Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Iran uprising - is the en...
by zeca
Today at 08:09 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Today at 06:59 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 06:47 PM

Kashmir endgame
Today at 02:55 PM

Anti-imperialism and the ...
by zeca
Today at 02:40 PM

New PM incoming
Today at 12:13 AM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:39 PM

Painted pious ladies
Yesterday at 09:03 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:22 PM

Lebanon protests
by zeca
Yesterday at 01:21 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 01:15 PM

Life extension
Yesterday at 09:53 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran

 (Read 43970 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #90 - January 16, 2015, 08:36 AM

    Let's just not forget you are trying to "debate" science with someone who believes this.

    I wouldn't consider it a scientific conspiracy against creationism, but a scientific conspiracy to uphold evolutionism.


    So spend your time wisely and choose wiser opponents!
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #91 - January 16, 2015, 08:39 AM


    For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.”  Obviously this would conflict with common sense,

    NONE of this is ‘science,’ and pretending these people are genuine truth seekers is an insult to both science & truth.  



    The half life of Carbon-14 is around 5750 years, Dinosaurs are to old for carbon dating, you should do your homework on this one and learn some biology while you are at it.

    To even suggest radio carbon dating for dinosaurs would conflict with common sense,this is clear evidence you are clueless on this topic.

    Did Allah make Adam 60 cubits tall, how tall is that?
    www.sunnah.com/bukhari/60/1





  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #92 - January 16, 2015, 08:56 AM

    Let's just not forget you are trying to "debate" science with someone who believes this.

    So spend your time wisely and choose wiser opponents!


    The tin foil hat gives him away. There is no arguing with someone that believes in conspiracies of science and reference a book which has conspiracies in archaeology.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #93 - January 16, 2015, 09:17 AM

    For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.”  Obviously this would conflict with common sense, and yet, they refuse to carbon date anything except the layers of sediment surrounding where the fossil once lay.  In cases where the origins of the samples were deliberately hidden so that that they would be dated anyway, once the dates are shown to reflect data at odds with the evolutionary model of life on earth, an immediate smear campaign with character defamation, etc., are used to squash the findings to prevent them from becoming well known.  NONE of this is ‘science,’ and pretending these people are genuine truth seekers is an insult to both science & truth.


    Sigh. Here is a debunking by the well known Peter Hadfield (potholer)

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

    This is what we are dealing with; an imbecile (who reminds me of the christian YEC Nephilimfree) who got his science education from the internet by devouring creationist sources (well known for their unreliability and misrepresentations) and then proceeds to vomit it all over the place while demonstrating very clearly that he hasn't got the first clue about what the theory of evolution actually is or how fossilization works or how radiometric dating works. (I mean, this fool thinks dinosaur fossils, that that are millions of years old, can be carbon dated).

    It is tempting to to want go through each of his claims, and verify his sources (if he provides any) and provide refutations, but at this point, that is a just a polite gesture. Creationism is a PRATT (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times).
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #94 - January 16, 2015, 09:20 AM

    The half life of Carbon-14 is around 5750 years, Dinosaurs are to old for carbon dating, you should do your homework on this one and learn some biology while you are at it.

    To even suggest radio carbon dating for dinosaurs would conflict with common sense,this is clear evidence you are clueless on this topic.


    There's soft material in many of them that hasn't fossilized into stone.  Is it 'science' to refuse to test something for any reason because you THINK it's too old?  Isn't it reasonable for the scientist to first test it before they dismiss it?  "We're never going to test this material because we think we have all the answers regarding this material and there is never, ever a need ever to test it because we know it already" has never been a scientific mindset.  How long does it take for red blood cells, collagen, etc., to fossilize anyway?     

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #95 - January 16, 2015, 09:29 AM

    There's soft material in many of them that hasn't fossilized into stone.  Is it 'science' to refuse to test something for any reason because you THINK it's too old?  Isn't it reasonable for the scientist to first test it before they dismiss it?  "We're never going to test this material because we think we have all the answers regarding this material and there is never, ever a need ever to test it because we know it already" has never been a scientific mindset.  How long does it take for red blood cells, collagen, etc., to fossilize anyway?     


    Idiota. Watch this before you repeat that again!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #96 - January 16, 2015, 09:34 AM

    Nah If he wants to rant n make threads about creationism or even that the Biological Reproduction is false and that the Stork Baby Theory is true let him.


