If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

That is not true, if you look down every page, you will find the references.

look at this page for example, look down and you will see them:

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are very confident of your nonesense, huh ??

I am not scared of HOPELESS athiests, I am PROUD MUSLIM, I have the TRUTH, you have nothing.

But you are filthy in your mouth, in other thread you used the word bastard when refering to God...so you lost all my respect, that is why i dont debate losers like you, I will refute your nonesense in this thread and that is it until you apologize.

Here is something which will SHOCK you and stop you from eating pigs:

Pigs and SARS

The recent outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, where pigs also suffer from several different severe acute respiratory syndromes, raises questions about a possible link between the porcine and human epidemics. So far, all three different agents found in SARS patients are ones that have also been associated with the respiratory or digestive illnesses seen in pigs in China. As far as we know, there have been no tests of SARS patients for the virus that causes PRRS. Having found agents associated with PRRS in SARS patients, it would seem only prudent to test the SARS patients for variants of the PRRS virus itself....

Respiratory Problems in Chinese Pigs

http://www.hhv6.freeservers.com/PigsandSARS.htm

An abstract of a paper about coronavirus transmission between pigs and people.

Sera collected from 2469 pigs in the Tohoku District of the Honshu Island of Japan were tested for various coronavirus strains (haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus- HEV67N strain, human coronavirus- HCV OC43 strain, and bovine coronavirus- BCV K strain). Serum of inoculated mice was used as a positive control. Of the swine tested, 82.1% of the sera were positive for HEV-67N, 91.4% were positive for HCV-OC43, and 44.2% tested positive for BCV-K. The percentage of infected swine varied significantly among farms. The swine had inapparent infections, none showing disease from the HEV-67N infection. Antibodies to the human strain, HCV-OC43, were more prevalent in swine than the other two strains, suggesting transmission from humans to swine and vice-versa.

Hirano, N., Y. Suzuki and S. Haga. "Pigs with highly prevalent antibodies to human coronavirus and swine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus in the Tohoku district of Japan." Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases. '99 Jun;122(3):545-51.

http://www.sarsandpigs.blogspot.com/

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT PIGGY...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact that viruses mutate to infect diverse species is further proof of evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, whether you can stand something or not adds no validity to your argument. Evolution could be completely wrong. That doesn't add one bit of evidence towards the theory of Divine Creation. There is no scientific evidence for Creationism. None. Zilch. Zero. Not any that is reputable. What do I mean by reputable? That is – it has been published in a peer reviewed Scientific Journal.

Where are these Scientific Journals you may ask? Well, all of these Scientific Journals have, conveniently, been organized by the National Institutes of Health website: PubMed and The National Science Foundation.

As for Evolution and Atheism on the decline? That’s just simply not the case, no matter how colorful your post. Anyway, we both know that Atheism is the fastest growing belief system ever – that is at any time in history.

What else can we say; we both can agree that outside of Religious Philosophy, you will not find a mention of Divine Creation at any major university. Whereas, Evolution touches upon Biology, Physics, Math’s, Chemistry, Geology, Archeology, Medicine – all of these subjects. At my almamater Evolution was a pre requisite to graduating with a degree in Biochemistry or Biology (both of which I have along with a Doctorate).

So where are we? Without saying whether Evolution or Creationism is right or wrong:
1) We can agree that Evolution is taught at major universities whereas creationism is not.
2) There are Publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals added monthly to the Scientific Literature (easily thousands) that validate Evolution whereas I doubt you will not find a single scientific peer-reviewed paper that validates Creationism. As a mater of fact you won’t.
3) In those nations contributing the most to advancements in Physics and Medicine Atheism is on the rise and Religionism is on the decline.

I think you’ll find Evolution is here to stay. And if you think that frothing at the mouth spitting insults about this person or that person is going to make it go away you are sadly mistaken.

 

As you seem to have some belief in the nonsense published on http://www.harunyahya.com/ why don’t you do us the favor of showing us one or two “Scientific” publications. Just go ahead an email them and have them send you the Journal titles. Then look to see if they are listed on PubMed or The National Science Foundation.

No the “Journal of Alien Abductions” isn’t going to cut it – Hence the above Scientific Libraries. Neither is a published comment that has been listed in the “Readers Opinion” section. It must be a scientific peer-reviewed article.

As you seem to think there’s so much “work” that’s been done this should be an easy task for you.

– so as they say in the business: put up or shut up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting responses PM, your insecurity is showing. Tell me, did Mohammed teach you to call people names and make fun of them when their opinions differ from yours or is that something you bring to your 'defense' of Islam all on your own?

You simply don't seem to understand that the number of people that agree with an idea has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon the veracity of the idea. It doesn't matter that creationists reference the site. What matters is that the site does not contain any valid arguments.

No one who knows anything about Evolution would make such an assertion PM. Evolution does not indicate that we evolved from present-day monkeys.

Yes, Harun Yahya. He is also ignorant of what the term atheism means but that's another topic. I have now read all of "Darwinism Refuted" and not once did Harun touch upon any aspect of modern Evolutionary science.

Let me rephrase because you clearly did not understand my meaning. Darwinism does not state that survival traits must be combative or indicate that 'Life is conflict'. To state that it does is false.

I was simply pointing out some basic errors he makes in the title alone. These errors demonstrate an ignorance of the science of Evolution. Therefore, Harun is either ignorant of the facts and theories of Evolutionary science or he is a liar. I chose to state that he was ignorant rather than malicious but if you prefer I'll just call him a liar.

Who the hell is a 'hardcore militant atheist'? For that matter, what the hell is a 'hardcore militant atheist'?

Appeal to authority is not a valid logical argument. But besides that point; If we are made of clay, where is the clay? If I cut my arm blood comes out, not clay. My bones are made primarily of calcium, not silica (a primary component of clay). In fact, no part of my body is made from clay. So obviously, we are not made from clay. Try again.

Evolution does not state that we should find a half-man, half-monkey. It states that we should find that some primates gradually (or episodically) evolved traits that were more and more like those we have as humans. And guess what? Evolution was right. We have found fossils that indicate exactly that.

The problem is that you're addressing paleontology and not Evolution. Evolution does not rely upon fossil evidence although it does often predict what types of fossils we should find at a particular age.

Evolution can be most succinctly defined as the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. This is quite simply an observed fact, not a theory. The challenge for creationists is to discover a mechanism that would prevent such changes from accumulating over time and resulting in speciation. As speciation has also been observed, this would seem to be a rather futile endeavor.

Often creationists will refer to an undefined classification of 'kind' in order to obscure the fact of speciation. However, in order to be scientific 'kind' must be properly defined and, once again, a mechanism must be discovered that would prevent accumulated changes from resulting in a divergence of 'kinds'.

Sorry to have to tell you this but the Creationism vs. Evolution argument is for all practical purposes over. Creationism lost. I suggest you reconsider whether your belief in Allah and the ethics set forth by Mohammed are truly dependent upon a literal creationist interpretation.

Then where did Allah come from? Arbitrarily assigning the property of being eternal to something is not logical.

~Raithere

 

They do teach evolution in universities and schools, but is it right to teach the theory of natural selection when it has not been proven? Yes, yes, the so-called evidence supports it, but that's the point; the evidence supports the theory, but doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt. The same goes for creation.

As for scientists and their speculations, yes, they do change some things around to fit their theories, but that's a problem in itself, is it not? Would that not suggest that their theory was flawed in the first place?

Carbon-dating. That is flawed no matter how one puts it. Can't put my finger on it, but it's flawed.

Species being extinct for millions of years, LOL. Wasn't there a fish caught off the coast of Japan that was supposedly extinct for 60 million years? So much for theories.

Bye!

 

Actually, yes. Of course, all you manage to accomplish is to make everyone here even more confident by the way you retaliate to everything posed to you. As others would have already informed you, going around calling people retarded, hopeless and whatever else your mind can conjure up does not help your case whatsoever. That's hardly a surprise when we actually look at your posts in entirety here and notice that there simply is no case to begin with. All it is is some nice pictures of monkey's, some bright red size 7 text and some schoolyard insults.

I will admit you went to the trouble of pasting a link, but I'd ask why you'd bother when surely you could have found a much more 'educated' site than that one. Not only is it three decades out of date, but it 'carries itself' without having any actual understanding of that which it is trying to debunk.

I know you're proud of your beliefs, and that's nothing to be ashamed of, but you could learn a little more tact, a little less aggression and a little more self-discipline. You might regard us all as hopeless retards, which is your choice, but at least, from what I've seen, those hopeless retards have been able to conduct themselves with a much more mature and responsible attitude.

It is also the sign that you have nothing with which to debate the issue.

I wasn't referring to your god, there are many others out there. Did my usage of the word 'bastard' give you reason to continually berate every atheist on this forum and classify them as "retarded"? Of course what also makes me wonder is how come you feel you can label my beliefs as "absurd myth" and yet accuse me of being rude about your beliefs. On top of that, I had to listen to your usual insults on the thread concerning the Jinn, where you once again went in to your hopeless atheist retard speech. I just find it funny that a person with such blatant disrespect and rudeness, that you exhibit around this forum constantly, would lay into me for a rare transgression. I had originally put an apology here, but to be honest- you don't deserve it.

Oh really? I don't actually eat pork anyway, mainly lamb. I guess I'm a young sheep. Let me guess.. you only eat vegetables right?

I'm aware of the whole pigs and sars issue, but it's somewhat irrelevant to the discussion between Flores and myself. Flores made a statement that eating pork caused cancer, stress, arthritis and so on. She also stated pigs were impossible to kill. She even went so far as to say eating pigs was cannibalism. I still await any source information to show this as being accurate.

 

Snakelord, did you get my PM?

 

Yessir, just replied

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, it's hard to notice pm's

 

Yes Tablariddim, how could you still think angels have wings? We all know they don't. They're invisible, and talk to you when you forget to take your meds.

Next thing you know, you'll tell us that you still think that Santa Claus relies on flying Reindeer to deliver the toys to all of the good boys and girls on Christmas. He's invisible too, and doesn't need any silly Reindeer.

 

This is an interesting post and I think highlights a lack of funding for science and basic rational thinking. Much of what norad has posted would ring true to your average Amercian.

Firstly evolution isn’t a theory. There are theories that try to explain some of the processes of evolution.

Secondly, should we stop teaching electromagnetic theory as well? The basis of all electronics and communication? So – no there is nothing wrong with teaching theory.

Scientists don’t change things around to fit their theories they change their theories to fit their observations. That is science.

Carbon dating is not flawed, it’s a simple process and like all things is limited in what it can and can not answer. The validity of those answers are dependent on what was measured and what assumptions were made. The process itself is reliable.

And your point being what – that all theories are all fundamentally wrong because someone caught a fish that some people thought was extinct? What does that say about the theory there is a god? Hmm I theorise there is a god. Someone caught a fish that someone else thinks was exstink ergo all theries are suspect and as such there must not be a god.


If you take your logic a bit further: Didn’t the Christian church teach that the sun revolved around the earth? So much for Christianity.

 

Michael:

Did I say anything to you? I made a general comment. So much for your rational thought!

Is it all right to teach theory in school? I do not think it is all right, especially with grade school students. University is fine, since the mind has grown up some, but grade school where the mind is developing, no. I do see a problem with that.

And Michael, where the FUCK did I say I was a Christian? You MORON!

 

Norad, you're in good company when it comes to not wanting controversial topics taught in schools.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Above: Conservative Christians protest the second law of thermodynamics on the steps of the Kansas Capitol.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3631/christian_right_lobbies.html

You seem a little touchy Norad. So maybe you're not a Christian. You're lost in some other religious dogma then.
Don't like "evilution"? Find an explanation that better fits the observed facts. Good luck, you'll need it.

 

While there are some studies that show a small amount of correlation between meat eating and some of the conditions you describe (arthritis, cancer, high cholesterol, digestive problem) this is typically related to the quantities of meat eaten rather than the type of meat (beef is no better in these regards) and the causal factors are almost wholly undetermined.

Hormones are broken down by proper cooking as well as most parasites, bacteria, and viral dangers and what remains is more readily controlled by how sanitary the conditions are during the raising and processing of the animals. In truth, you run a far greater risk by living in close proximity with these animals or handling their waste or tissues than from eating properly prepared meat from them. Most trans-species infections occur in people who have frequent contact with the live animals.

As far as I'm aware stress is completely unfounded (although I would be interested in reading any studies you are aware of) and 'too much uncontrolled energy' is not even a recognizable condition as far as I can discern. Any excess of energy is simply converted to fat, the source is inconsequential except in how it is processed and in this regard sugars are much 'quicker' sources of energy than proteins.

This is a bit misleading and presumptuous. The digestive tracts you describe are more indicative of diet than of being 'more evolved'. Such a notion is somewhat erroneous in any case. Herbivores have evolved a variety of efficient and complex methods of digesting plant materials which our digestive tracts simply pass unused (wasted nutrition). Typically these herbivorous digestive systems rely upon fermentation which explains the multiple stomachs and cud chewing of cows as well as the hind-gut fermenters such as horses and rabbits. One of the benefits of eating meat is that it is far more easily digested. It is also far denser in nutrition and energy. Carnivores and omnivores have therefore been able to develop much shorter and simpler digestive tracts, streamlined, in a sense because of an easier to digest diet rather than being further along in development.

The problem here is that the hypothesis is essentially impossible to prove or disprove. But I certainly don't fault you for ignoring that evidence which does exist as PM is attempting to do.

~Raithere

 

The logic behind natural selection is incontrovertible; those animals which live long enough to reproduce pass on their genetic heritage survive, those who die before they reproduce don't. What is there to argue?

Wrong. There is no evidence that supports creationism.

While occasionally a scientist may do this they typically do not get away with it for very long. Other scientists catch them in their lie.

You'll have to do better than that.

The spectacular success of science is primarily due to the fact that when evidence is found that contradicts a theory the theory must change or be thrown out. Science seems to be the single human endeavor that doesn't have the hubris to insist it is right when the evidence indicates otherwise.

~Raithere

 

I see your point; however, as evolution is a fact, and due to the number of misconceptions, I think as a concept evolution needs to be taught in HS. To paint a broader picture for the students it will be important to teach theory. This is good preparation for uni and also of the many students that will never go on to Uni (however these are the people who eventually go out and vote) they still need to be taught what exactly evolution is and what it isn't so that they can make informed decisions in the communities. I think it’s an important enough concept that it needs to be taught.

whether your Christian or not is besides the point. If you were being sarcastic then my apologies it went right by me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If not then I apologize for appearing to sound condescending. That wasn’t my intention. It’s just that your post reminded me so much of a Baptist friend of mine who seemed to use these same sorts of arguments when discussing evolution.

 

Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments, specifically the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. Each of these arguments,supports a certain conception of God, and so supports each of the various religions to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument claims that the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn’t exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what “triangle” means makes it obvious that a four-sided traingle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what “God” means makes it obvious that God’s non-existence is impossible.

There are many things that something would have to be in order to be properly called “God”. For instance, it would have to be all-powerful, because a part of what “God” means is “all-powerful”. To call something that isn’t all-powerful God would be like calling a shape that doesn’t have three sides a triangle; to anyone who understands the words involved it just wouldn’t make sense. Another part of what “God” mean is “perfect”; something can’t properly be called God unless it is perfect. This is the key idea behind the ontological argument.

If something is perfect, then it couldn’t possibly be better than it is; there can’t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine.

If we were to think of God as not existing, though, then we would be able to imagine him being better than he is. We would be able to imagine him existing, and a God that exists is clearly better than a God that doesn’t. To think of God as not existing, then, is to think of God as being imperfect, because a God that doesn’t exist could be better than he is.

The First Cause Argument

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity. The first cause argument tells us that the second of these possibilities doesn’t make any sense, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.

If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false.

The idea that the universe has an infinite past, though, is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.

The Argument from Design

The argument from design focuses on the fact that the universe is fit for human habitation. There are many ways that the universe might have been, the argument from design tells us—it might have had different laws of physics; it might have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it might have begun with a bigger or a smaller big bang—and the vast majority of these would not have allowed for the existence of life. We are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does.

The Moral Argument

Most facts are facts about the way that the world is, It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France because there exists a city called Paris that is the capital of France. For most facts, there are objects in the world that make them true. Moral facts aren’t like that. The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of famine isn’t a fact about the way that the world is, it’s a fact about the way that the world ought to be. There is nothing out there in the world that makes moral facts true. This is because moral facts aren’t descriptive, they’re prescriptive; moral facts have the form of commands.

There are some things that can’t exist unless something else exists along with them. There can’t be something that is being carried unless there is something else that is carrying it. There can’t be something that is popular unless there are lots of people that like it. Commands are like this; commands can’t exist without something else existing that commanded them. The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality?

I dont mean to offend you bells, but the Hopeless athiests always make fun of those who believe and have faith, so let them taste something from their own making.

It is not evolution, it is ILLUSION, only the retarded would believe we came from common ancestor like the apes, otherwise how do you explain there are still apes until now who did not evoluve ??? how do you explain the EYE of the humans dont evoluve ?? do you really believe that a fish in the sea SUDDENLY decided to leave water into the earth ?? will not this fish DIE moments after leaving the water ????

Bells, with all due respect, evolution is the most illogical, the most absurd nonesense I ever heard in my life, I am glad we in the Muslim world DONT teach our childern such garbage.

 

......\
..primitive "possums" ------------------------------->(modern day possums)
..........\------------------------------------------->(bushbabies)
......primitive lemurs-------------------------------->(modern lemurs)
...................\
........primitive monkeys---------------------------->(modern monkeys)
........primitive apes-------------------------------->(gorrillas, chimps, orangs)
........................\
.........primitive homonids--------------------------->(modern man)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]Present day

This is over simplifying(left out alot of stuff in some cases implying falsities, but the point should be distinguishable) I feel I have to make it basic for the "special" people(ie PM)
This should clear up things like "if we evolved from apes why are there still apes".
Probably not though, no degree of insane ignorance could surprise me anymore.
Oh and note there is no such thing as "more evolved"(all listed reach the "present day" mark), well there is such a thing, Homo-sapien is more evolved now than neandtherthal ever was. Because neanderthal went extinct.
Man is no "more evolved" than an ape or cow or grasshopper, if it is alive today, anything alive today is as evolved as you can get, on this planet at this point in time.