₦airaland Forum

ajia23:
God helps a man that tries to help himself but fails, but God is not an over generous grace or mercy giver that extends the olive branch even to His eneies. That is the God-concept in Islam. It is quite different from that of christianity.

So God is not omnibenevolent in Islam and he wants evil to be in the world. It's an even less appealing concept than Christianity.

goodguy:
Brilliant (of course, logical) analysis there, nferyn! But I'm sure there are answers to these probing thoughts. I do not have them though.

Usually the answers boils down to some variation of "the nature of God is unknowable and human concepts don't apply to Him". That's all fine, but if that is the case, then there is absolutely nothing to say about God and His existence is inconsequential to us here on earth.

mrmayor:
Nferyn,
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=15166.msg499925#msg499925 date=1153246303]I guess an imaginary being creating another imaginary being to explain the flaws of the first imaginary being is a little less than fundamental.

My head hurts!.Religion has thrived on the fact that people do not ask questions about the origin of sin.Most Christians and Muslims would have you believe that the origin of sin is the garden of Eden.[/quote]LOL There are just too many unknowns to consider it anywhere near an adequate answer to the fundamental question of the orgin of evil. That religious explanation violates Ockham's Razor (a monk nonetheless) on too many counts to even be considered an explanation. Even if the story of the garden of Eden were magically true, it still doesn't explain the true origins of evil, as you still have the prime mover

mrmayor:
Religious books would say that Adam and Eve sinned against God so the reason for Evil in the world.How can humans be responsible for their actions if they are destined to be the way they turn out to be.

Following the omni-nature of God, only God is ultimately responsible, as it is his wish for things to turn out as they are. Even God having wishes violates his omni-character. The omni-God just cannot exist.

mrmayor:
Why is Satan bad if as when he was created God knew he was bad?

God is omniscient, thus He knew Satan would be / become bad
God is omnipotent, thus he had the power to prevent Satan being bad
God is omnibenevolent, thus he cannot wish for evil to exist
Evil exists, this means that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time.
Either God is limited or he does not exist.

mrmayor:
For me this remains the most fundamental question in the world.Why did God create Lucifer?Knowing well in advance the Lucifer/Satan would become arogant,disobedient,evil,and be his rival.Is Satan responsible for his actions?

I guess an imaginary being creating another imaginary being to explain the flaws of the first imaginary being is a little less than fundamental.

Hugoboi:
HONESTLY I THINK YOU ARE THE ONE BUGGING, GET OFF MY D**K

Seems that you are a master of words. Maybe you can redirect that skill towards contributing to the topic instead of bragging about your privates.

Hugoboi:
I really get amazed @ the kind of stuff i read here.Sumone calling the bible old school and stuff and still claiming toblive in judgement day.Please WHo ARE U??, DR JEKYLL or MRS HYDE!!

Why are you bugging her? If you have anything to contribute, maybe you should do just that.

kellorah:
JUDGEMENT DAY I BELIEVE

Another one of these fairy-tales to scare the children

kellorah:
i don't exactly have proof but i'll stick to what i believe in.

Yeah, sure. Belief in God is irrational, but it may be justifiable on other grounds. Go with what you feel is best for you

kellorah:
we'll see for ourselves, on the last day!

Which last day?

kellorah:
because we don't just exist.

Why not?

kellorah:
something made us for a reason.

Why?

kellorah:
and when i ask for stuff,HE gives me what i what. not exactly when i ask, but i do get it in the end

Standard perception bias. The power of prayer has always crumbled under control experiments.

kellorah:
there's is a GOD ohhh whether ALLAH or gods. there's a SUPREME BEING like it or not

And how do you know?

Seun:
There is no chess player that throws away a pawn unecessarily, but the key factor is that our lives are dispensable to these people who have power (military power, the power to kill) when something "more important" is at stake. That is what makes us pawns to them. Civilians can be sacrificed for their selfish "greater good".

All true, but you are wrong in characterising it as something selfish from their part. They usually genuinely believe to be working for the greater good and they're no monsters.