    It was one of your own members who created this thread and invited me into it.

    But to set it up as a debate of Evolution Vs Creationism in a debate format is giving Creationism a level pegging it doesn't merit.


    This is the exact bag that the evolutionist proponents in the field pull from when weaving their conspiracy to uphold evolutionism.  It is very narrow-minded and is not in any way a scientific mindset.

    Human Evolution is a very strong Scientific Theory with an abundance of evidence.


    More blind faith proclamations?

    Creationism was a God of the Gaps argument from Ignorance, which has now been filled with a Scientific Data. The Creationism myth has been so thoroughly debunked and falsified now (with Evolution informing us unequivocally and comprehensively that Humans had prior Hominid Species) that Creationism doesn't even reach the point of being wrong now.


    Remember it was religion that first told you that the universe had a beginning.  Atheist scientists just assumed that was a lie because they are narrow-minded, and theorized that the universe was eternal and never had a beginning.  As of today, Big Bang Theory is the prevailing model for the origin of the universe, with the facts supporting what religion told you up front... the universe had a beginning. “The best data we have concerning the Big Bang, are exactly what I would have predicted if I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the bible as a whole.” ~ Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of cosmic microwave background radiation


  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #97 - January 16, 2015, 09:36 AM

    Idiota. Watch this before you repeat that again!


    I'm not clicking on any random links from a self-confessed atheist.  Why don't you instead sum up the position and I will read it?  I can't afford for my CPU to be a victim of your practical jokes.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #98 - January 16, 2015, 09:42 AM

    You first said "For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.”"

    Then you said,

    Is it 'science' to refuse to test something for any reason because you THINK it's too old?  Isn't it reasonable for the scientist to first test it before they dismiss it?  


    Mr. Uber Dumbass.

    1) Carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5000 years (Do you know what that means?)

    2) Due to that, anything older than around 50,000 years would not have any "F**king carbon" in it. (Do you know why)?

    3) So if something doesn't have any carbon in it, why the fudge would you carbon date it? (Do you understand why?)

    4) Do you know there are different kinds of radiometric dating (it is not just carbon-dating)?

    5) Do you think none of us recognize you regurgitating Kent Hovind's stupidity?

    Anyways, no point in wasting time with you. Here, let me do you a favor. watch this video. It is a about radiocarbon dating and it is designed for intellectual dropouts like you (and for your own sake, do not repeat these anywhere else)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

    Ma Salam
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #99 - January 16, 2015, 09:45 AM

    I'm not clicking on any random links from a self-confessed atheist.  Why don't you instead sum up the position and I will read it?  I can't afford for my CPU to be a victim of your practical jokes.


     Cheesy it is a youtube video after all, but  Cheesy Cheesy

    Good luck in your tiny stupid world!

    Ma Salam
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #100 - January 16, 2015, 12:24 PM

    ..............

    Good luck in your tiny stupid world!

    Ma Salam

    hello  captndisguise..... It is new year  let us not insult folks who have very little background of basic sciences, how science works and how it evolves with time unlike stagnated religious brains..

    experiments with Bacterial world is a good example to teach about evolution

      we all (Theists and Atheists) who went through high school should realize by now  that in every colony of bacteria, there are some mutated  individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations. in the same way we have some mutated individual that are allergic to  facts in biological sciences

    Antibiotic action on bacterial colonies is a perfect example of evolutionary biology.,  A given Antibiotic  will kill most of the  bacteria but at the same time it leaves  few bacterial  cells  which have  mutations  to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forms a new colony where every member of that mutated bacteria becomes   resistant to that  antibiotic.  So we search for new Antibiotics that works on different principles. And here we have to search new ideas to educate   these theists  who were psychologically mutated right from the age of 2.   This is how natural selection  works .  not.

    anyways   my new greetings and good wishes to you.,
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #101 - January 16, 2015, 02:19 PM

    There's soft material in many of them that hasn't fossilized into stone.  Is it 'science' to refuse to test something for any reason because you THINK it's too old?  Isn't it reasonable for the scientist to first test it before they dismiss it?  "We're never going to test this material because we think we have all the answers regarding this material and there is never, ever a need ever to test it because we know it already" has never been a scientific mindset.  How long does it take for red blood cells, collagen, etc., to fossilize anyway?     


