Science

Peace sis "sc", So, you're proposing that we do this purely to observe evolution? JK- Ofcourse not but this would indeed be one os the most exciting observations IMO. GOD Bless!

Peace sis "savagecarrot", We need to get it together before we think of ruining more out there, we can't even take care of our own backyard let alone the moon or mars. JK- Yes we cant because many of us are still superstitious and dont wanna contribute to science. Once we have those micro robots GW everything would be taken care off. GOD Bless!

Salam Taj Very informative. Thanks for sharing!

It shows brother "Edip Yuksel" was indeed right about Adnan Octar(Harun Yahya). GOD Bless!

You invent things I have never said and then criticize them. In post #2 this what I said No, you're just trying to avoid being challenged for the utterly moronic statements you've made thus far. You've been caught, and you're trying to weasel out. Now tell me where did I say that "transitional forms cannot have complete systems"? Do you even read my posts? Does you dishonesty know no bounds? You claimed that they cannot be transitional forms because they have complete systems. As I recall, you seem to have mentioned this another thread. In post # 3 you wrote My response concerned with the sentence that is highlighted in bold. Do you even know what a continuing process really means? If you do, surely you can account for all of the (macro) evolutionary history in the last billion or so years down to the last millisecond. I am being generous here and not dividing time in nanoseconds. Total non sequitur. Why should we be able to account "for all of the (macro) evolutionary history in the last billion or so years down to the last millisecond"? Here are your brethren explaining what transitional forms are http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html That's great, now whats wrong with it. Salam

Excellent explanation Johny K. Unfortunately these guys prefer to think of God as an infernal watchmaker. Astaghfirullah!

My earlier post was concerning Gould's quote so kindly stop inventing stuff I never said. The fact that all living things possess the same features and functions can also be interpreted as proof of the existence of a common design. And that goes for the genetic code too. No its totally vacuous, because you still refuse to understand that the genetic code is degenerate. Similarities in gene sequences can only be rationally explained through common descent. As for your common design argument, we have a more parsimonious explanation without invoking unobservable and unverifiable supernatural entities, so Science goes with that. Please read up on Occam's razor. The theory of evolution is unable to account for the enormous complexity of the DNA and the information contained within. Nice argument from ignorance. Have you looked into the "RNA world" models of abiogenesis. This is not really within the preview of evolution. Expect a creationist to conflate abiogenesis and evolution. As an example, claiming that Myoglobin is the evolutionary ancestor of Hemoglobin is silly , for we know both myoglobin and hemoglobin possess exceedingly complex structures. To expect a mutation which randomly changes a protein's amino-acid sequence to turn that protein into a more complex one with more features is to believe in the impossible. Argument from incredulity. Can you stop with the logical fallacies buddy. In order to prove the evolutionist claims, every transitional stage between myoglobin and hemoglobin needs to be functional (and more advantageous than the preceding stage), and that is impossible. Argument by assertion. Great, you're just following the typical creationist script. Moreover, the evolutionists' accounts fail to explain the origin of the myoglobin protein. How about this, gradual evolution through modification. Really ... Lets see who requires "reading up". From www.answers.com Nice try, mere speculation isn't a Scientific theory. A thoery in science has a specific definition. Its a hypothesis thats been tested and confirmed to such a degree that its considered to be an accurate representation of reality. Please don't conflate the definition of "theory" in the common vernacular with that in scientific usage. You only make yourself look more of an idiot. Unfortunately, your personal attack against me has backfired. It is clear it is you who needs "reading up", for you are totally unprepared to indulge in a debate concerning the theory of evolution. blablabla. You keep on typing this gibberish but at the same time you betray a fundamental ignorance of the whole subject eg. transitional organisms must be incomplete. Please read your post again. There are TWO INDEPENDENT clauses in that quote. The second one says You don't understand how Science works, why am I not surprised. Have you ever looked into the philosophy of Science? Do you know what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is? Do you understand that Science cannot ever prove absolutely any of its theories? We can't absolutely prove that our theories are a totally valid representation of whats happening, there could always be something else causing the phenomena. Science, by definition, cannot be dogmatic in this regard. Gould is simply being honest about the inherent limitations of Science. But I would expect a creationist to engage in such dishonest games. Is this a scientific statement? Is your faith in a discredited theory that blind? If he is so sure about the Darwin's proposed mechanism, why is he mentioning a mechanism "yet to be discovered"? Read the above. And stop making unsuported assertions, creationist. Was Newton that lacking in conviction after he proposed his laws? Goes to show that you totally and utterly missed the point. The fact that that Newton's theory of gravitation was overturned by Einstein goes to show that nothing in Science can be proven absolutely, we know this now very well. And whether or not Darwinian natural selection is the correct mechanism behind evolution, it has no bearing on common descent. Why don't you remove those creationist goggles for a moment and actually sincerely try to understan what Gould is trying to get across here. Science is not about what you think. It is about theories that can be backed up with evidence. So far there is NO evidence to support the human-from-ape myth. We have plenty of evidence, from the fossil record to comparative anatomy and physiology, and the genetic evidence. Blindly asserting, like a typical dogmatic creationist, that there's no evidence doesn't actually make it so.

