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


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:36 PM

Islam is a beautiful reli...
Yesterday at 06:29 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
Yesterday at 05:30 PM

Life extension
Yesterday at 04:08 PM

Excellence and uniqueness
Yesterday at 03:00 PM

What music are you listen...
October 21, 2019, 09:33 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
October 19, 2019, 04:25 PM

No Outsiders? Except at t...
October 18, 2019, 07:05 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
October 17, 2019, 06:09 PM

New PM incoming
October 17, 2019, 11:54 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
October 16, 2019, 02:47 PM

Catalan protests
October 14, 2019, 06:06 PM

Theme Changer

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

 (Read 43470 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 9 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #180 - January 17, 2015, 10:26 PM

    How is neutral theory "part of the theory" when it clearly disproves the theory?

    What school did you get your BA from again?  You may wish to get your money back...


    Not reading again. It works for the molecular not above it. Read slowly.... or have an adult help you.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #181 - January 17, 2015, 10:26 PM

    How is neutral theory "part of the theory" when it clearly disproves the theory?

    What school did you get your BA from again?  You may wish to get your money back...


    SFU one of the top unis on the planet. Ranked 2nd and 16th this years in two reports. It has the top archaeological program in North America. I find it amusing that an artist without no qualification is talking down to me. Hilarious, keep drawing since reading and writing comprehension escape you
  • Re: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #182 - January 17, 2015, 10:29 PM

    It doesn't determine any such a thing because PURE CHANCE!!!!


    Wrong. And bears no relation either to the theory of evolution or observed reality. Ask around.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #183 - January 17, 2015, 10:29 PM

    Not reading again. It works for the molecular not above it. Read slowly.... or have an adult help you.


    Whether a mutation is fixed within a population or whether it is simply washed away is 100% a matter of PURE CHANCE, therefore anything that happens on the macro level was directed by God.  But keep denying it and continue to build up evidence against yourself.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #184 - January 17, 2015, 10:32 PM

    SFU one of the top unis on the planet. Ranked 2nd and 16th this years in two reports. It has the top archaeological program in North America. I find it amusing that an artist without no qualification is talking down to me. Hilarious, keep drawing since reading and writing comprehension escape you


    So it's not the school's fault, you're just being willfully stupid then?  I see. 

    Good show.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #185 - January 17, 2015, 10:32 PM

    Wrong.


    hahahahahahahaha

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #186 - January 17, 2015, 10:33 PM

    So it's not the school's fault, you're just being willfully stupid then?  I see. 

    Good show.


    Nope I can read, do proper research and have refuted your own citations. After all I am not the one citing sources which refutes their own argument like yourself. I refuted your Forbidden Archaeology book and showed your citations are not from studies or happen to be pure quote-mining. You know Kiimura won awards for his theory in evolutionary fields, right? This shows that people take his work seriously enough to grant him awards for it. That is has contributed to the theory in general. His work helped support the theory not dismiss it.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #187 - January 17, 2015, 10:37 PM

    Here, bogie:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071113160351.htm

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.1988.10011704#.VK9RzNWUddg

    http://jgking.web.unc.edu/files/2012/06/Kingsolveretal.AmNat_.Mar2001.pdf

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973067/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9071006

    http://www.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar/catedras/evolucion/pdf/pendrive/tema_04_teorico/kimura_2.pdf

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #188 - January 17, 2015, 10:51 PM

    Whether a mutation is fixed within a population or whether it is simply washed away is 100% a matter of PURE CHANCE, therefore anything that happens on the macro level was directed by God.  But keep denying it and continue to build up evidence against yourself.


    Still wrong, and still betraying your entry level confusions here - the mechanisms of natural selection do that, and it is not simply a matter of pure chance, as there is a strong bias towards the conservation of beneficial mutations, which is why they will become prevalent across a population in the first place. It's really not that hard to grasp.



  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #189 - January 17, 2015, 10:53 PM

    TROLL ALERT

    TROLL ALERT

    TROLL ALERT!

    Nothing to see here.

    Everyone get on with your lives.

    Do something useful.

    Do not feed the troll.

    Move along.

    Move along.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #190 - January 17, 2015, 10:53 PM

    That was a lie, Josephus.  Or a "blind faith" wish.  Whatever you prefer.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #191 - January 17, 2015, 10:54 PM

    It is clear that all three of you are the actual trolls, bringing down the thread.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #192 - January 17, 2015, 10:56 PM

    That was a lie, Josephus.  Or a "blind faith" wish.  Whatever you prefer.


