will produced a new kind of animal literally. He did go further and say, crocs and fishes are products of random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code. He didn't care to explain "HOW IT HAPPENED" with any proof. So, the fish was sitting down and due to some unknown reason, it modified over-time and evolved to be a snake. So on and so forth and here we are humans. THAT IS DARWIN CLAIM

You're rather very ignorant, aren't you? Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution and planetary evolution are part of the 'Theory of Evolution'? Wow!!! Can you even listen to yourself? For once, do yourself a favour and read on the Theory of Evolution. You also claim 'Organic evolution' is about the origin of life. Are you flipping kidding me? You must think this is some kind of joke where you make rubbish up. The Theory of Evolution is The Theory of evolution, and it is one coherent theory that explains biodiversity. It doesn't even explain the origin of life. For that, you'll need to study hypotheses on abiogenesis. The theory proceeds from the fact that life already existed to start with.

Dude - that is simply not true. Darwin claim is that all life came from non life and developed from a simple form to complex forms. Were do they brain-wash you guys? Darwin claimed that life started on earth in a 'warm little pond'. He favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.

Please refer to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/. Read his reference on how life started and try and SHUTUP after that

I would love to take you up on your stu.pid claim that hydrogen being the building block of all other elements has not been proven, but that is a discussion for when you're more educated. Maybe you should read on nuclear fusion and what happens in stars as they burn their amassed hydrogen. SMH...your ignorance knows no bounds!

Malu, when did I mention hydrogen? Idiot.s like you don't reason objectively. If you want to debate me on any subject, I will gladly indulge you. All I ask if that you bring some proof with you.

Yes, when you find no means to support your ignorant claims, put words in my mouth, and then debunk your imaginary argument. LIAR!

I said macro-evolution is a theory and can't be proven in a science lab - your response was this link: http://ultraphyte.com/2012/02/21/evolution-in-the-lab/. It was at this point that I stated two species of the same KIND doesn't give rise to a different KIND of animal. Either read the question pretty well or look at yourself in the mirror because you call someone else a LIAR

We have common ancestry with fishes, and the proof is that we share in the characteristics that unify all member species of the Chordata phylum in the animal kingdom.

Stop insisting on being stup.id man. You and I are not related to cock roaches or jelly-fishes - SUCH CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN EVEN IF YOU SAY IT ONE BILLION TIMES. You simply can't prove it scientifically. That is why it's a belief because it can't be proven scientifically. They are ideas of one man that have been amplified.

I earlier mentioned the pharyngeal, but there are countless others, which you can look up yourself. That's as scientific as it gets. If you want me to demonstrate a fish transform into human, then you're asking the wrong person. I am a scientist, not a magician.

The Chordata phylum doesn't prove anything Bros, jelly fishes are not vertebrates yet considered fishes. Then act like a scientist and make it clear that evolution is just what it is - a theory/an assumption that you insist on being the correct answer to life when you can't prove it. All I ask is that you be honest.

Take your fairytale questions to your god. Maybe, in the process, you can ask your god why all living things have so many commonalities, that the only conclusion we can make is that we all have a common ancestry. Ask your god why humans have several complex biological characteristics that seem necessary for the survival of other animals but are completely redundant in humans. Was this a diabolic joke?

Cha - mumuness no good oh. Please read my posts again. I never claimed that we don't share similarities with other animals. My claim is that we are distinct and unique. A human is a human and didn't evolve from a fish. A fish is a fish and didn't evolve from an amoeba. A flower is a flower and didn't evolve from anything else other than a flower. Every living thing in it's class is unique and is not a product of a random accident over time that you can't explain. I advise that you go back to your drawing board and decide to either become a magician or a scientist - you can only be one

AgentOfAllah

I cringe whenever I read foolish statements like this, and that is not an ad-hominem attack!
Evolution is a scientific theory with strong and independent evidences alluding to its veracity, so please stop saying evolution is blind faith if you're not able to bring forth any scientific argument against it. Doing so merely makes an unflattering mockery of your intelligence (or lack thereof).

