nezmot

I was trying to say was that appropriating someone else's belief structure (like nanotech has done here, by appropriating 'science') and then twisting it to tell untruths, is always going to be a controversial tactic, and one that is bound to upset people. I explained that I was upset by it. And I am. If that's an insult then I am sorry.

Having said that, my upset isn't nanotech's fault, I'm responsible for my own feelings, and no-one else. I was just describing what those feelings were, to put my earlier responses into context. I don't think I called anyone crazy, if I did, I apologise. But I will continue to explain why these theories are not scientific, and point out that nanotech refuses to argue within the principles of 'scientific' thought, while at the same trying to use science as an authority. It's this double standard that I find difficulty with, both logically, and as someone who believes in the principles of scientific thought.

To nanotech, there are plenty of scientifically defined arguments that could be used to point towards the idea of a creator, or to help support the credibility of the Bible, or the Qu'ran, Why don't you choose to use them, instead of sticking to these poorly formed ones?

Once again, I'll point out that this is not an attack on your belief in a creator. Nor is it an attack on your belief in the Qu'ran as the word of God. Nor is it an attack on what the Qu'ran might have to say.

All of that is quite safe.

The ONLY thing I have a problem with is they way you're using incorrect statements, or misunderstood concepts, calling them science and then using them to argue your point. If you want to focus on that, then we can. But we will have to focus. No flying off onto unrelated tangents, no resorting to quoting the Quran (because it has nothing to do with the very specific argument we're having here. vis. that you don't understand science)

So, in that vein - and with a deep breath, I'm going to gently try to answer your points quoted below:
Fair enough. You're quite right, God <b>may</b> have some purpose to it. I don't know, and I certainly can't prove it either way.

This is one of your tangents again - how is this relevant?

Think of a tree with man at the end of one twig, and some blob of jelly at the base. As you travel up the tree, you (generally) see more and more complex structures. If you follow the path from the twig to the base, you can go through many ancestors before you get back to the beginning.

This of course, is a massive oversimplification, because what you need to understand is that the rats, monkeys and dinosaurs all exist as end-nodes (twigs), but if they follow their respective paths to the beginning, they must, at some point, share a common ancestor with ourselves.

Because the ability to communicate via sonar evolved somewhere further up the whale's branch, a part of the 'tree' we don't share. We do however meet up with the whale further along the tree, closer to the base - at the point where the common ancestor to all the mammals exists.

For the same reasons described above - do you see how evolution works now?

Because no-where on the tree does there exist a point where an ancestor exists with a different number of eyes, or arms or legs.

Actually, that's not quite true. There is a place in the evolutionary tree where crazy three-eyed creatures exist. There is evidence to three-eyed, or twelve handed or 9 headed creatures in shale coming from a time way back in the pre-cambrian period. Investigations of shale formed around this time show a massive diversity of <b>very simple</b> multi-cellular life. In this microscopic zoo, there existed extremely outlandish creatures, the likes of which have died out now, and never been seen since. Soon after this time, the massive diversity appears to collapse into a much smaller set, the set from which all life can be shown to have evolved from today.

I can't argue with this because it draws from the Quran. That's your belief and it would both be wrong for me to argue against it. All I can say is that I don't share your belief.