    You'll have to clarify this one - What is the "lie" that you're referring to.

    Blind faith? Mote-beam-eye, mate.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #193 - January 17, 2015, 11:36 PM



    "The Queen’s-led international study confirms one of Charles Darwin’s more controversial theories – first put forward in 1859 and since disputed by many experts – that different species can arise, unhindered, in the same place."

    "This is important for us to know, not just as an explanation for how new species can arise, but also because biodiversity is part of a healthy ecosystem and each bird species is part of our natural heritage,” she says, noting that the European Union is now elevating the conservation status of band-rumped storm petrels.

    “It’s also exciting to be able to verify Darwin’s original theory!” Dr. Friesen adds."

    You didn't read again. The argument supports evolution, it is not against it.

    Quote


    One has to purchase this so buy me a copy or link it in a format anyone can read. Make a copy to pdf if you have it, which I doubt.

    Quote


    Again a study I linked. Proving again you do not read what you link or what I have. More so that you copy others posts to use as your own. Hilarious.

    Quote


    I linked the study already which proves you didn't read anything I linked. Otherwise you wouldn't link the same thing I did. The report confirms established ideas in the theory. Read it again.

    Quote


    Not a study but an abstract. All it says is more testing is required. It does nothing to knock down the theory especially since the author still supports the theory.

    Quote


    So, the theory of evolution is added upon and changed. This is not new to me. Perhaps it is new to you since the only concept of evolution you have is one based on the work of Darwin from 150 years ago. This in new ways disproves evolution, it adds to it making the theory stronger. All you have proven is you have a straw man concept of the theory which you argue against, nothing more.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #194 - January 17, 2015, 11:40 PM

    It is clear that all three of you are the actual trolls, bringing down the thread.


    Nope. Considering I post sources and read said sources while your only counter-arguments are that from ignorance and personal attacks which makes me believe you have the mentality of a juvenile
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #195 - January 18, 2015, 02:46 AM

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/neutral-theory-the-null-hypothesis-of-molecular-839
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #196 - January 18, 2015, 04:01 AM

    You'll have to clarify this one - What is the "lie" that you're referring to.


    You proclaiming that the molecular mutations aren't pure chance despite the scientist proving exactly that.

    Blind faith? Mote-beam-eye, mate.


    Do you recognize that evolution theory is presented as a science and isn't supposed to work on faith, while Islam is a religion and does work on faith?  No?

    Well, it is so.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #197 - January 18, 2015, 04:33 AM

    You didn't read again. The argument supports evolution, it is not against it.


    Darwin established that geographical boundaries were needed for speciation varieties to develop, and then he promptly used the double talk that is the hallmark of his new religion to say that he wouldn't be surprised if the lack of geographic boundaries would also cause speciation varieties to develop.  lol  That's why this true believer scientist got so excited to 'confirm his finding."  hahaha  It's impossible for me to take this evolution foolishness seriously.  They're not even trying.

    One has to purchase this so buy me a copy or link it in a format anyone can read. Make a copy to pdf if you have it, which I doubt.


    The relevant page was right there in the preview, you nit.  Click it.

    Again a study I linked. Proving again you do not read what you link or what I have. More so that you copy others posts to use as your own. Hilarious.


    I know, you read it, but you only see the parts that reinforce your indoctrination.  I know.  Even though he said that their understanding of selection has dramatically increased over the last 20 years, "important issues remain unresolved."  That means: "Double-talk, double-talk, double-talk EVERYTHING remains unresolved as we have no facts to support our claim AT ALL."

    I linked the study already which proves you didn't read anything I linked.


    Should I?  I apologize for somehow giving the impression of respecting your feeble intellect.  let me now assure you that I do not.  I KNOW there isn't a single fact in existence that supports evolutionary theory, and at no point have you even come close to presenting one.  Your nonsense links that will lead only to more nonsense double talk are a joke.

    Otherwise you wouldn't link the same thing I did. The report confirms established ideas in the theory. Read it again.


    *sighhh*  The fact that I have to take you by the hand and walk you towards the problem in your own nonsense is only evidence of the seriousness of your indoctrination.  Here is a scientist admitting that there is NOTHING in the fossil record that supports the gradualistic development of speciation, yet this little bachelor degree kid declares otherwise while tossing latin terms at me that describe trays of old bones that literally mean nothing at all.  Other than a reflection of his belief system.   