    You're labouring under a series of significant misapprehensions here - the 2003 discovery of collagen remnants in a T-Rex fossil sample was made by an enterprising scientist who took bones that WERE ALREADY DATED, and dissolved them in a mineralization bath - palaeontologists do this kind of thing routinely with samples. The collagen fragments that were recovered have been the subject of intense debate amongst scientists ever since- none of whom are in any doubt that the remains are 68 million years old, by the way. How common this phenomenon is, is as yet unknown. The material that was recovered has been subject to intense testing by a number of different institutions. Generally speaking, scientists are quite excited by this sort of thing as it potentially gives them immense insights into evolutionary linkages between extant and extinct species on the molecular level.

    Not quite the story that you're peddling - and IIRC there was a nice Horizon documentary about this a few years back. Perhaps you should try to look it up.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #102 - January 16, 2015, 03:03 PM

    Nah If he wants to rant n make threads about creationism or even that the Biological Reproduction is false and that the Stork Baby Theory is true let him. But to set it up as a debate of Evolution Vs Creationism in a debate format is giving Creationism a level pegging it doesn't merit.


    I would agree if this were, for example, a university and we were affording legitimacy to the point that doesn't deserve it by letting them stand on the same platform with actual scientists who have actually studied and contributed to the field. There you'd absolutely have a point.

    But, as much as I respect this forum, it's still an internet forum, and it's not carrying the same academic prestige as a university, and this one is going to be a lightning rod for creationists. Mrasheed surely isn't the first or last one to wash ashore, and I'd prefer that there at least be some discussions for those who may be swayed in either direction, or at least be inspired to take a second and more thorough look at the issue, rather than nothing but creationist arguments met with mockery and dismissal from us.

    Let's just not forget you are trying to "debate" science with someone who believes this.

    So spend your time wisely and choose wiser opponents!


    As for me, I'm a simple, bored old southerner, playin' on the computer during my downtime, with no real love of debates or eagerness to find opponents, and this thread happened to be one of the more interesting ones at the time that I replied.

    Is anything I say going to change Mrasheed's mind? Likely not. Or definitely not, it seems, as a recent comment seems to indicate that he will not click on any link that I provide on account of my atheism. But regardless, I'm a sucker, and there's an extraordinary long and painful thread somewhere around here where I spent a week or more responding to a user with half of Mrasheed's intellect and double his scientific misgivings and, on the plus side, I learned a lot about aspartame.

    Sure, this is likely to go nowhere fast, but I like to give having a discussion about it the old college try. If not useful to Mrasheed, maybe useful to some lurker. Or maybe not. Either way, during the weekdays, I've got too much time on my hands.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #103 - January 16, 2015, 04:18 PM

    You strike me as an intelligent person MRashid and one who is familiar with the various intellectual views and trends and so it surprises me that you are so certain that the theory of evolution is wrong.

    Particularly as many Muslims these days don't have such a problem with the theory of evolution as you seem to.

    When I was a practising Muslim I never had a problem with evolution. I used to just say 'God knows best the specifis of how he created mankind'.

    Many Muslims I know would probably fall into the category of what has been called "Theistic Evolution":

    Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of evolution relates to religious beliefs.

    Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.[1][2]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #104 - January 16, 2015, 06:41 PM

    It was one of your own members who created this thread and invited me into it.

    That's his mistake then, some people will set up a debate where there is none, just for the sake of having a debate and to give themselves an easy victory.

    This is the exact bag that the evolutionist proponents in the field pull from when weaving their conspiracy to uphold evolutionism.  It is very narrow-minded and is not in any way a scientific mindset.

    No it's saying Science shouldn't be debated against Non-Science, just as Chemistry Vs. Alcemy and Astronomy Vs. Astrology wouldn't make sense as debate propositions.
     
    More blind faith proclamations?

    No faith required for Human Evolution dude.


    Remember it was religion that first told you that the universe had a beginning.  Atheist scientists just assumed that was a lie because they are narrow-minded, and theorized that the universe was eternal and never had a beginning.  As of today, Big Bang Theory is the prevailing model for the origin of the universe, with the facts supporting what religion told you up front... the universe had a beginning. “The best data we have concerning the Big Bang, are exactly what I would have predicted if I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the bible as a whole.” ~ Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of cosmic microwave background radiation

    This just shows how you nothing absolutely nothing Science and you're grasp of Science is the same as of a Village Mullah. On top of that you've used a bunch of argument you'd find on the net off Fox News WatchingBible-Thumpin Right-Wing American Creationist Nutjobs.

    The Big Bang doesn't tell us the Universe had a beginning. It tells us there was a phase where matter and energy expanded around 13.7 Billion years ago. Here is PHD Cosmolologist Sean Carroll on whether the Universe had a beginning.

    "One sometimes hears the claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of both time and space; that to ask about spacetime "before the Big Bang" is like asking about land "north of the North Pole."  This may turn out to be true, but it is not an established understanding.  The singularity at the Big Bang doesn't indicate a beginning to the universe, only an end to our theoretical comprehension.  It may be that this moment does indeed correspond to a beginning, and a complete theory of quantum gravity will eventually explain how the universe started at approximately this time.  But it is equally plausible that what we think of as the Big Bang is merely a phase in the history of the universe, which stretches long before that time – perhaps infinitely far in the past.  The present state of the art is simply insufficient to decide between these alternatives; to do so, we will need to formulate and test a working theory of quantum gravity."
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #105 - January 17, 2015, 06:11 AM

    Are you in the UK? Isn't it very late there? I don't know where bogart lives, but as many people are from the UK here, he may very well be sleeping.


    Hmmm… atheists also appear to lack a sense of humor. *takes notes*

    Responsible research does mean verifying your sources and examining their methodologies, and, when at all possible, attempting to reproduce their results by conducting the identical experiment. […] And, in fact, I see a lot of what, in my opinion, supports the idea that many of the bacteria that I've worked with arose from older ancestors, evidence very easy to obtain with simple blots and gels a great deal of the time. Similarly, for some of our more eukaryotic victims, we've been great fans of mtDNA.  Since this is awfully easy to observe even in entry-level biology lab courses, and because who cares about germs, anyway, a lot of theists nowadays accept "microevolution" and evolution in molecular biology, but tend to abandon ship as it sails towards the conclusion of all life arising from a common ancestor, because that conflicts with the religious account.


    lua, without a demonstration that a brand new species was produced from these tests and experiments, you still lack any kind of proof of the primary claims of evolutionary theory.  Numerous minute changes to a species that never, ever change the fundamental nature of that species, are not proof of speciation diversity through natural selection.  Please note that although infinite changes artificially selected the dog we call “wolf” into the dog we call “Chihuahua,” the latter never stopped being a dog.   My own body has now become immune to childhood diseases, yet I haven’t stopped being a homo sapien. 

    Now, regardless of whether or not you and I are going to stay on this ship the full way through, I hope you understand what I mean now when I say that I've found no contradictions or problems with conducting my research and interpreting our data with evolution in mind.


    I read your comments with care, but they still sound like ‘wishes’ without any proofs to back the three main tenants of the evolutionary religion.

    In fact, a great deal of this is in keeping with the evolutionary model and what we would expect should evolution be true.


    To me, the pro-evolution literature comes across like a lot of double talk, a lot of extra-extra wording trying to explain away an obvious problematic weakness within the doctrine, and often blatant disrespect for the Occam’s Razor concept.

     
    So when I say that I've operated quite happily under this assumption, it's not to say that I've assumed archaeologists or whoever else has done the proper science and that it's all worked out for me, but that I have always gotten results consistent with my understanding of evolution. Until another model is offered to me to explain the results I'm getting, I have no qualms with this one.


    It sounds like nothing involving the central claims of evolutionary theory actually have anything to do with the specific work you perform, so there’s no real reason you should experience any form of cognitive dissonance during the course of your day. 

    I'm pretty sure I at least speak for the scientists that I work with, because we've talked about this quite often: if we could figure out another model more appropriate than evolution, we would be elated. Also, we'd be rich. I'm not that good, though.


    I think that first, an actual effort to actively search for a new origin of species model would help, preferably one that had the full backing and support of a mainstream scientistic community that currently pretends to have a monopoly on thought itself (see all of serpentofeden’s posts for a perfect description of what that looks like), and is too prideful to admit when it has been wrong.  Second, attempt to run this new model pass the gatekeepers without getting your career destroyed, and you chased out of town with evolutionary theory’s version of “anti-semite” branded into your forehead.   

    Well...unfortunately, I'm not assured, but I appreciate your convictions. Who knows, maybe you'll get a good laugh at me on the last day.


    The documented record of texts shows that the “divine son” message of the influential St. Paul usurped the message from James the Just, leader of the first church of Jerusalem, and hand-picked heir of his older brother Jesus.  It is notable that the message of the Christ as preached by James, stressed a strict monotheistic belief in the One God, a performing of good deeds while avoiding bad deeds, and a dietary law indistinguishable from that of Al-Islam.  This is a sign for those who believe… the Qur’an is exactly what it claims to be, and assuredly my Lord speaketh the truth. 

    Did you know that Dawahman is also going to fight the man who insulted his wife on the day of resurrection? It will surely be a day to remember if it occurs.


    Such items, like the ‘divine son’ concept, conflict with the greater message of the One God and radiate the unmistakable stench of paganism.  This battle can be safely discarded as a fiction.

    ***to be continued***

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #106 - January 17, 2015, 07:00 AM

    There's soft material in many of them that hasn't fossilized into stone.  Is it 'science' to refuse to test something for any reason because you THINK it's too old?  Isn't it reasonable for the scientist to first test it before they dismiss it?  "We're never going to test this material because we think we have all the answers regarding this material and there is never, ever a need ever to test it because we know it already" has never been a scientific mindset.  How long does it take for red blood cells, collagen, etc., to fossilize anyway?     

    They don't "refuse to test it". They just date it by other methods, which show it is far too old to bother with C14 dating.

    If you want dinosaur bones C14 dated, go to it. All you have to do is round up the cash to pay for the tests, and find yourself some bits of dinosaur bone. If you're willing to pay the laboratory, they'll just do it like any other job. They'll probably think you're nuts and are wasting your money, but that's not their problem. It'd just be another paid job to them.

    There's no conspiracy. It's just that if something is shown, by a variety of dating methods, to be so old that C14 dating will be useless, nobody is going to waste part of their limited budget on C14 dating. It makes much more sense to use potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating for really old finds, so that's what they'll spend their budget on.

    The thing is, it's not as if nobody has ever dated dinosaur bones before. If you'd just found the first dinosaur bones ever, and had no idea what they were or how old they were, then throwing them through a C14 test as part of your research would make sense. That's not the situation though. People have been finding dinosaur bones for a very long time now, and there have been heaps of dating tests done on them.

    Because of the established results of those tests, the first go-to dating methods will not include C14, for the very simple reason that C14 is known to be a waste of time. This is confirmed every time that new dinosaur fossils are actually dated by other methods, which is why there is no point in then subjecting them to C14 tests.

    Your position is like if I came up to you with a wombat and insisted it was an aardvark. You then patiently explain to me that no, it's actually a wombat, and this has been well-established for centuries now, according to reams of evidence which you would then present. If I then ignored all your evidence, and insisted that we should conduct DNA testing to prove it's not an aardvark, and said that if anyone doesn't want to conduct such DNA testing at their own expense to satisfy me about the issue then such people must be involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth, I very much doubt that you would be at all impressed.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #107 - January 17, 2015, 07:11 AM

    By the way, did you know it is routine practice to carbon date limestone? Do you know why this is? Also, would the results of such testing give you any indication of the age of, oh I dunno, marine fossils?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #108 - January 17, 2015, 08:08 AM

     
    I do agree trying to disprove God is a huge waste of time.


    *side eye*

    Well...no. This is not true when using the word "theory" in the context of science, nor is it true just using the definition of theory. The ability for a theory or a framework to exist harmoniously with the phenomena you are examining absolutely allows for it to continue to be called a theory.


    “Pie in the sky” foolishness pretending to be science is rarely considered “harmonious,” especially while its guardians are cheating to uphold it as ‘real.’ 

    In fact, it's the only qualifying factor, if you're using theory as it's defined. How useful a theory will be beyond that varies, but, regardless, a theory simply in line with the observations you have already collected is very much a valid one.


    This is actually my primary contention with evolutionary theory, as it does no such a thing.

    I wonder again if you misunderstood me. I said--or at least I thought I was saying--that in order to consider the theory "disproved," you would need to provide substantial and significant evidence to show that the theory is simply not compatible with reality.


    1.)   Speciation proceeds in both the presence and absence of geographic barriers, while evolutionary theory says that just such barriers are needed for it to function.
    2.)   The concept that species slowly evolve into different species, leaving behind a fossil record of numerous, partially transformed species growing more and more complex or specialized, is a fiction promoted as a blind faith doctrine unsupported by any facts. Experimentations on millions of fruit flies, as well as over 6,000 years of barnyard artificial selections have never left any trace of any of these organisms ever transforming into a new species. Ever.
    3.)   The molecular level mutations that appear in biological organisms do so as a matter of 100% pure chance, and do not happen automatically as a kind of ‘speciation factory’ requiring the concept of natural selection to guide the process along. 

    You seem to be mistaking not obtaining a result after any number of experiments (and let me remind you that I still do not agree that there is no evidence for evolution) for that result not being possible. This simply is not how we conduct scientific experiments. The absence of particular results may push the likelihood of an idea down the totem pole a bit, but this alone is not enough to obliterate it, and to suggest otherwise is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process and the scientific method.


    So after another 100,000,000,000 experiments with fruit flies, in which it is revealed they are still quite fruit flies and nothing more nor less, will it then be time to throw the evolutionary model away finally and stop wasting resources on fake science?  Or will it have to be 200,000,000,000?

    You'd actually be quite surprised with how many scientific theories were at the forefront of then-current thought and believed to be inviolate for a great deal of time, and then replaced by a better model. Since I mentioned Galileo last, I may as well point out heliocentrism as a good example of this. To have a model accepted by the majority of the scientific community as the best current model to explain physical observations is not a lie, no more than it was a lie for the greatest minds who were simply mistaken with the geocentric model to have been champions of geocentrism. Eventually, however, a great deal of evidence--not a lack of evidence for geocentrism, this is not the same thing--had to come along to demonstrate that this theory is simply not compatible with nature, and at this point the heliocentric model replaced it in the minds of (most) modern scientists.


    The difference here is that the mathematics and telescope observations supported the facts of the heliocentrism model, while nothing is supporting evolutionary theory except double talk and cheating.  The pro-heliocentrists actually had a leg to stand on and weren’t pretending a pagan religion was science. 

    If you are correct, and if there is a better model than evolution, it will need to undergo this same process. Just because evolution is such a highly politicized issue due to religious conflicts doesn't mean that it deserves to be obliterated in a way that no other such model with the capacity to exist alongside our observations ever was in scientific history. Again, to demand that it is is evidence of a severe misunderstanding of the scientific process. Barring this huge conspiracy to keep any whispers of viable competing theories silenced, trust that, if there is a better model, it will emerge, and if it ever does I hope we're both alive to see it!


    I hope to see it, too.   New technological devices popping up every two weeks has spoiled me.  I want new, innovative and correct theories right NOW!

    Yes, I'm aware that this is your contention, and trust me, I am no more eager to hear you say it than you are to repeat it…


    hahahahaha

    …but I will ask again that you provide some kind of actual argument with points that we can discuss. Vaguely accusing it of being a fiction is not something we can discuss. What precisely about the claims of evolution do you think are unsubstantiated?


    1.)   Speciation proceeds in both the presence and absence of geographic barriers, while evolutionary theory says that just such barriers are needed for it to function.
         i)   SME: “While that model fits for many parts of the natural world, it doesn’t explain why some species appear to have evolved separately, within the same location, where there are no geographic barriers to gene flow.” ~Vicki Friesen, professor of biology (Science daily article, 20 Nov 2007) Doctor Friesen’s own research indicated that the band-rumped storm petrel shares its nesting sites in sequence with other petrels, with this conflicting with the standard view of evolutionary theory.