Since idiots insist on being idiots, I will oblige you. Can you prove scientifically by providing evidence i.e. concrete observable, repeatable and experimental evidence to prove say humans originated from fish. Remember, the criteria here is repeatable and observable. For example, I can easily prove the law of gravity; I can replicate it. Please apply the same rules to evolution

This is another example of your celebration of ignorance! There's Isaac Newton's "law of universal gravitation", and there's Albert Einstein's [b]gravitational theory; it's called "the theory of general relativity". We also have electromagnetic theory, which drives everything from your microwave ovens to your mobile phones, your lighting needs, access to internet, space missions, etc. The relationship between laws and theories in science is such that laws state 'what is', usually by means of mathematical formalisms, whereas theories attempt to explain the laws. So, by their very nature, the explanatory power of theories make them hierarchically superior to laws. The more a scientific theory confirms established laws, the more compelling it is. For all intents and purposes then, a scientific theory is therefore a falsifiable piece of explanation that has not been falsified, and to which all facts/laws point. Ergo, in order for science to discard a theory, it must be debunked using scientific methods, not boring clichéd rhetoric.[/b]

To think that your parents spent all that money to send you to school and it's evident that it's of little use. Try and put your two feet on the ground:

1. A scientific law is almost never false or open to changes i.e. law of biogenesis, law of gravity, laws of thermo-dynamics. These laws are applied in our everyday lives and it's evident everywhere
2. Scientific theory are general hypothesis, guess/belief that something is true, not necessarily correct, some people may support it, others not.

Let me give you some examples so you can go do some reading on it before you make yourself look stupi.d online:

1. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

2. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the 1920's
3. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005
4. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.
5. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating

These are just some scientific theories that turned out to be completely in-accurate and wrong. Even Albert Einstein inserted an arbitrary constant regarding the origin of the universe until he encountered Hubble and he corrected his theory. So please, I take God beg you - try and use your common sense before you start posting rubbis.h online

You're wrong again. You can prove it in a science lab! Here

Cha - how stupi.d and gullible are you. Did the fox change and became a lion, did the bacteria changed and became a virus? The evolution that Darwin talked about was evolution in change of KIND - macro evolution i.e. from one KIND to another KIND. The article you posted above didn't mention that; it talked about adaptation and creation of different specie but of the same KIND - micro evolution; I don't doubt micro evolution. For example, having a German spherpard dog cross-breed with a husky gives rise to a new specie of the SAME KIND of animal and NEVER OF ANOTHER KIND.

Can you provide any concrete evidence that you came from your great-grandparents? That's a stupid question, you see, not any less so than requiring concrete evidence that humans evolved from fish.

Yes I can, but your question is a historic legal one and not a scientific one. I can prove on my birth certificate that I am an off-spring of cosummation between my mother and dad and both my parents can do the same. Heck - we can even trace it via DNA if you want scientific proof. So, it's scientifically possible for me to prove that I an of the SAME KIND from my grand parents.

Nevertheless, there are still remnants of our fish ancestry in us. An example is the gill slits that all human embryos develop at some stage in their development. As a matter of fact, this is true for all members of the chordata phylum, to which all vertebrates belong. Read the Pharyngeal section here.

That is why I state that evolution requires belief and blind faith. You are posting a link that is based entirely on belief with no scientific proof whatsoever - you are assuming we share a common ancestry with fish because someone "thinks" so. All I have asked is for proof: Can you replicate the above in a scientific lab to prove your statement? I will answer that for you - NO YOU CAN'T because it's not scientific. It's a theory, I am not denying that but it has no scientific backing; if it does - my challenge is simple:

1. So me step by step lineage of how we came from a fish that I can observe, document, experiment myself. If you can't, then please concede that it's not scientific.

A human cannot mate with a chimp. This fact is robustly catered for in the theory of evolution, and is consistent with it. Read on speciation. You may pick especial interest in the artificial speciation section, where humans have, from a single species, induced new species of flies and sheep that do not reproduce viable offsprings with their split-off groups.

So, I am to follow wikipedia as your evidence of scientific proof - Bros, I can log into wikipedia, edit it as well an anyone can. A human can mate with a chimp but it will never produce an off-spring because we ARE NOT OF THE SAME KIND. Just the same way, we didn't come from a FISH because we are not of the same KIND. Induces other animals of the same specie are all within the same KIND. Humans can't cross a fish with a croc and produce a new KIND of animal - that is what Darwin stated.

There's only one kind of evolution, but it is informed by various processes.

You need to spend more time reading:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.

We are discussing the 5th issue and that is where you have so far displayed your ignorance. I asked you for observable, repeatable and reproducible examples and so far so have given me wikipedia as proof

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.
- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.
- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

In general, no, belief in god does not preclude one from being a brilliant scientist. Isaac Newton is a stellar example.
So far though, all you have done is bore us with your glamorised strain of ignorance; and demonstrated a curious propensity to regurgitate pseudo-intellectual, thought terminating clichés, and it's debilitating.