Natureboy:
And Nferyn--where's it heading? Sounds like one of these tribal disputes, to an outsider.

It is exactly that. Some real problems from the past have been blown out of proportion and we don't communicate anymore. The perception of the problems is so different between the two linguistical groups that it has become difficult even to communicate about them. Luckily nobody is looking at violence to solve the problems. Belgium is probably going to dissolve in Europe anyway.

Seun:
The people in power don't care about us, their pawns, regardless of what they say on TV.

You can't generalise like that, but there's a definite influence coming from the reference social group those in power belong to and that ensures that they're not always empathical to the needs of the common people. That doesn't necessarily mean though that they consider us as pawns or that they have evil intentions.

ijebuman:

The IDF usually don't deliberately attack civilians

Israel may not attack civilians directly but it adopts a collective punishment approach which affects innocent civilians, this policy rather than discouraging future attacks ensures more support for extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

What I meant is that it's not their approach to deliberately target civilians with the aim to kill them. The collective punishment they use is targeted at property rather than at people, e.g. the buldozering of the houses of family members of suicide bombers. This is very different from specifically targeting civilians for the kill.
The whole situation is a catch-22 and Israel has a lot to answer for, e.g. they covertly supported Hamas against Fatah and the PLO a policy that is now coming back to haunt them.

BigSis:
Nferyn,

You mentioned that AA were distinctly America. Of course, I am an American, 10th generation. Yes we have our own distinct culture that influences the entire planet. Again, who are you people?

Whuy this jab? Have I offended you?
My point is that Americans (US citizens) have the tendency to look at the outside world from a very American-centric point of view. I just find it quite tellig that AA's call white Americans European or when they lecture Africans on what it is to be African. AA cultural idioms are many times way closer to white American idioms than they are to those of Africans

Chxta:
Israel isn't actually targeting civilians huh? Wow. Tell that to the family that lost 19 of its members on Sunday. . .

The IDF usually don't deliberately attack civilians (except maybe in the first Arab-Israeli war), but that doesn't mean that they care very much for so called collateral damage. The IDF is a very powerful army and batlle is very messy. The continued operations in the occupied territories will also effect the IDF when it comes to their sensibilities vis-a-vis civilians.
Now, if you compare that with the deliberate use of deadly force against civilians by Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah, it becomes a little hypocritical to scorn he Israeli for their civilian casualties.

Natureboy:
Retro, I wondered where you lived at first, with such an odd (to an English-speaking person) set of racial attitudes, but I see you're in Belgium. We tend to have black and white, and everything else is on a less emotional level--hearing that racism can take such different forms should be a lesson for us all, in how arbitrary it all is.

Well, Belgium is a weird country

Natureboy:
I heard this joke, or this story, years ago. There was a nice young Belgian woman who went on vacation to Reunion Island. She was away a month, and when she came back she'd met and married a man there, and she brought him back with her--and he was black. As far as her parents were concerned it was a total disgrace, and it was weeks before they'd even speak to her. She had brought a French-speaker into the family!

As with most jokes, there is some truth in it. The linguistic divide in Belgium is far greater than the racial divide will ever be. Both sides are equally guilty here.

Natureboy:
Maybe a Belgian would say, well obviously that's the point.

Some people wonder why there still isn't a civil war over here. You really have two completely separated communities. While there used to be a lot of contacts and intermarriage, that has reduced considerably. Right now the Flemish and French speaking Belgians even start using English as a [i]neutral [/i]language

<Hijack thread>
Hi Ijebuman,

Sorry for not getting back to you, I went through a messed up personal experience and have been neglecting to keep in touch with a lot of people. I'll email you an update today
</Hijack thread>

retro:

Anyway, I guess you're going to a francophone school and we know that they are underfunded and in general don't really attract the best of the best when it comes to pupils. Maybe you should change schools (if that's possible)

Pst! French schools aren't underfunded. That's what the Flemish say! *rolls eyes*. They do attract the best students (me . . .).