    2.)   The concept that species slowly evolve into different species, leaving behind a fossil record of numerous, partially transformed species growing more and more complex or specialized, is a fiction promoted as a blind faith doctrine unsupported by any facts. Experimentations on millions of fruit flies, as well as over 6,000 years of barnyard artificial selections have never left any trace of any of these organisms ever transforming into a new species. Ever.
        i)   SME: "In sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection remain unresolved.” ~Joel Kingsolver, The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations (2001)
        ii)   SME: “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds’ major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” ~Eugene Koonin, The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution (2007)
        iii)   SME: “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” Emile Zuckerkandl, Neutral and nonneutral mutations: the creative mix--evolution of complexity in gene interaction systems (1997)

    3.)   The molecular level mutations that appear in biological organisms do so as a matter of 100% pure chance, and do not happen automatically as a kind of ‘speciation factory’ requiring the concept of natural selection to guide the process along. 
        i) SME: “The great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations.” ~Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Biology (1983)

    ...Flight? Like the airplane? I'd consider that more in the realm of technology, and not exactly what I was thinking. I'm thinking cell theory, the atomic model, the shapes and structure of DNA, so on and so forth. The final answer was not obtained by going back to the drawing board each and every time, but by adding, modifying, reshaping the original theories until they got the working answer. Are you familiar with the history behind these discoveries that I just mentioned? They're interesting stories, are they not?


    They are, and again the difference between them and evolutionary theory is that they actually had facts/data/truths to work with that actually supported them, so that if the researchers veered off in the wrong direction based on wrong assumptions (“The universe didn’t have a beginning; the theists are stupid”), they could always go back to the facts that they did have and rebuild from that point up.  Evolution, by contrast, is a house of cards, with all of the main points needed to prove it true lacking any kind of factual support.    All efforts of the pro-evolutionists to prove otherwise – like TheRationalizer’s first major post in this thread – are a big mess of babbling, over-wordy misdirection designed to make you regret even inquiring into the topic in the first place by virtue of purest tedium.

    I am certain that, if you are sincere about having done your research on evolution, you are familiar with the claims that are presented as evidence for the theory. So if you wish to tell me that all of these pieces of evidence are not accurate, which is what you are claiming, it is on you to show me the opposing evidence for each and every claim that seems to support the theory of evolution in order for me to agree that the claims of evolutionists are fabricated. How much time do you have, my friend?


    lol For that challenge I would have to play my “I’m a very busy cartoonist” card.  But let the record show that if definitive evidence for the emergence of a brand new species was indeed discovered within all of these experiments (as opposed to merely a blind faith optimism that the small scale changes within species is actually evolution in action that will eventually lead to the development of a whole new species) that the true believers wouldn't have any trouble shouting it from the roof tops and broadcasting it on television every few seconds to make SURE we all know about it.  The available evidence demonstrates instead that small scale changes within species is nothing more than routine small scale changes within species, and that the emergence of new complex organisms happen suddenly with a conspicuous lack of a gradualist process as needed for the evolutionary theory model to be accurate. 

    That's too bad, you would make out like a bandit.


    Obviously you’re trying to get me lynched.  They’ve destroyed the careers of actual scientists for daring to challenge their thought monopolies, so what chance would a Black American cartoonist have in coming out any better?  I’m content in satisfying my own thirst for knowledge with self-study, and testing my theories against knuckleheads like you lot in spirited debate.  I have little interest in getting my forehead branded.

    Can you show me some examples of this? Credible news stories? Anything?  Interesting. My understanding of evolution is largely in molecular biology and the biology to the extent of my research and experiments, so I will not pretend to be an expert in whatever is going on with dinosaur bones and radiocarbon dating. Since you are more familiar, would you mind showing me a credible resource from which you took your information? I tried searching for it just now, and I was unable to find any original source work not originating from creationist websites. Where did you find them?


    Here’s a perfect example: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019445

    If you will notice the meticulous, highly-professional nature of the testing, which actually involved several different testing methods to ensure the thoroughness needed in actual science, compared to the patently false claims that they performed less than such meticulous professionalism the field demands by your CEMB colleagues who’ve been quoting the mainstream critics all the way to the end of this thread, you’ll see the conspiracy, cheating and lies manifested.   Again serpentofeden’s attitude and vitriol is actually perfectly representative of supposed scientists towards the work of other scientists, which to me, further demonstrates how evolutionary theory is not a science at all, but a pagan religion with savage radicals whose enthusiasm for killing careers of rivals is almost as abominable as the terrorists’ violent attacks on innocent people.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #109 - January 17, 2015, 08:36 AM

    MRasheed

    Off the top of your head, could you give us some examples of the scientists whose careers have been destroyed for daring to challenge these so-called thought monopolies?