Coming from a man so said the producing a SILVER fox from another fox is a sign of macro evolution . I rest my case.

Yet, if you still wish to claim you're a scientist, then please debunk the theory of evolution using scientific methods. Do this and I assure you of two things: my respect and a Nobel prize in medicine and physiology. Start with the five proofs contained in the link I gave under "Strong and independent evidences".

You are the one that claimed we came from a fish - I asked you for proof and you said I should prove I came from my grand-parents. I employ you to take your studies more objectively and don't display your ignorance online. So, I am still waiting for a clear scientific proof of macro-evolution.

Peterken05

alexis, i understand you, the way you're feeling, you feel that accepting evolution changes everything about your belief, you 're not wrong.

Not at all. I am saying evolution requires a heck more blind faith and belief. How is it you believe that all life came from a single cell organism when it can't be proven?

Now this is it, stop calling evolution a belief system, fake or fallible stories, it is a scientific theory that has be proven (which took over 200 years). You guys dont seem to have problem with other theories like gravitation, germ theory simply because it doesnt threaten your beliefs though it took a while before you accept that too even in the process killing some scientists. This explains why we dont have some gravitationalist who believe in gravitation.

Stop contradicting yourself. The law of gravitation is not a THEORY - IT'S A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC LAW. The law of Bio-Genesis which state that life begats life is a SCIENTIFIC LAW and not a THEORY. Theists don't have any issue with proven science. There are genius scientist that believe in God and that doesn't affect their science. The issue here is that evolution is a theory that you can't prove in a science lab. If I ask you for an example how humans originated from say a fish; you can't provide any concrete evidence - you will tell me that we share 96% DNA gene with Chimps - can a human and chimp mate and produce an off-spring? Never!. It takes a lot of faith to say we came from a fish without evidence - that is why evolution is a theory and requires faith.

Biologist and others have acheived alot through evolution, we can now answer many questions we cant before, we can now trace many diseases back as thousands years back. So many.

Listen, you need to define which evolution you are talking about. Evolution includes and encompasses so many areas. So, please define the evolution you are referring to so we can debate on a specific topic.

Einstein was a physicist, he wasnt a biologist, why would he not separate himself. In science, we dont display ignorance like in any other field, watch scientific debates and you'd know what i'm saying. A neuroscientist wont pretend to know more about the cosmos than an astrophysicist, it doesnt work like that.

Bros, you watch too much TV and don't investigate matters yourself. You have common sense, try and use it. I don't have to be a physicist to know that the law of gravity is a scientific law, nor do I have to be a cosmologist to know that the universe is constantly expanding and that it had a beginning. I don't have to be a biologist to know that the law of bio-genesis is true in all cases.

This is example of what religion can do to you my brother, yes, it shuts your reasoning. Yes, it makes you satisfies with illogical answers and many more.

That is simply not true. My belief in God doesn't stop me from being a scientist.

Blakjewelry:
were in the bible was it stated that Charles Darwin is wrong?

Simple - The Bible claims each animal is unique and originates from it's own KIND i.e. a frog can only give off-spring to a frog and say not a fish. Darwin suggests that all species and animals originates from a single cell organism i.e. a frog came from say an amoeba.

podosci:
The Bible talked about the creation of the earth and the heavens in seven days?......first of all what does it refer to as heavens?......infact lemme not even start,,,The bible contradicts every aspect of the modern world

Contradicts modern world? Dude - what are you talking about?

podosci:
When Galilio proclaimed the sun has the center of the universe, the catholic church was quick to denounce it and Execute him but after many years it is now Generaly accepted.by all? that the Sun is the center of the universe even witout the Bible or Quran bcking it up. i believ the way science is going change is inevitable

Where in the Bible is it stated that Galileo was wrong?

Weah96

I already responded by posting a link. Or do you expect me to copy and paste?

So, I should respond to the link? Can you summarize your answer.

Weah96

Bro, 8 lines of text in that comment belonged to you. The rest was a DIRECT copy and paste job from here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html. I could copy and paste one of several detailed replies, but it isn't my style. I prefer to inform readers about the source of any quotation, even those that look like my own words.

Dude, what is the point; am I denying that I copied it? The issue is simple; the claims I made or copied; are they historically incorrect. I referred to the Septuagint on the case of Isaiah 7:14; you haven't given me a response on it. You claimed Christians fabricated the prophecy of Jesus Virgin birth; the Septuagint is a Hebrew manuscript written by Hebrews and Jews themselves 200 years before the advent of Jesus. They translated the word as virgin - Can you please respond to that and stop going around in circles.

Weah96

It would have been nice if you had attached some quotation marks to your comment, since the entire thing was copied directly from a website. For a second, I thought you had paraphrased, at least. But no matter, back to the nitty gritty.

Not from a website; I researched 3 sites actually. I never claimed that the response was personally mine

You do raise an interesting point, but I'm afraid that I haven't the time to post the length reply required to address it.

I didn't expect much from you on the matter. You raised objections but when we reviewed one of the earliest sources - it has given clarity on the matter.

Btw, I'm noticing a sudden reverence for the translators of the septuagint. Pray tell, how come the bible you carry around is missing about 20 of the books that they translated?

Is it missing Isaiah 7:14?

SalC:
The media has a way of hyping inconsequential issues like this when they set their mind on it, well we await better evidence and proof from those around him.

Sounds objective

SalC:
I heard this repeatedly on the news yesterday especially by France 24 but is there any proof that his conversion was the reason behind this act?

I am not certain as well but we can only confirm based on more info from the Canadians.

Weah96

Misquoted? Who said anything about a misquotation? You posted a quote from Richard Dawkins and then went on to tell us what he meant. That was not what that quotation said, you assigned your own meaning to a relatively benign comment. Nobody said anything about a misquote.

I didn't assign any meaning - I said he made a statement in his book and I don't agree with it. If you cared to look up the statement you would have been able to state if I was mis-representing Richard or not. I asked you to confirm but instead you kept going around in circles as always.

As far as Isaiah, I showed you a passage from Jewish scriptures and the word virgin was not mentioned. Isaiah was written in ancient Hebrew, and the word "almah" was used in chapter 7 verse 14. Almah has both a feminine form and a masculine form, both of which refer to youth not sexual experience. In fact, Isaiah DOES refer to VIRGINS specifically in Isaiah 23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; and 62:5. He uses a different word. In genesis 34:2-4, Dinah, who was raped, is called an Almah, which the bible CORRECTLY translates as a damsel or maiden. Should I post the original parchment with the ancient Hebrew? Is that what you expect me to do?

I wanted you to post the source so we can refer to it. I will do mine:

Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos" not the more generic Greek word for "young woman."

The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

The source I have quoted is the Septuagint; this manuscript was compiled by Jews and Hebrew scholars 200 years before Christ so there were no Christians then and Matthew wasn't even born.

chiedu7:

Moslems live in self denial, they even jihad their own wives, nobody is safe from moslems.

Qur'an (38:44) -
"And take in your hand a green branch
AND BEAT HER WITH IT.

Qur'an (4:34) -
"Men are the maintainers of women because
Allah has made some of them to
....... BEAT THEM;

And the moslems dont joke with it, they do jihad their wives.

See link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3631743.stm

Listen to an Imam discuss how to jiahd your wife.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKBmHWUSJI4

MEANWHILE JESUS COMMANDS A MAN TO LOVE HIS WIFE!

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)
Husbands, LOVE YOUR WIVES, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


Colossians 3:19
Husbands, LOVE YOUR WIVES,
and
BE NOT BITTER AGAINST THEM.

Let's not get on the Islam bashing wagon - I wanted insight on why this dude wanted to kill people. Was it because of his faith or something else?

chiedu7:

I beg who said he misunderstood his religion.
A true moslem follows the quoran and this is what the quoran says which he followed


THE QUORAN

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you,

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah"

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers,

For a complete listing [url]http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
[/url]



Sorry he is following his quoran like a good moslem.

I wanted some insight into this situation. Whenever someone i.e a Muslim act violently, other Muslims say He doesn't understand Islam or he is not a true Muslim.

Weah96:
Post as many insults as you want, this remains a public forum and fair minded people will draw their own conclusions. You clearly have nothing else to say.

You are entitled to your own opinion. However, don't be dishonest and said I misquoted someone when you didn't care to look up what I said. You left the Isaiah 7:14 question when I asked you for the Hebrew manuscript you mentioned about the Jesus birth not coming from a Virgin, now you are here saying something that you can't back up. That is why I usually make fun of you because I have learned not to take you serious.