That must be because I'm Flemish LOL
Well, relatively speaking they [b]are [/b]underfunded (compared to Flemish schools, that is, especially in Brussels). And the overall output in test scores is far below the European average (OECD numbers), but you will always have goods schools everywhere and good students always come out regardless of the environment

zexyworm:
1- Israel never vacated the Sheba Farms, the most fertile and agricultural zone in Southern Lebanon. Get your facts right.

And they haven't given up the Golan heights either and ontinue to tap water from occupied territories. Israel definitely isn't blame-free.

zexyworm:
2- You know it's a pitty to see people getting their news from CNN.
ABC, NBC, CNN, CBC and most prominent American newspapers are mouthpieces for American Jewish elements.
For more infor refer to this site (NOT a hate site, just a scholarly research)
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-controlledpress-folder.html

American news is not really balanced, but your anti-semitic sources are not balanced either. You shouldn't try to counter biased news with outright conspiracy theory spin.

zexyworm:
3-The Palestinian cause is a secular one. Christian Palestinians were driven out of their land in 1948, along with Muslim communities, into refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring countries.
One of the most respected Palestinian scholars is Hanan Ashrawi, who is a christian lady.

At least it used to be. Hanan Ashrawi isn't exactly the mouthpiece of the Palestinian cause nowadays, is she? At least she saw that a negotiated settlement in line with the proposal of the 2000 Camp David summit was the way to go. Arafat's blind refusal brought forth the second intifada, Sharon and the rise of Hamas. Again, ordinary Palestinians were the victims of the untenable idea of an unconditional right of return.

zexyworm:
4- Arabs (christians and muslims) are happy to coexist with Israelis in the middle east so long as Israel ceases to grab land and dictate its own terms over the territory. Negotiations is the only solution, as opposed to cowboy-style unilateralism. The Arabs repeatedly offered the land-for-peace initiative, but it seems Israel decided it was more lucrative to use its American-backed military might to impose its own vision for the region.

You are living in a dreamworld if you think that most Arabs are happy to coexist with Israeli's in the middle east. There have been no genuine land-for-peace initiatives coming from any of the Arab states, the only genuine intitiatives were the ones negotiated between Israeli's and palestinians themselves.

retro:

I you go roam the streets of Schaarbeek or Molenbeek at night, you won't find many friendly faces, indeed Wink

That's my point. I live in Woluwe saint lambert. A very quiet place but I school at Schaarbeek. They are ALWAYS fighting. They are disgusting, loud, annoying and racist! They hate White people. They live in a White country yet they hate White people . . . how logical is that? Sometimes I'm like yeah, I'll stop being prejudiced but they ALWAYS do something I hate! To be truthful, I think in a few months, I might become a racist towards Arabs. I don't want to but they irck me a lot.

You should also look at the conditions they live in, not that they are blameless, but Belgian society doesn't give them much opportunities, so they lash out. If you meet some people that are settled, you'll see something very different. Anyway, I guess you're going to a francophone school and we know that they are underfunded and in general don't really attract the best of the best when it comes to pupils. Maybe you should change schools (if that's possible)

retro:

What is quite noticable though is a very strong anti-black racism among the less educated Morocans. It can get quite vile at times

It is always vile. I go to a 75 % muslim school, (50 % Arabs and 50 % Turks). I'm freer with the Turks than the Arabs but they are both muslims, why is that? I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have a group of friends who think like me. One of my friends lives at Sint Josse (or something like that) and whenever I visit her, someone always whistles at me or try to touch me! Ewww. They hate Black people but they hit on me?

Turkey is a secular state and even though they're muslim, they have a very different attitude than the Morrocans. You should go and visit the Turkish quarter in Ghent, very pleasant - and good and cheap food
Saint-Josse is the poorest Commune in Belgium and it naturally attracts a lot of disfunctional people and on top of that the area they live in doesn't give them a positive picture of blacks with all the prostitution going on there.

Mariory:
"Those people you call terrorists want Israel to fall back on its 1967 lines UNCONDITIONALLY and stop its territorial expansion / settlement drive ONCE AND FOR ALL."

If you believe that's their aim, then your naivity is enourmous. Just listening to the rethoic of these organisations shows you what their ultimate aim is. Please stop buying into propaganda and expand your mind. Israel has been out of lebanon for the past 6+ years and not once, I repeat, not once has Hezbolla stopped firing rockets randomly into Israel.

The most disturbing thing here is that the children both in the Palestinian territories and in the neigbouring countries are being spoonfed the most vile anti-semitic propaganda you can imagine. They are being brought up in hatred for everything that's Jewish. [i]The Protocols of the Elders of Zion [/i]is still in wide circulation in the Arab world.
All [i]they [/i]really want is the complete and utter destruction of the state of Israel and all the Jews being driven into the sea. The teritorial expansion of Israel beyond the '67 borders is a direct consequence of the uncompromising attitude of the Arab states at the expense of the Palestinian population (after all, it's them doing the suffering).
There is no Arab state that should lecture Israel on it's treatment of the Palestinians. They are just as guilty in this matter as the Israeli, if not more.

retro:
It's something I can't explain. I'm really prejudiced and I'm really trying hard to get over it. I was influenced by my family!

I know you can get over it, as long as you try.

retro:
Of course, they are hard but White/Asian is harder. It's a fact. Asians are closed. In my opinion, even if they get married, they'll eventually break up so why start at all?

Some would say that relations between whites and Africans are hardest. It all depends on the couple's perspective and priorities.

retro:
They've been together for 2 years. The problem is from the girl's family (Asians), they are really pushy. They're already talking of marriage, he's only 18! It's just too hard for him.

Once more, it depends on the couple's priorities. All relationships have downsides, it all depends on how that measures up against the positives.

retro:
Did I say I knew all Arabs? By the way, I live in Brussels, the Arabs here aren't friendly either. They aren't in favour of interracial relationships. The boys in my class hate when their fellow Arabs date other races, they become really angry and whatnot. I am not in support of Black/Arab relationships.

I have lived in Brussels for 9 years (studies at VUB and 4 years in Molenbeek) and it all depends on your circle of friends. The Arabs and Turks I got acquainted with at university are really quite friendly and open. I you go roam the streets of Schaarbeek or Molenbeek at night, you won't find many friendly faces, indeed
What is quite noticable though is a very strong anti-black racism among the less educated Morocans. It can get quite vile at times

retro:
Tell me something I don't know. I hate it, I'm really trying but my family are sooo . . . oh well.

We all have to fight our prejudices - e-v-e-r-y---d-a-y

retro:
A black man/woman dating an Asian man/woman is odd. Especially Arabs, they are better off getting married to their kind.

Why?

retro:
Asians: their culture, it's just so hard. The couple will have a very hard time getting along with the parents of the Asian person.

And the same isn't true in the other direction? All intercultural marriages are hard. It's up to the couple to see where their priorities are.

retro:
Even a White person dating an Asian is hard. A friend of mine is having problems with his Asian girlfriend, they'll eventually end up breaking up.

They don't have their priorities straight. Their relationship wouldn't work out if they had the same cultural background either.

retro:
Arabs: Just no, no, no. Culture wise, everything.

I guess you know all Arabs? Is a Moroccan Berber an Arab? Is a Lebanese Christian an Arab?

retro:
Gosh, I need to stop thinking like this.

That's probably where the problem is. You need to free your mind.

First, before anyone starts accusing me of being an Israeli apologist, I want to make the following clear:
1. I consider Israel to be a racist state, legally as well as factually
2. The Palestinians are the biggest victim of the Israeli-Arab conflict
3. The occupation of the west bank and gaza, as well as the continued explotation of it's human and natural resources (especially the tapping of water for agriculture) is unjustified and inexcusable.

Making that clear, both sides in this discussion are somewhat myopic. The current crisis was started by Hezbollah and they knew perfectly well what the reaction of Israel would be, in fact, they counted on it.
1. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and actions by Hezbollah can be considered actions of the Lebanese government. The kidnapping of two soldiers, as well as the rocket launches are acts of war against Israel
2. A government led by Ehud Olmert could only react by using military force, when Hezbollah decided to kidnap these soldiers, they knew the IDF would come in force
3. The withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon ensured that the power of Hebollah became completely unchecked, especially since the support from Iran increased
Hezbollah knew that their actions would:
1. Cripple lebanese infrastructure
2. Have countless civilian casualties as a consequence
3. weaken an already weak Lebanese government
yet they chose to do so because their own power base would expand (most Arab political forces have always considered their population as a means to an end, not an end in itself) if the proportions of the conflict were limited.
Israel will never be able to control occupied Lebanese territory and the expansion of this war to Lebanon would drain resources from Israel. What Hezbollah didn't count on was that Israel would go all the way (as the lost conflicts show, most Arab people have a very poor understanding of Israeli psyche) untill the power base of Hezbollah is completely destroyed. Right now the IDF is hurying to destroy as much of Hezbollah before the UN steps in.

What I've learned is that Nigerians are generally rather outspoken. That has both it's bad and good sides, but when it touches religion, it can become quite ugly at times.
One funny anecdote, when I just met my wife, I had the impression that she was angry at me a lot of the time and that she was bossing me around, but it's just that she has a more direct way of communicating and I wasn't used to that. Once I knew that, things smoothed out quickly.

shango:

Absolute, utter bullshit. Laws are descriptive and theories are explanative. They serve different purposes.

Absolute utter bullshit. Great rebuttal. Why not backup your comments with sources instead of making moronic ad hominems.

I have given you some sources before, but you rather ignore them than go through them. Apparently you don't know what an ad hominem is, as I did not attack you, but your absolute, utter bullshit statement that A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory.

shango:
I told you the differences and backed it up with a wiki article AND examples of a thoery becoming a law like the theory of electromagnetism. You come back with ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSHIT. Brilliant. JUST BRILLIANT.

1. your unsourced wiki article quote does not discuss the differences between laws and theories. It only states that laws can be derived from implications of theories, a far cry from a law is above a theory. A law is only above a theory in your hyperactive mind (and maybe that of some others as well)
2. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status is only your implication, not that of the quote you provided. Your deductive capabilities are lacking if you can read this into the quote you provided.
3. I have already said before that the claim laws are above theories is incorrect. Your insistence on repeating that falsehood, compel me to label it as absolute, utter bullshit, a poignant description of what it really is: absolute, utter bullshit.

shango:

You are completely clueless when it comes to the difference between laws and theories. Go and read some Popper, so that you get an insight into the scientific method.

No I am not. And I proved why. You on the other hand are. And you have proved why with your continuous logical fallacies.

1. Yes you are clueless. Read this to get some insight into (the) scientific method(s) and [url=http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html]this [/url]for some insight into the difference between laws and theories.
2. No, you have not proven anything. By the way, proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science.
3. Can you point out the logical fallacies? Preferably with a logical [/i]explanation as to why they are fallacies.

shango:

Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species.

Let's make it simple. Descent with modification is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact of evolution. Laws don't even enter the discussion.
As to your show me one instance, I will give you several instances using consensus definitions of species in the field of biology. But first I would like you to define physical experiment, then define species, then define totally new species. If you can do that, we will have the parameters to answer your question. If you can't do that you'll shift the goalposts continuously and discussion is pointless.

Crossbreeding, genetic mutations, speciation, micro-evolution etc all support the theory of evolution. All aformentioned are observable reproducable facts in nature.

Ducking the question, are we? Define me [i]species, physical experiment and totally new species and I will show you several instances.

shango:
When I say evolution in the overall sense I would assume it saying for a fact that for example we evolved from monkeys.

evolution in the overall sense, saying for a fact, for example: all nicely pointing out your cluelessness when it comes to scientific thought. Maybe you can try to be a little less vague, ambiguous and more precise.

shango:
This fact has not been proven scientifically.

You don't prove something scientifically. you prove something logically or mathematically. In science, evidence and falsifiability are key.

shango:
Sure we share common genetic traits, sure speciation occurs and we can say such facts in the evolution theory lead to macro evolution and therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years.

Where in the TOE does it say that a pine tree evolved to a dog? One more indication that you are clueless. It really would help you to go and read the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley, that way you can get rid of your misconceptions about the TOE.

shango:
That is the theory.

In your alternative universe it is, yes.

shango:
Until scientists can make a pine tree evovle or explain why it evolves and the exact mechanisms that led the pinetree or the guinea pig to evolve to a human IT IS STILL A THEORY.

Right. Disprove your strawman of the TOE on your unclear terms trying to prove something that is not implied by the real TOE is the way to convince you. Never going to happen.
Indeed the TOE is still and always will be a theory. Nothing wrong with a theory that has expanded, has not been falsified in 150 years and is the fundamental framework underlying all biological sciences. Biologist and Theologist Theodosius Dobzhansky made it perfectly clear: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

shango:
DO not try to be coy and say speciation is evolution.

It is a mechanism through which evolution works. It is [/i]not evolution.

shango:
Only an idiot will try to say that when we talk about Evolution we are referring to speciation and genetic mutations. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MACRO EVOLUTION DUMMY. None of your sources explains how, why and how we can reproduce macroevolution. It theorizes it using facts we observe in nature.

Wanna get into the definition game again? Unambiguously define macro-evolution and speciation. From there one we will have a starting point to refute your poorly informed statements.
By the way, what mechanisms prevent micro-evolution to lead to macro-evolution; If you can provide me these, I will consider your statements [b]not [/b]to be out of personal incredulence.

shango:

It does not explain facts like genetic mutations at all. Can you tell me which version of the TOE you use to explain genetic mutations?

There you go ignoramous

Your unsourced quote still does not equate to TOE [i]explains [/i]genetic mutations. You really need to get back to a basic introduction into informal logic, as your mastery of that subject is below par. One more thing, if you (unjustly) accuse me of using [i]ad hominems and assume that that gives you the right to use ad hominems yourself, you aresadly mistaken.

shango:
Its evolve not involve,

Says the person who himself was annoyed of someone pointing out a typo by himself.

shango:
thanks for pointing out a TYPO on a inet forum. Can you also correct my punctuation pretty please. Forgive me, next time I will reread what I type so it can face the scrutiny of a faceless Inet board user such as yourself.

shango:
and no speciation does not explain how a guinea pig evolved to a human being.

No such thing ever happened, except maybe in your overactive imagination.

shango:
Go ahead, use speciation and other merchanisms of evolution to explain said evolution. I AM WAITING. The facts of evolution are out there right? We are to dumb to explain using the facts infront of us. Go on oh wise dutchman.

Are you capable of constructing a coherent argument? If so, please go ahead, as this rant above does not qualify as coherent.

shango:
explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien, or the guinea pig into the human using scientific facts and how we can reproduce said evolutions in the lab, how do we make a guinea pig into a human using the facts of evolution and its mechanisms.

Just an indication in anticipation of your definitions: the divergence in mitochondrial dna of all currently investigated species perfectly correlates with the cladistical predictions made by the TOE. If that weren't the case, it would be a perfect falsification of the TOE. Divergences in Mitochondrial DNA among all living species can only be explained by common descent, unless of course you have an alternative explanation, maybe goddidit for his own inscrutable reasons?

shango:
Einsteins theory of relativity attempts to explain many things. Newtons law of gravity still holds in a certain framework where the frame of reference speed is much less than the speed of light, in such a framework relativistic forces hardly play a part. Hence Eintsteins relativity theory made Newtons law of gravity more precise. The original law holds and still holds for most macro objects that move at comparitively lower speeds than c. A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory.

Absolute, utter bullshit. Laws [/b]are [b]descriptive [/b]and [b]theories [/b]are [b]explanative. They serve different purposes.

shango:
Taken from a wiki article on law. Laws are understood to be unmutable. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status. There is a clear heirarchy. String theory for example may become a law when it is proven using empirical data and scientific methods. I do not get why you are still arguing this.

You are completely clueless when it comes to the difference between laws and theories. Go and read some Popper, so that you get an insight into the scientific method.

shango:
yes, I did the same as well. Both support my statements. The theory of evolution is NOT A LAW YET because it has not be rigorously tested to elevate it to law status like the theory of electromagnetism. And while it explains genetic mutations it does not explain how and why species evolve. Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species. And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION.

Let's make it simple. Descent with modification is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact of evolution. Laws don't even enter the discussion.
As to your show me one instance, I will give you several instances using consensus definitions of species [/i]in the field of biology. But first I would like you to define [i]physical experiment, then define species, then define totally new species. If you can do that, we will have the parameters to answer your question. If you can't do that you'll shift the goalposts continuously and discussion is pointless.

shango:
evolution is not a fact IT IS A THEORY. The theory explains certain facts like genetic mutations, it is not itself a fact.

It does not explain facts like genetic mutations at all. Can you tell me which version of the TOE you use to explain genetic mutations?

shango:
It is not a fact that things evolve. If it was it would be the law of evolution.

It wouldn't. Laws are descriptive, not explanative

shango:
The TOE does not fully explain how one species evolves to another, it hypothesizes based on certain observable facts, like shared phenotypical traits, genetic mutations, etc.

The TOE is the only explantion of our current biodiversity that:
* fits all the evidence
* has not been falsified
* enables us to make predictions
and it does offer convincing explanations on how species involve into other species. Here's a simple primer on speciation

shango:
If it truly is a fact like you say, please explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien. GO ON. EXPLAIN IT. EVOLUTION IS A FACT RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND USE THE FACT OF EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES MENTIONED.

Just read the Talkorgins articles on human evolution. If the explanation is not sufficiently clear or convincing to you, tell us your [b]specific [/b]objections so that we can address them.
You also could read Carl Zimmer's Intimate Guide to Human Origins

shango:
I bet my life you cannot, and I wonder why

Well, bet again.

Gwaine:

Okay? What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? You do know many Christians are both logical and scientific right?

That's what amazes me - biko, helep me ask am well: what really has ajia23's whining got to do with the subject at hand?

Nothing at all. I guess it's because Muslims claim that current scientific knowledge was foretold [/i]in the Qu'ran that [i]ajia23 thinks he'll have our support

Gwaine:
At least, I've discoursed with Kag and nferyn, agreed and disagreed, and they continue to have my respects at the end of the day; and I've learnt tremendously from them.

The feeling is mutual

Gwaine:
True, some of us Christians may not be both logical and scientific all the time, but most often we do our best to be.

I wouldn't agree with that. Most Christians (and Atheists, Muslims, etc) couldn't care less about logic and scientific principles, it's just rationalisation of already held beliefs with an intellectual coating.

Gwaine:
By snivelling here, has it proven that ajia23 is actually logical in his irrelevant interjection in the subject of this thread?

I really don't know why he participated in this thread. There was another Christian person (forgot his username, Lioness' last post here was about that) that did the same. I don't understand why Seun removed that post and not the one from ajia23

Idekeson:
If you're not 100% Caucasian, you belong to the trace culture in your blood. I'm sorry to rain on the parade of anyone that thinks otherwise. That is the existing law on recism, until maybe the next century.

I understand the argument, but it is faulty. The main reason why people cling to it is because of the tainted race history of the US.
1. Culture is something that is not inborn, it is acquired during your socialisation period. It is not in the blood
2. Your skin tone will have a serious effect on how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you during that period. It will be/is an extremely important driver during that period, but is not the only defining characteristic
3. Your culture is largely what you choose it to be out of the different options life has provided you