Peace "god1quran1", Devolution is no evidence of evolution mate. You need to think through this. JK- Man i believe ive said this before evolution works both ways so generally one doesnt even talk about devolution. On the other hand, a new feature requires additonal information thatnd must appear in the DNA of the organism. Matter cannot create information. It requires a sender and a code that the receiver can use to decode the message. Evolution is unable to account for all this. peace. JK- Additional information as you call it is brought in by mutations and natural selection. As for you stating that matter cant create itself one has to understand that even the tiniest particles posess intelligence and ofcourse theyve been provided that by GOD, the Ultimate Intelligence. No evolutionist on this forum or any theitic evoltuionist for that matter doubts this so i dont see your problem. GOD put it all in the lelmetary particles and fixed constants at the beginning of the big bang in a way that we have all this diversity of life coming from a common ancestor which is the only way to give evidence for there being only one god, GOD. How many times do i have to repeat myself? If according to you GOD created every species or kind(as creationists say) separate then one could argue that such and such creature was created by a different GOD. GOD didnt want tht and this i believe is one of the major reasons He used evolution. GOD Bless!

At the time of Darwin, a cell could not be seen from the inside and he erroneously assumed that a the building blocks of life were simple structures. Well as it turns out, cell is an extremely complex structure that could not have been formed by chance. Other cells such as the neurons go through a complex series of processes to generate an electric signal. Moreover, to perform simple tasks like seeing, many thousands/millions of cells have to act in unison for the combined sum total of the signal to have any meaning. Common sense dictates that an intelligent designer is behind these creations. No thats called an argument from ignorance, brother. People have been falling into this trap throughout history. If the design of Allah's creation were poor, these scientists would not be copying them! We don't copy the poor "designs". Remember we are talking about "intelligent" scientists who are using biological inspiration to create complex objects, which according to the theory of evolution came about through "chance" and "natural selection" (meaning no intelligence was involved). You need to think through this. Is sharing features evidence of evolution? One could argue that a designer created all the species and chose to keep certain features similar. When you claim that the Theory of Evolution is based on scientific principles, you have to ask yourself, "Is the question I am posing be tested using scientific principles?" Has anyone seen macroevolution at work? I will be convinced if you could show me a reptile lung changing to an avian lung. We both know you cannot. During the transitory phase, the organism must be able to demonstrate organs that can work in both situations. How can Please, have you ever seen new any new continents or mountain ranges form within your lifetime? Evolution of the scale you're referring takes huge spans of time, just like it takes long spans of time for geological features such as mountain ranges to form. But we can witness the slow process in the here and now, we can measure the slow movement of the tectonic plate and similarly we can observe microevolution. Simple induction then follows. this turn into this | | ------------------------------ | | --------------- | | --------------- | | --------------- / \ ------------------------------- / /\ / / \ / / \ \ reptilian lung avian lung through gradual modifications. That is why all the alleged "transitional forms" are really mosaics all having complete systems of their own and none of the systems is in a transitory phase. You make the mistake of thinking that transitionary organisms are somehow incomplete, they're not. They're fully formed in every sense. Above I have tried to explain to you why the explanation is'nt all that great if we look a little deeper. Once we get past the BS, one will quickly realize that evolution is really no science at all. Well, those biologists must be real stupid to be duped into accepting this evolution for the past century. The evolutioists like to make the claim that we are 98% genetically similar to the chimps. OK. lets apply the BS detector to this claim. Physically speaking, it is clear we are not 98% similar or humans and chimps would be dating one another. Er.. how are you measuring this physical similarity? Have you tried applying your BS detector on yourself? Its clear that compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, we're extremely similar to apes. So do you really understand what this % means. For ex. I can claim from the following 2 sentences I've already mentioned this in another thread but in light of the degeneracy of the genetic code (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Degeneracy_of_the_genetic_code), common ancestry is the only rational explanation for the gentic similarities, for example, between humans and chimpanzees. If you've got an alternate explanation I'm all ears. ABC said, "I do believe in one God" XYZ said, "I do not believe in God" that since the 2 sentences have 17/18 letters in common, ABC and XYZ have similar beliefs. But we both know that they do not! Right..... The truth of the matter is neither evolution nor creation can be called a "science". To know about the origin of life we can only draw inferences from the evidence that is available to us. What information do we have that supports that an intelligent creator designed us Well there is the Cambrian explosion which suggests that life appeared suddenly without any transitional forms between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them. 5-10 Million years is not suddenly (some estimated go up 40 mill). You also do realise that birds, mammals, reptiles, spiders and even flowering plants wern't formed during the cambrian explosion? They came much later. They had complete systems that were extremely sophisticated. This happended 500 million years ago. The HOX gene argument does'nt make sense because then the evolutionists have to explain how did this gene develop in the first place. Er.. through a gradual process of natural selection? When you read about the Cambrian explosion defence on evolutionist websites, make sure that you are able to link all pre-cambrian organisms to complex creatures like the Trilobite, which had a well developed vision system. Your argument is essentially this We don't know how exactly this happened, so God must have directly intervened to make it so. This is a historic logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Your only "evidence" is an appeal to ignorance. We know that the DNA contains information about the cell, which it uses run its operations. A DNA strand in a human call can be as long as 3 metres containing immense amount of information. Even if we are to believe that the from the primordial soup somehow a single cell evolved through chance (highly improbable), Two problems with these creationists stats, they assume a modern type cell of the type in existence today, and secondly they assume that organic chemistry is random, it isn't. It all falls down once you realise this. how can we can explain the DNA, for information implies presence of intelligence. Not only is intelligence required to put sensible information that is encoded in the DNA, Unsupported assertion. DNA is simply an organic polymer, its not a language. Also define information for us. but it is also required to decode it. How was/is the cell able to decipher the information contained in the DNA molecule? You've already assumed your conclusion, making your whole argument circular. You're also arguing from ignorance. Please stop engaging in these argumentative fallacies. Is a empty hard drive the same as one full of software? False analogy. All of the above is indirect evidence of an intelligent creator who has purposefully designed all the species. Its not evidence at all. You're using our lack of knowledge in certain areas as "evidence". Here http//skepdic.com/ignorance.html http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

God1quran1, If Archaeopteryx wasn't something in between, then why would the creator separately create a creature halfway between two classes of animals that looks like a transitional, but it wasn't? OK I thought we were debating the "theory" of evolution, which rejects any kind of creation "dogma". Are you sure you are clear in your mind what it is that you are defending? Actually I do have a theory about why God created the mosaic forms. It was probably to mislead and humiliate the unbelievers (I do not mean you. You believe in a creator.) who reject His wonderful signs and his creation. I cannot prove it ofcourse. Archaeopteryx makes no sense in the separate creation theory. Thats your assertion. Considered as a mosaic form, it completely fits in! Why should a 'separate-creator' create a 'halfway bird' before real birds? As I stated in an earlier post, Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird in evolutionary literature. And before making this assertion you should provide me with fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. Also, I happen to sympathize with Prof Feduccia's view, and from what I've read in his book Origin and Evolution of Birds, he never denies Archaeopteryx's status as a transitional form between birds and reptiles (archosaurs for him). Creationists never bother to quote that view. I can't say if Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur, but it's clear to me that Arch is a reptile and a bird. A creature whose existence evolution predicted, but the theory of special creation do not predict. What kind of contradictory statement is that? I was under the impression that Dinosaurs are also classified as reptiles! Please read Dr. Feduccia's article in the first post above and see the tone he uses to dismiss the Dino-bird link. Crocodiles (members of the archosaur group) have 4-chambered hearts. If you don't believe me go slice open a croc. If you are going to give me this argument, then tell me how the reptiles evolved from amphibians, which have 3-chambered hearts. And while you at it also tell us about the transitional link between an amphibian and a reptile, for none exists. Please do not quote the Seymouria fossil, for reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria.

Peace bros, What should we do with our previous debates where i vehemently denied the theory of evolution. Should we 1) delete them all 2) just let them as they are 3) make an entire article in which we compile all the debates so that we have them all under one topic, 4) extract the keypoints from the debates to show the progression and evolution of my thoughts, 5) bith 3 and 4? GOD Bless! I will go with 3&4

Emphasis on "could" ) Peace "maxq", JK- But it sure indicates we could get it. GOD Bless!