    Not a study but an abstract. All it says is more testing is required.


    More testing is required in order to find what is needed to support what the theory claims, bogie.  jesus...!

    It does nothing to knock down the theory especially since the author still supports the theory.


    He doesn't want to get ostracized from the scientific community either.  lol

    So, the theory of evolution is added upon and changed.


    The theory of evolution is exactly the same, but with a force field of double talking nonsense surrounding it.

    This is not new to me. Perhaps it is new to you since the only concept of evolution you have is one based on the work of Darwin from 150 years ago. This in new ways disproves evolution, it adds to it making the theory stronger.


    It disproves it, yet makes it stronger, eh?  hahahahahaha  Apparently you majored in double talk.  Well done. 

    All you have proven is you have a straw man concept of the theory which you argue against, nothing more.


    All you've proven is to reinforce everything I've said about the field for seven pages now.  lol

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #198 - January 18, 2015, 05:18 AM

    No evolution is neither short nor long as it is based on the life span of different species.


    So you’re trying to say that the buildup of microevolutionary changes that are supposed to lead to speciation doesn’t take a long time?

    For species like fruit fly short life spans allow for quick changes in a short period of our time since multiple generation live and die within a human life span. Lifespan and rapid reproduction is where one tests evolution since whole generations can be born and die in weeks to hours. This is grade school biology...


    So any day now those artificial selection fruit fly experiments should kick in and produce Super Fruit Fly 2.0, and it really ISN’T taking a really, really long time to finally (FINALLY!) get there.  It’s just an illusion, am I right?   

    Peer-review is done before publications and printing not after. The book cites external studies. These studies can be cross referenced to see if the statements are accurate and the book's conclusion correct. It also allow one to figure out if the data set is outdated and incorrect.


    Peer reviews are also often anonymous, so I don’t think you would know whether it was actually peer reviewed or not.  I smell a bluff. 

    p. 104 Cites coins found in the 18th century in a 1820's journal. […]Now lets compare this article to a book by the man mentioned in the article, Comte de Bournon. Traité de minéralogie, Volume 2  ~  By Jacques Louis comte de Bournon pg 402-404


    Peer reviews are also often biased and inaccurate and very non-thorough.   Speaking of which, there must be at least a thousand or so items listed in that book.  You’d better hurry up and check out the rest of them.  There’s a lad.  I’m sure all of them aren’t from the 1820s. 
    Nope only fringe work by non-experts using flawed methodology while screaming about conspiracies in their books. It is great for the tin-foil hat crowd which know no better.


    So Boston University and Harvard Medical School are considered fringe workers now, hm?

    Actually it was an LSD induced episode.


    That would be a ‘vision’ just like I said. 

     
    Also it wasn't a vision but used an aid when he developing ideas.


    lol  That was clearly a vision.

    If you read his biography he took LSD after the double helix was developed and confirmed not before. His work on DNA was started in the 50s and completed in 66. He did start his LSD trips until 67. Again this is an example of fact checking rather than accepting whatever you read on the internet.


     Meanwhile he’d been using LSD the whole time as a “thinking tool.”  Nice try.

    Nope. There is a point where being open minded about ideas which have no merit becomes wishful thinking, gullibility and ignorance.


    That precisely describes your own position on evolution except for the fact that your mind is snapped shut like a steel trap.
    One can be so open minded the brain "falls out". No the verse means nothing since it a vague.


    Please stop pretending an atheist has any kind of insight into sacred scripture.  You forfeited that right and now have a closed heart & mind, remember?  That’s why you sound the way you do.

    Nope. Often when people are confronted while having their ignorance exposed they become emotional.


    Is THAT why you act like that?  Fascinating.  Brave of you to come out of the closet (so to speak).

    They see their own faults pointed out as attacks rather then merely pointing out the fact they do not know what they are talking about. Neither author is an expert.


    lol The book is only a compilation of numerous anomalies and nothing more, used as a reference to counter a point claiming that there were no such unknowns.  Why you perversely decided to gleefully attack the book as if it had any kind of actual relevance to the greater argument is beyond me.

    You admitted you are not a biologist nor archaeologist.


    You in turn aren’t any kind of intellectual and you lack integrity.  Doesn’t stop you from ad nauseam sharing your thoughts with the uninterested.

    You take offense to me pointing out what you have claimed yourself.


    I don’t take offense that you prefer the stance of my ideological enemies over the position of truth.  In fact, I show up on these message board precisely looking for those who uphold just such a stance.  Let the record show that for all the thousands of words you have yet typed, not once do you have a single fact to support evolutionary theory’s claims. 

     
    It is not an insult when you confirmed my views in your own words.


    lol

    IE You are not educated in either topic being discussed. You mention no formal education in either field. Science is not a thing but a broad spectrum of fields. One could know physics but know nothing about archaeology. Likewise comparative religions is not a topic being discussed making you again a non-expert in this conversation.


    You’ll win if you manage to provide proof of evolutionary theory’s 3 faith-based tenants.  Shy of that, bogie, you are simply babbling and wasting keyboard energy.


  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #199 - January 18, 2015, 08:31 AM

    You really need to brush up on your reading skills. Mutations are matters of chance on the molecular level - their conservation across a population via natural selection, however, is anything but a matter of chance. It's really not hard to grasp this.

    I recognise that evolution is an observable fact of the natural order - just like gravity, for example. It is not a question of faith - the error here is in mistaking mytho-poetic expressions for naturalistic descriptions. and failing to realise that unless you want to adhere to the tedious and banal divine puppeteer version of reality, there is much theological benefit in accepting the removal of magic from the natural order as it makes for a MEANINGFUL creation..

    The theory of evolution is the framework for explaining the FACT of evolution - and the current synthesis is a lot more robust as a theory than our current theories of gravity for example.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #200 - January 18, 2015, 08:39 AM

    TRANSLATION: "Praise Darwin!  blah, blah, blah blind faith!"

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #201 - January 18, 2015, 08:40 AM

    Stand down, josephus.  You're being ridiculous. 

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #202 - January 18, 2015, 09:37 AM

    And you're conspicuously avoiding dealing with simple, substantive points that I'm pretty sure you understand, but can't respond to coherently, by resorting to insult - doesn't this engender even a glimmer of embarrassment in you?

    Get a better translation tool, as the one you're using ceased to be fit for purpose a long way back.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #203 - January 18, 2015, 10:41 AM

    Your points mean absolutely nothing without providing the proofs that support those 3 main evolutionism tenants I presented to lua.  The facts that support those items are what the religion-pretending-to-be-a-theory need to be what you true believers present it to the world as.

    Shy of that, we don't have a thing to discuss.  Beat it.  I'm not going to play around in your fictional "grey areas" pretending that evolution is real for the sake of your hellbound ego. 

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #204 - January 18, 2015, 11:12 AM

    You in turn aren’t any kind of intellectual and you lack integrity.  Doesn’t stop you from ad nauseam sharing your thoughts with the uninterested.

    It's only become ad nauseam because you have refused to spend time away from the keyboard, and use that time to a) systematically study evolutionary biology starting at a molecular level, and b) reflect what you are reading on this forum. Bogart, and other members have explained to you why your arguments are fallacious, and often the result of poor understanding. Rather than acknowledging that, or providing a proper counter-argument, you keep hopping on other silly arguments that you have likely found when Googling "why evolution isn't true".

    For example, you talked about radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils and were rightfully told how silly that would be due to the short half-life of the C-14 isotope. Osmanthus then told you how incredibly stupid would it be of scientists to waste their time and resources on carbon dating dinosaur fossils when superior radiometric dating methods were available that can actually provide meaningful results with less error. As far as I know, you haven’t acknowledged that from the Aussie.
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #205 - January 18, 2015, 11:18 AM

    It's only become ad nauseam because you have refused to...


    *YAAAWWWNNNN...!!!*

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #206 - January 18, 2015, 11:20 AM

    As far as I know, you haven’t...


    I already talked to lua about it.  Go find it and then go fuss & bore someone else.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #207 - January 18, 2015, 11:25 AM

    You mean when you repeated the same thing twice?
  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #208 - January 18, 2015, 11:27 AM

    Noooo... when I posted a link regarding specifically the tests that were performed on the fossils for study.  It's probably the last thing I said to lua.

    Go.  Then go clean your room or whatever.

  • TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran
     Reply #209 - January 18, 2015, 11:28 AM

    (lua spoiled me for a real conversation.  i no longer have patience for you all's juvenile foolishness, i noticed)




    (i guess it's time to hibernate for another few years)

  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 9 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »