<p>I can assure you that I am not. My family isn’t even fundamentalist.</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>Listen up, before you make these claims about Islam do your research throughly. That is a myth. Nothing in the Qur’an specifically states that a martyr would be given so & so amount of virgins. Also, people may have interpreted that statement literally in the Qur’an. Most people do not understand the concept of jihad (which has multiple translations/meanings) and how martyrs are awarded, and who is truly considered as a martyr.</p>
<p>Also, suicide bombers are disregarded in Islam. Because most of the time they:</p>
<p>1) endangering other innocent civilians’ lives.
2) Don’t have a good reason to blow themselves up.
3) Committing suicide is a sin. Another one way ticket to hell. They’ll be blowing themselves up again & again in hell.</p>
<p>However there are two exeptions for suicide bombers:</p>
<p>1) It is carried out by a state against an enemy against which war has been openly declared.
2) It does not target civilians of the enemy country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never specifically asked you to believe in anything. Ask me the questions and I will try my best to answer them.</p>
<p>okay. But still…are you willing to take that chance? It’s something that you might regret later on when you’re punished in your grave. Life is short…but your afterlife will last for an eternity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s an interesting point of view. But the point in life is to not only search for the “truth” , which I agree with you…but to also search for that true religion.
However, God is extremely sympathetic, mericful and forgiving.</p>
<p>You continually raise the point made in Pascals Wager, and this claim has been refuted many times. You say, “Isn’t it better to believe in my god so that just in case he does exists, you go to heaven?” My answer is no, for the simple reason that we don’t know which type of god, if any, exists. What if god only sends those to heaven who were Christians? What if god purposely didn’t leave evidence for himself, and only rewards those who do NOT believe in god while on Earth? The possibilities are endless, so to propose that there are only two choices is absurd.</p>
<p>Simple. The answer in Islam. It makes perfectly sense in every single way imaginable. You should also look up that it is a FACT that most non-believers & atheists convert to Islam. It would also only make sense since it was the last revelation from God (after the Bible–but that got out of hand and fabricated by people over time). You should also look up Islam & Modern Science.</p>
<p>STILL. tell me non of atheists and agnostic people here don’t even have that kind of fear in the back of their mind?</p>
<p>Even the atheist that is stranded alone at sea would ask and plea for God to help him out of desperation.</p>
<p>I have looked plenty of it up actually, as my Muslim friend and I talk about this all the time. We spent basically the whole year discussing religion in one of our classes. He showed a lecture given by a Muslim scientist who was attempting to prove that the Qu’ran was right the Big bang Theory, among other modern scientific topics. I then proceeded to debunk his entire argument in about 2 minutes.</p>
I would never worship a God that sends innocent, fact-seeking minds into hell. Moreover:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”</p>
<p>
The fear of death is rational. Imagining fictitious characters is not. And what if God rewards rationality, not blind belief?</p>
<p>Or do some searches for the many different “Clocks” that supposedly could not have existed for more than so many thousand years, or must have taken so many million years to form.</p>
<p>Rather than clear, overwhelming proof I see contradictory evidence and claims all over the map.</p>
<p>Record of human civilization dates back only 6-12 thousand years(depending on who you ask). This is consistent with fully intelligent and capable humans being created at about that time.</p>
<p>At any rate, this is irrelevant to the rest of the argument, except that if a young earth could be proven it would irrefutably disprove Evolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, Darwen’s finches (and allopathic speciation in general) is an example of existing alleles being realized and split into sub-populations. If the finches do not possess a trait in their genome to begin with, no amount of allopathic speciation will cause it to emerge.</p>
<p>As for spontaneous mutation, the rate of mutations that harm the affected species and/or remove (not add) genes is much higher than those which add new, useful genes. To get from, say, an optic nerve to an eye requires a whole series of highly improbable mutations to occur without any less improbable harmful mutations messing up the sequence.</p>
<p>And all that aside, there is precious little evidence to suggest that it did happen, even if it could happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you realize just how improbable they are. Even trillions upon trillions of years would not make the cleanerfish probable, yet it exists.</p>
<p>Even if the improbable mutations did occur, they would then have to survive being eaten, sat on, starved, etc. Considering the miniscule benefit that could be expected from the vast majority of the stages along a species’ evolutionary path, most mutations would need to happen several times before one got lucky enough to become common.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are confusing HIV with the so-called “superbugs”. HIV is a virus, so medicine can’t normally kill it, as it isn’t exactly alive until in enters a host cell. Your body’s natural defense is to recognize the “antigens” in the virus’s shell, and then isolate and destroy affected cells. When you get an immunization, you are injecting some of the antigen into your body, which allows your body to identify and remember it before any actual viruses enter your system. The problem with HIV is that the antigens are often copied innaccurately. So while one generation might be “12275”, the next one will be “21257”. This is not evolution. You can change them as much as you want and you will still have an HIV virus. They aren’t gaining a new ability, they just are shuffling their “ID code”, so your body can no longer recognize it.</p>
<p>Sorry if you knew all this, but if you did, you shouldn’t misrepresent it.</p>
<p>As for the “superbugs”, I used to consider them examples of small-scale evolution, but when I read more about them I found out that the reason that they resist antibiotics is not that they have developed a new trait. Rather, the genes for the mechanism that they use to absourb nutrients is damaged, causing them to absorb food much slower than normal bacteria. Normally this would be crippling, but the slow rate of absorption also prevents them from building up a lethal concentration of antibiotics, so they can survive under those conditions. Under normal conditions, they are easily outcompeted by healthy bacteria.</p>
<p>As for insects and the other resistant bacteria, this is once again not a case of evolution but of natural (downward) selection. Before pesticides are applied, the population contains both resistant and non-resistant members. Afterwards, the non-resistant members are killed, and only resistant members remain. Continuing this trend with multiple poisons will lead to no organisms, not a new kind of organism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do not try to bluff me like mifune. Human fossils, if arranged by supposed descent, give you not a vertical line but a couple horizontal lines. When you can tell me “first there was this, and then there was this, and then there was this, this, and this” and all the thises are creatures we have actually dug up more than a single skull fragment and a jawbone from, then you can claim a “clear, evolutionary progression”.</p>
<p>I am not aware of even one such series. I am absolutely certain that there are not hundreds of them.</p>
<p>The clear trend I observe in human evolution discoveries is that a small find, maybe a jaw fossil or a couple of fossilized leg bones, is discovered, and promptly placed in the tree in one of the missing vertical spaces. Then, as more discoveries are found, the fossil must either be moved into an existing species or placed parallel with them, leaving the blank space to be filled by the next find.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So there’s no evidence, and it’s not their fault! But this is the exact same situation we’d expect if there was no evidence because the theory was wrong! Do you not realized that you are doing the exact same thing Theists are so often accused of, by moving your theory into an area where it cannot be falsified?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that is just wild mass guessing. The exact same evidence would be expected if the species did not evolve.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can say that again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think that “increased investment” by a cleanerfish (ie more swimming into predators’ mouths) yields a bigger return before the predator has evolved its instinct?</p>
<p>Do you think that “increased investment” by a predator (ie more letting little fish swim into its mouth) yields a bigger return before the cleaner has evolved its instinct?</p>
<p>“Nice” cleanerfish get outcompeted by smart ones.
“Nice” predators get outcompeted by pragmatic ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Naturally. This kind of behavior wouldn’t evolve where it didn’t exist, but it quite effetive at staying around once it has been created.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</various></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you see what is happening here? When the model fails to support Evolution, assumptions are made until it does. This is a normal part of science, but the problem arises when people present the conclusions without specifying the assumptions.</p>
<p>Did someone mention Occam’s Razor?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you really? Then how is evolution “right” and creation “wrong”? If what you say is true, they are both merely “is the state of a human mind”.</p>
<p>The very fact that you are trying to defend your beliefs shows that you do not really believe them. If they were true, you would not need to defend them, as you are not responsible for them if they are merely the cause-and-effect of natural laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would prove that the human mind is a “supernatural being” (ie not bound by natural cause-and-effect). This would destroy the main objection to a God, which is that supernatural things do not exist.</p>
<p>Good arguments. But I think you mean allopatric. Generally a typo like that makes no difference, but in this case it had me a little confused.</p>
<p>Actually, despite having to dig through a little profligate verbige in some posts, I see a lot of intelligent arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, I doubt you folks are going to settle the issue on this thread :)</p>
<p>But it’s entertaining to read, and I’m learning a lot here.</p>
<p>To be honest, that entire page is filled with lies and pseudo-science. So, I’ll go down their list of points.</p>
<p>First of all, the “physicist” quoted in the passage about the recession of the moon is a self-described “creation scientist” and is affiliated with Answers in Genesis, a popular creationist website. He is hardly an unbiased source…</p>
<p>Second, this statement is just plain stupid: “Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.” There’s a reason that even Wikipedia doesn’t allow for the use of statements that use the “Some say…” form. It is not specific at all, and anyone can claim to be a scientist. Plus, since oil and natural gas tend to migrate, more pressure is able to build up as more substance is collected in an area.</p>
<p>Third, the data about the sun shrinking by 5ft per hour has never been confirmed by another study. The original paper that this data was published in was not a formal research paper, but only part of a larger scientific discussion. Also, this site assumes that the Sun has ALWAYS been shrinking at this rate even if the rate of decay is correct.</p>
<p>Fourth, the age of a tree has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the Earth. It has also been found that trees can actually lose some of their rings, which would cause scientists to make an age prediction that is actually too low.</p>
This link is so filled with faulty bull pseudo-science that I don’t even know where to begin. Moreover, it fails to really debunk the evidence of the old-earth scenario. For the purpose of this argument, I’ll only debunk the first 5 arguments that propose the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. And as all good science entails:</p>
<p>The burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion. In the case of not having complete evidence, it is best to either acknowledge a lack of evidence or take the best existing theory; it is NOT appropriate to fill in the gaps with guesswork. See Russel’s teapot. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Oil pressure: “The oil should seep into the rocks and reduce the pressure”. To prove this assertion, you would have to have evidence that the oil pressure is being reduced at a high rate over time, and eliminate all other possibilities. Since such evidence is lacking, it’s just shoddy guesswork. </p></li>
<li><p>The oldest living thing we’ve discovered is only 4700 years old. Which shouldn’t be surprising, given that the number of living things decreases exponentially with age. And even given that their assertions are correct, it would prove only one thing, which is that a catastrophic event (not necessarily a biblical catastrophe) occurred within 5,000 years. It would be irrelevant to the age of the earth (age of life =/ age of earth). </p></li>
<li><p>Short period comets: Well this one is pretty much already summed up in the article. There are better theories to explain this phenomenon and although once again, it’s not perfectly understood. Holes in science do not prove creation, they merely prove that there are holes in science. </p></li>
<li><p>Earth’s decaying magnetic field. To debunk this ridiculous argument all you would have to do is see [Paleomagnetism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleomagnetism]Paleomagnetism”>Paleomagnetism - Wikipedia)</p></li>
<li><p>Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones: No reputable source citations. Moreover, the vast majority of tests (and cross-tests not involving carbon 14) date dinosaur bones into the millions of years. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Well, there’s 5 down in the crapshoot. Not going to waste my time with the rest. </p>
<p>
Your usage of the word “allele” demonstrates that you probably don’t understand what an allele is. You might want to investigate the issue more so you can use the proper terminologies so I can understand better what you are trying to assert. I mean, it’s just totally garbled: “an allele being realized?” “an allele being split into sub-populations?”. </p>
<p>
Well of course. All the ones with harmful mutations don’t survive to successfully reproduce. Either that, or they reproduce LESS than their healthy counterparts, skewing the population over time. This is a highly important aspect of Darwinian evolution. </p>
HIV is a superbug, though granted, it isn’t alive. Viruses go through the evolutionary process as well you know. </p>
<p>
Semantics. They don’t copy their gene code properly, which means they mutate, though at a much faster rate and occurence than everything else. Because there are millions of them, the population becomes gradually more resistant (as only the resistant mutations can reproduce). The new ability is of course the ability to survive anti-viral environment (analogous to longer fur to survive cold weather, taller necks to eat more leaves, etc). </p>
<p>
Frankly, natural selection is one of the largest components of evolution. </p>
<p>
So I suppose you or another source have calculated the probability. May I have a link, your calculations, or an acknowledgment that you are just guessing? </p>
<p>Though I’m not sure you’ll care, seeing as you believe the Earth to be a mere 6000 years old. </p>
<p>
I’m not going to bother responding to this strawman assertion.</p>
<p>
And I will. Scientists are human as well, and equally susceptible to bad and misleading practices. It’s important to acknowledge this (unlike religions) in order to attain progress. I mean you’re right. Empirical tests usually follow guesswork. When this “guesswork” meets empirical evidence, it becomes a true scientific theory until the next best thing shows up. </p>
<p>General relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, etc all share one common trait - they aren’t the theory of everything, and they don’t claim to be. And I would like to re-stress, bad practices in science do not prove religions!</p>
<p>To be honest, Islam is far more credible than Christianity from what I can see - they possess all the same tenets, plus Islam doesn’t try to posit that Jesus is in fact the Son of God, something Jesus probably never meant to be taken literally assuming he did indeed claim to be His son</p>
<p>Muhammed was also extremely accepting of women (he was very close to his wife) and other religions (dhimmi? People of the book as they are called. I forgot the vocab term lol), and the modern fundamentalist fringe groups in the religion are due to the same corruption that festers within every ideological organization</p>
<p>“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours” - Stephen Roberts</p>
<p>I’m here to represent the God side! And attack the evolution side, although Mosby just said most of what I was going to say in his uber gigantic post.</p>
<p>lol of course. Simply put, however, it is not possible for me to imagine a universe without a divine force, and therefore I believe in God, and the reasons for such a leap of faith have been generally defined by Kierkegaard as based on instinct and sentiment rather than logic, so, again, this thread can never achieve any level of convincing on either side since science and religion operate on two separete mental plains which often, in fact, work in conjunction, as such illustrious minds as Baruch Spinoza, Averroes, and Pascal believed so thoroughly that they would consider the very premise of this argument completely ridiculous: there is no fundamental exclusionary principle that makes science separate from religion. To imply this is to intrinsically create a false dichotomy.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I’m sure the opposite side of the argument may feel a bit uncomfortable with the fact that God Himself, in whatever form he comes in, gave us free will, and that it is therefore more natural for each person to create his own religious beliefs rather than completely ally one’s self with a single religious organization</p>
<p>@thequestionmark - I don’t have time to read your conversation with Mosby but you said that natural selection is the basis of evolution. Let me ask you, how is new genetic information created? To create new species, new genetic information must be “added” to the genome of the species it evolved from. What mechanism creates this information? Mutations don’t add new genetic information, so your answer does not lie there.</p>
<p>To answer this question, I suppose you would need to know what genetic information is. It’s merely a sequence of a chemical bases grouped into genes and then bound into chromosomes. I think you BOTH have a misconception, which I’ll address. Genetic information is created whenever the genetic sequence is rearranged (via mutation). New genetic “info” does NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SEQUENCING! In short, DNA is an organism’s “codebook” for protein synthesis. If the codebook is changed, so too can the synthesis (though there are certain mechanism that alleviate some changes), and new “information” is created. </p>
<p>With that clarified, I know where this is going. Why do humans have 46 chromosomes and why do pigs have 38? Clearly the amount of DNA isn’t the same. Where does this “extra” DNA come from? Same mechanism (or faulty reproduction mechanism as before). In addition to point mutation, there are several other forms of mutations at the large and small scale. These mutations include:</p>
<p>“Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats[citation needed]). Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA (splice site mutation), or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element.”</p>
<p>For large scale chromosomal mutation and a comprehensive list, see [Mutation</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Mutation - Wikipedia”>Mutation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I recommend you both seriously take or self-study an advanced biology class before you debate about something so rooted in it.</p>
<p>I think you need to brush up on biology. No such mutation creates NEW genetic information. All large scale chromosomal mutations recreate an existing chromosome. (Or deletes an existing chromosome. Or maybe has 2 chromosomes switch segments). </p>
<p>Insertion mutations cause sure destruction. They are actually called frame-shift mutations because they shift everything down and cause new proteins to be made altogether. There is no possibility of these mutations creating new species or genetic information. Go through wikipedia some more my friend, the answer is not there. In fact, its not anywhere</p>