peace, i am in the position, the same position as the beholder who sees schrodinger's cat being alive and dead at the same time. confused what i am saying is, every one is correct for their own view on both religion and science. why do i say this? what i said, does it make sense? maybe, maybe not. andya primanda said science should be seperate from religion because he cannot compromise on the quranic view of evolution and the real-scientific view. idolfree is tackling this issue from the cosmological perspective! there is more to discover about cosmology, the quantum theory and the quran hopefully in the near future. and, about logic, i completely agreee with tay, whereupon Newtonian mechanics works on everywhere in "our Universe"(or at least that's what we know for now), but the quantum theory inside an atom or beyond newtonian laws just don't work. Modern Science is a collective proof of all the philosophical thinking mankind has pursued throughout history. certain individuals like, Newton, Einstein, and others has been able to put those philosophies toi natural application and derive proofs for their observation. science is a tool which goes beyond intuition, beyond our limit to understand what reality is! that is why i agree with andya primanda to some extent we should keep science away from religion based on verifing and seeking knowledge based on our "proofs". but from the cosmological perspective, i say, a better understanding of the human heart and the quran, the human phychology and its imlplications in quantum theory should benefit both science and religion. peace, Rifat

Peace bro "AB", I used to think like that too before, and i was in full support of Kent regarding creationism. You may find it in my previous posts on this forum even, prasing Kent etc. But now i realized tht its all garbage i.e. creationism. The thing is Dr. Rainbow is not a debator who appeals to the emotions of the crowd. All he presents is facts which have been proven through independent lines of inquiry. You may visit talkorigins.org to find out. Evolution both macro and micro is proven with such high probability now tht denying them would be insane. GOD Bless!

no that has to do with the spacial warping around a body with a huge mass... such as a black hole. perhaps, it is also referring to the fact that around a black hole, the escape vilocity approaches the vilocity of light (or perhaps even exceeds it.) Maxi, That took me a bit of time to understand but I get it now light does not bend normally, although normality itself can be distorted by large mass objects, and consequentially, light is distorted in comparison to normality. Thanks for clearing that up. Peace Zak

Takes a bit of time to get used to us 'round here max

Sex starts in the mind; usually the more creative/forbidden in the psyche the more stimulating. Regardless of cause, it is still a choice whether to act on those urges as in committing adultery. 1224 And she desired him and he desired her, had it not been that he saw His Lord's proof; it was thus that We turned evil and lewdness away from him; he is of Our loyal servants.

As salamu alaykum. Respectfully. Well, if cloning is possible and not a sin, then it would be okay only if it is not abused. Clones could work for us, do soemthing that would be helpful and of course we'd have to treat them as equals. As salamu alaykum. Why don't we work for them to be equal?

018.029 YUSUFALI Say, "The truth is from your Lord" Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it) for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! PICKTHAL Say (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place! SHAKIR And say The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place. According to Mohammad the said water would be like molten brass in what manner? heat? heat that would scald faces. If that is the case then this would be another fine example of the scientific errors in the quran for the lowest temperature by which brass melts is 900 degrees celcius. When at 374 Celcius the water molecules disintigrates into its component parts. A miracle? If so then the Allah would be an inefficient God. why waste energy transmuting water into a molten brass like matter instead of just serving molten brass? A figure of speech? Well mohammed used a poor choice of words...water like molten brass? its so wrong. Or just simply an error out of ignorance? A miracle? If so then the Allah would be an inefficient God. why waste energy transmuting water into a molten brass like matter instead of just serving molten brass? How do you come to such conclusions when you read these translations? It says 'Water like Molten Brass' not "Water Transmuted into a Molten Brass Like Matter". It is not Molten Brass, it's water, how do we even know if elements work in the same way in another plane of the Universe? It may not even be water, it may be a liquid, or the closest thing to a liquid in Human terms or in the scope of the human understanding of the universe. One thing's for sure, it isn't Molten Brass. A figure of speech? Well mohammed used a poor choice of words...water like molten brass? its so wrong. How is it so wrong exactly? When I read it, it conveyed the understanding very poignantly and I suspect this is the reason for such a use of words. Let's have a look at what else we could say to describe it "Water like Boiling Water!!!" "Water like Something Very Hot!!!" "Water like something that has a boiling point greater than 900 degrees!!!" Yes, very poignant indeed, it certainly doesn't convey things as well as God does in the Qur'an, and if such alternate explanations were used then people would attack the Qur'an because of weak descriptive abilities, which we can certainly see isn't the case. The Qur'an is not a Science book (even though contains many Scientific miracles) it's there to guide me and you to a better way. Peace

Peace, Nothing wrong with studying science, in fact it's the best learning experience you'll get. In science, your teacher is nature itself, not some men, not some so-called authorities, not abstract concepts. You learn by touching, opening, witnessing. Make sure that you don't just read science--for the full experience, do science!