    And could you give us some idea of what actual new evidence scientists would need to produce, as opposed to the gobs of existing evidence that;s already available,  to convince you that the theory of evolution ( even in your somewhat garbled and incorrect understanding of it )  has explanatory merit.

    Do you consider a grey timber wolf and a chihuahua to be the same species?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #110 - January 17, 2015, 08:41 AM

    If the wolf and the chihuahua can interbreed , producing fertile offspring, then they aren't separate species.  The differences between them would be no different than the differences between human "races."  They would both be of the species "dog."

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #111 - January 17, 2015, 09:06 AM

    Much as the idea of a wolf and a Chihuahua having a mutually satisfying shag followed by reproductive success Is entertaining, the reality is that the Chihuahua will be a Scooby snack - ethologically, we're effectively dealing with separate species, whose common ancestor was existent no more than 20-25,000 years ago.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #112 - January 17, 2015, 09:23 AM

    ...the reality is that the Chihuahua will be a Scooby snack...


    That has nothing to do with whether they are sexually compatible to enable them to have fertile pups though, right? 

    ...ethologically, we're effectively dealing with separate species, whose common ancestor was existent no more than 20-25,000 years ago


    This is the equivalent of a Christian quoting John 3:16 in answer to my fertile pup point, and is equally as effective.   It does more for singing the praises of your pet doctrine ("Praise Darwin!!") than it does in addressing the issue.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #113 - January 17, 2015, 09:47 AM

    Actually it does. If there's a behavioural constraint against reproduction - one of the vectors by which sexual incompatibility is expressed -  then you are in the process of a speciation event.  Think about it - it's really not that hard to grasp.

    Having trouble in coming up with some examples off the top of your head of scientists that fit your model? Don't wear your fingers out fruitlessly googling.







  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #114 - January 17, 2015, 10:01 AM

    Actually it does.


    Actually no, it doesn't.

    If there's a behavioural constraint against reproduction - one of the vectors by which sexual incompatibility is expressed -  then you are in the process of a speciation event.


    First, place a female chihuahua who is both in heat and 'presenting' in front of a male wolf.  Second, chemically, genetically, see if they can actually produce fertile young.  Outside of actual test results I am uninterested in your true believer rhetoric.

    Think about it - it's really not that hard to grasp.


    That's what Christians say after they finish crossing some poor soul's eyes while attempting to explain how the trinity is actually a monotheistic concept.

    Having trouble in coming up with some examples off the top of your head of scientists that fit you're model? Don't wear your fingers out fruitlessly googling.


    No, I don't have any to provide off the top of my head.  But I'll post some when I think of it later.  Naturally I shall consider you to be either hopelessly naive, or intellectually dishonest for even asking me to provide such a thing. 

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #115 - January 17, 2015, 10:32 AM

    if you were to become convinced of common ancestry, would Islam still be true?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #116 - January 17, 2015, 10:38 AM

    That's the second time someone has asked me that, doctor.  I ask you in return why wouldn't Islam be true if the humiliation of Piltdown Man didn't represent the heart & soul of evolutionary theory, and the concept of 'common ancestry' turned out to be real?  God said the creation functions the way it functions based on His will, so whatever is found within it is supposed to be that way according to the plans of Allah...

    ...and Allah, of course, is the Best of Planners as you may recall.

    It is the atheist, in his desperate search to find something to replace God with, whose worldview is in danger based on what he finds or doesn't find in the creation, not me.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #117 - January 17, 2015, 11:12 AM

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    ...and Allah, of course, is the Best of Planners as you may recall.

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    off course  off course and  Rasheed  is the  best defender of allah .,

     Hello Rasheed  New year greetings., So.,  My good friend Ahmed Bhagat, how is he   doing??

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #118 - January 17, 2015, 11:33 AM

    Quote
    It is the atheist, in his desperate search to find something to replace God with, whose worldview is in danger based on what he finds or doesn't find in the creation, not me.


    so you think that it is a bad thing for a worldview to be "in danger" of falsification by evidence?



  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #119 - January 17, 2015, 11:39 AM

    I think it is a bad thing to reject the truth of your Maker in search for something else to replace it with.  The effort will lead only towards doom; the seeker will discover that the substitution will consist of no less than the fires of hell. 

  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »