shakran

In the old days in the USA people used to avoid going out at night because they believed the night air would make them sick and they might die. It has since been discovered that diseases transmitted by mosquitos, which fly in the evening time, were actually what was making people sick. The night air had nothing to do with it, yet people were able to associate getting sick with being out in the night air which happened to contain the mosquitos.

Its the same story with your pork example. If you eat a piece of pork and then you get sick, and then the next day you eat a piece of pork and then you get sick, and then the next day you eat a piece of pork and then you get sick, and then the next day you eat a piece of beef and you don't get sick, and then the next day you eat a piece of pork and you get sick, you will figure out that somehow the pork is making you sick. You don't NEED to know about worms or bacteria or whatever else is in the pork that makes you sick. That is what happened. Someone figured out pork was making them sick, and they told everyone else not to eat it. Simple as that.

And all that being said, worms do not survive in cooked pork as long as the pork was cooked at 137 degrees F or higher. The recommended cooking temperature of pork is 160 degrees F. Miracle of science, debunked.
Mountains are FORMED by the collsions of the tectonic plates. If they were "nails" holding the plates down then 1) they wouldn't have formed from the plates colliding, and 2) we wouldn't have earthquakes since the plates wouldn't be moving against each other.

This brings me to my real point. From your perspective you are arguing from a very comfortable position. While we who actually know real science have to check our facts and learn our facts, all you have to do is claim that all science comes from the Quran. If it's not in the Quran, it's not real. If someone shows you scientific evidence that's been checked and rechecked and peer reviewed, you shut your eyes and ears to it because it is not in your Quran. The only time you acknowledge actual scientific data is when you can somehow make it work with what the Quran already says. That's a great position to argue from because from your point of view, you can never have your world view altered. What you know now is what you will know tomorrow and the next day and sixty years from now. That's comforting, if a bit, IMO, boring.

Because of this fundamentalist point of view you fail to recognize the Quran/Bible/Bagvad Ghita/Pick-Your-Religious-Text for what it actually is. It is not a 100% accurate history. It is not a step by step chronicle of the existance of God/Allah/etc.

It is a collection of stories, parables, that tell us how we should live life. You can boil the bible down to a few simple phrases: Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't be a jerk. Try to leave the world a better place than it was when you got here.

But 2000 years ago if some guy had run around saying these things, they'd have crucified him. . .Oh wait. . they did. And that's my point. No one will listen to a MAN who tells them to stop doing what they like to do. But if that man disappears for awhile and then comes back and claims an all powerful being with a short temper told him to tell everyone to stop killing, stealing, and being jerks or he'd send them to a place that's always on fire, people tend to listen.

The truth is we cannot scientifically KNOW what created existence. We cannot PROVE God. People who try to prove the existence of their deity are, in my experience, people who are having trouble reconcililng themselves to their faith. Either you believe or you don't. If you believe, you don't need proof. I believe the sky will be there tomorrow. I don't need to seek out proof of that. If you truly BELIEVE in God/Allah, you should not need to PROVE his existence.

vjssy

It seems the forum members have already addressed why the original argument doesn't work. I only wanted to point out the origin of the argument.
Roughly 750 years ago, Thomas Aquinas (St.Thomas Aquinas, for you Catholics) devised the "first cause" proof, also known as the "cosmological argument," insisting that God is the first cause of all cosmos. Your friend should be wary of misrepresenting others' ideas as her own. -esp. those with so many criticisms, like this one-

For the record, there is yet to be a sound argument for the existence of a God (gods). Mainly because theist concepts are closed systems based on unfalsifyable claims. To prove their statements through logic is more or less impossible.

EDIT: the pork thing nanotech mentioned. It is known by anthropologists, that previous to technological advancements, nearly all cultures -regardless of religious faith- abstained from the consumption of pork. And, it was not because of some divine revelation that this knowledge was apparent, it was through observation -like anything else that humans learn-. So while shakran's rebuttal seems uneccessarily condescending and inconsiderate, nanotech's point is not completely founded. "How else could..." Being unable to prove something does not prove the opposite. You're argument is ad ignoratium (from ignorance) and a common fallacy. Just my 2cents.

__________________
Me saepe mone.

shakran

Ease up there bud. I'm not trying to be condescending. We're dealing with someone who has a huge lack of knowledge about real science. You have to explain it step by step.

Kinda like it would be condescending of me to tell an auto mechanic step by step how to change a tire, but saying the same thing to someone who's never held a wrench would just be breaking it down for maximum clarity.

Bill O'Rights

While I'd be one of the first to say that shakran can be uneccessarily condescending and inconsiderate...I really don't see that he was...this time.

So...in that vein, people...given the volatile nature of this discussion, let's all try to be a just a little extra cautious, before we hit that reply button. Cool?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

florida0214

Why do people have ths need to point out where everybody else is wrong or at least they think they are wrong? Who cares what he/she believes and why? Keep it to yourself. I highly doubt the rantings os somebody on this forum has made them closer to God and taken them away. Why can't everybofy just let it be. I seems like people are atacking eachother and that just sucks.

__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

nezmot

I missed this the first time round - but it is interesting because it shows up something important about the way evolution appears to have shaped the world around us.

Specifically, the structure of the animals.

Have you ever noticed how everything with a backbone, from the smallest tree-frog, through to the largest whale, has analogous skeletal structures?

We all have spines, arms and legs (or at least, the vestiges of them as evidenced in snakes), a skull etc. Comparing the bones of a horse and the bones of a man is possible and while there may not be exactly the same number of bones, there is a distinct similarity in apparent structure and arrangement.

What does this tell us about evolution, creationism or adaption?

It tells us that either there was one population of animals (likely an early amphibious creature) from which lizards, snakes, elephants, mice, man and dinosaurs are all decended from; Or, that God had some form of general prototype, from which he copied and pasted into each species, tweaking at the edges in order to create different variations on the theme.

One thing that seems interesting is the role of the mammals that live in the seas; dolphins, whales etc. They have the bone structure of the (mostly land-based) animals, yet live their whole lives in the water like fish (with their entirely different skeletal structures) Why would God go through the whole process of bending all those bones out of shape, if he already had a perfectly working prototype for a sea-based life in the fish? If nothing else, it certainly shows poor design practice. More likely (to my mind), it displays a vivid example of the random, blind and accidental nature of evolution. Why? Because here, in the whale, we see evidence of an ancestry that started in the seas, drawing oxygen from the water around it, before evolving into a land-walking, air-breathing beast, before once again returning to the seas and re-evolving back again into an aquatic form. What a completely stupid way to evolve! No-one would seriously go about creating a creature this way on purpose.

nezmot

It wouldn't make for a very interesting forum then would it?

Person A: I believe in this.

Person B: Oh, that's nice. Well done. I believe in that too.

Person A: Great


Having said that, nobody is attacking anyone here for their beliefs. If someone puts forward one point of view, isn't it reasonable for others to then express their own in turn?

cyrnel

And some have been taught that conversion is their duty, which pretty much rules out a happy marshmallow roast.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

nezmot

Having thought about this a bit more - I might have been as robust as I have been here, due, in part to a feeling of personal insult. (Now I'm being completely personal and candid here.)

I felt offended that nanotech had dared to appropriate my personal belief system (scientific thought) and tried to subvert it in order to support his own. I found that really hard to deal with.

How would a person of any given religion feel if I started using their religion to justify my statements? Especially if I were to twist the words of that religion in the process to say things that were blatantly not true?

"Jesus lived and died to show us that trees are evil and should all be demolished."

"Mohammed tells us that the earth is flat."

If I seriously tried suggesting things along these lines, wouldn't it be reasonable for me to expect a little controversy?

Then why is it considered reasonable for people to try to say that 'Science' tells us this, or that, or the other? Science is a belief system, just like any other, but it's <b>my</b> belief system and I don't like it when people try to subvert it, or make out that it is something that it's not - specifically, in an attempt to use it as an authority on the truth.

Science is not an authority - it does not 'tell' us things. It is instead a process, a way of thinking - It is a philosophy. What it is not, is a set of stone tablets that tells us an incontrovertible list of facts. Science can never prove something - it can only disprove, and even then, only in limited circumstances.

I find it upsetting when people fail to realise this in the same way (to use another absurdist example) a Muslim might likely feel upset if someone were to suggest that Islam is all about blowing things up.

Is it reasonable for me to feel like this when someone violates, warps and twists something to their own ends discrediting it in the process? A particular something I happen to feel passionate about? You're damn right it is.

nanotech

Ok, enough being Mr. nice guy, I'll just be like some people

debaser,

This statement is made by an ignorant. By saying I have a complete misunderstanding and falsehood; you have ignored all prophets, books of God, all religions, God himself, and the proofs of creation. That is because these were the matters I was talking about and getting proofs from.


thanks, I learned how to increase my level of patience and to put up with pain in the butt

I can use science to prove God's existence. The Quran is a miracle of science because it has many verses that contain information about purpose of the mountains, the history of vanished nations, information from around the world, creation of human beings (further explanation) in the most perfect form (has humanity evolved into 4 hands people in thousands of years?)

Many prophets came, Mohammad said he will be the last one. Truly no other prophet came later. I think, "I think", its because God has given the miracle which is enough for people to beleive in him. The miracle of time. There is a video called miracles of the Quran. It predicts what happened now and in the future 1400 years ago. see it. Its a miracle which can occur always means, in time.

Bill O'Rights

That is my mistake, from the context of debaser when he used the word ignorance. I thought fundamentalists means people who believe in something without thought, logic, or evidence. The media these days, CNN, seems to use the fundamentalists word together with Muslims terrorist and so forth. Hence I thought it was meant this way which I'm certainly not. Anyway, if debaser calling people ignorant or saying everything you post is a falsehood is not considered an insult. Then I can call him the same.


Cynthetiq, thanks for asking. There is a translation for the Quran in many languages. This translation is made by someone who has spend years who has studied, analysed, the Quran and Hadeeth and other books. Also the translation holds the same rules in terms of publication. I think Saudia Arabia might be responsible for seeing and making sure the translated books are translated correctly. Would it hold a different meaning? The Quran is not complicated and as far as I know, it was explained(each verse) from the time it came. There are books for this too.




shakran, expand your thought. There are many countries and continents. There "could" have been many animals that hold this worm but there aren't. The Quran said only pork meat, meat of the dead, and carnivores. If it was by observation, how did the Prophet Mohammad 1400 years ago, who was poor (his job was a goat herder and he had no education, couldn't read or write), go across continents and gain this knowledge that pork meat is the only meat that has this worm? He couldn't, one miracle of Quran.

incorrect. 160 degrees needs a presto or a machine to hold the heat to get to 160 degrees Fahrenheit. At the time 1400 years ago till this age, there was no such device. Hence people would have died from disease if they ate pork.

Mountains do form by the collision of the Tectonic plates. The tectonic plate then forms an upright position. upright inside earth like a needle. The length of a mountain inside earth is bigger than outside earth. These help to get the lava stable, not 100% fixed, but stable. Without this "Natural technology" continents and islands would be shifting quickly. This has been mentioned in the Quran. Its in one of the videos, “creation of the universe" I think.

What is this... We, who know real science? You are obviously saying that people who beleive in God, don’t know real science and people who don't, they do know real science. This is absolute crap. Many people who believe in God are scientists. Even Einstein believed that there is a creator. My friend, a good beleiver and muslim, graduated as an honors list CCE and is working as a designer for logic circuits (CPUs) for a chip manufacturer. I studied computer science and program portals, ecommerce solutions, and can fix electronics Studied biology, probability, engineering, digital circuits and others. I don't want to and don't like to brag. I'm just showing you that your statement is unfounded "we, who actually know science.."


nezmot,

Why God made fish and whales of different back bone structures. Because he can. I'm sure it has a purpose, maybe we know it, maybe not.

How can dolphins use sounds to communicate, and hunt for food.
2 dolphins can communicate 200 Kilometers away from each other in the sea; by the use of the sonar waves.

First scientists said man came from dinosaurs or apes, then its rats, now its viruses. But this is another big subject we have to analyze.

Whales are mammals, humans are mammals, why didn't some people who supposedly inherited from whales did possess this ability to communicate via sonar?

Bats are mammals, humans are mammals. Why didn't some humans also possess the ability to see via sound as bats do?

If humans came from evolution, why doesn't science find 1, 3, 4 legged or 4 handed people in the museum. or one eyed people? Why no one eyed people? God created people with 2 eyes from the beginning because 2 eyes are needed to calculate distance and because of other things. Such as a backup system if one eye gets hurt. Shouldn't evolution have made 1 eye first as a first version of human vision? and perhaps later, it evolved into 2 eyes?

Human beings have not changed in overall structure in thousands or millions of years, and I don't think they will change naturally in the future, only artificially. There is a verse in the Quran which contains this info: "We created humans in the most perfect form..". I would conclude from this verse that the biology or physical structure of humans will not get more perfect.

florida0214, yes there's ranting as you said, but I can handle it via patience . Btw, no I wasn't taken away I just have work todo. I cann't stay here waiting for the next post like nezmot or shakran.


That is exactly the opposite, you are the one who said my theory is crazy and that all my postings are complete untruths! At the same time I was not judging your thinking or even your statements and was getting proofs from the Quran and logical deductions.

Had dared to appropriate my personal belief system...?! You are either imagining this or making it up. I was giving scientific evidence that proved Gods existence, miracles of time from the Quran when there was no science 1400 years ago. And what you did is call my theory crazy and everything I said are complete untruths. And now you are acting like an innocent.

tecoyah

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

pig

What we seem to have here...is a failure to communicate...

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

debaser

Wow.

Thank you for addressing the 7 heavens issue in my post instead of getting a persecution complex.

Because we don't live underwater.
Because we don't live in dark caves. We evolved larger brains that allow us to use fire.
What is the advantage of 1, 3, or 4 legs (although our arms are actually legs, technically) over our current form?

Protozoans do have one photoreceptor, the organelle that evolved into eyes. More advanced microbes have two of these so they can move toward or away from light. The species we evolved from already had binocular vision.
Human beings did not exist millions of years ago, however we have seen huge changes in the human form over the past 400 thousand years. This is clearly shown in the fossil record, which is a product of the scientific process. The Quran is a religious text. If you continue to link your "science" to your faith, you will continue to have your feelings hurt when we attack your "science".

__________________

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.

tecoyah

In an attempt to express the opposing view of this threads intended path, I will post what is generally agreed upon in scientific circles as the rebuttal to the religious view of Evolution, based on th most common misconceptions of its premis:

*note-this will be somewhat lengthly, and at times quite boring*

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.


GALÁPAGOS FINCHES show adaptive beak shapes.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tecoyah

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tecoyah

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tecoyah

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tecoyah

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tecoyah

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.



I have placed this here as a way to further the discussion, and perhaps lend some meager justification to the distrust of the OP shown in many of the replys, in hopes that if anyone bothers to read the information, they may gain a somewhat better understanding of what current consensus most scientist hold, based on the Data availible. This does not mean anyone is Wrong, or that they have mispllaced faith.....it is simply meant to place information before you, that further understanding can be gained.

*My thanks to Scientific American for the Data

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

debaser

Outstanding post, tecoyah. Thank you.

__________________

shakran

Again, I'm only going to respond to what you directed at me, to keep the post length down. What you said to the others is also, largely, wrong, but I'll let them address that.

Oh come on. You can't really think this can you? Mohammad lived in a place where there were pigs. Or he had friends that lived where there were pigs. There's other meat out there that will make you sick as well - in fact ANY meat can make you sick if it's not cooked properly. Beef (e-coli) chicken (salmonella), sushi (you name it, it's in there), lobster (if it dies before you cook it, it's already spoiled). The real miracle is how Mohammad only managed to identify ONE out of the jillions of types of meat that can make you sick.




Wrong again. A wood fired oven can get hotter than 750 degrees F. They had ovens back then. Ergo, they could get the meat hotter than 160 degrees.

Direct cooking over a fire can get it even hotter. The coals in a camp fire can be hotter than 2,000 degrees. Wood won't even burn with an open flame below around 530 degrees. All of these temperatures far exceed the minimum safe cooking temperatures of pork.




You are wrong. If it was mentioned in the Quran, then the Quran is wrong. The videos are wrong too. Mountains are not nails. Period.


And an absolute misinterpretation of what I said. I didn't say EVERYONE who believes in a God is ignorant. I said that people who get the entirety of their science knowledge from a religious text, one I might add which has never been subjected to scientific peer review, are setting themselves up to believe untruths, and are setting themselves up to never learn any new information.

Well, that's nice, but fixing computers does not mean you know anything factually correct about geology or chemistry. Einstein believed in a creator, but didn't buy the yarn that the creator made everything in 7 days. You can believe in a god without having to 100% believe in everything the religious book about that god tells you.



Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but anyone who thinks nothing was hotter than 160 degrees until modern times, and who thinks mountains are nails that hold the world still, and who does not understand the principles of evolution (whether you believe in it or not, you can at least understand what it actually says), does not know science.

nanotech

back from work,

debaser,

Muhammad did not invent. How can he invent when he was a poor goat herder and he could not read or write to get this data. Also the layers, atmospheres, above earth are 7. I named them in a previous post. Also when God said he created 7 earths other than earth, indeed, it was 7 earths. He did not tell us where but if we name the planets we can see:

Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Neptune
Pluto

The number is 8 - earth = 7 earths. So as we see, I analyze from he Quran and the number of 7 earths also is mentioned with the 7 heavens. Now since they are 7 planets other than the earth, then it can be the heavens of these 7 planets, or skies. So God might have referred to the 7 heavens as our atmosphere, 7 layers or the 7 planets other than earth. But these are verses that came on the prophet and were left to people to know, in time.

But in either case, both 7 heavens meanings are correct.




But that doesn't explain it. Lets say some humans lived under water some hundreds of thousands years ago, why no phossil of them.

Give me a previous version of humans. If there where many previous versions of humans, how come they are all dead and all what remains is the humans there are in this world?

So you know say we come from Protozoans. what about viruses. what about aliens.

YOU CANNOT CREATE INFORMATION WITHOUT INFORMATION. The genes cannot "INVENT" code. you cannot get another eye when there is only one eye, and then have 2 eyes work with each other smoothly and create an image in the back head of the brain that is 2 dimensional as the brain works.

Let’s say that 2 eyes where made by evolution which is not possible. HOW and HOW did the brain know that 2 eyes can be used to calculate distance?
How did the brain learn that it can make these 2 eyes focus, how does it know, by itself, how to calculate the strength of the muscles of the lenses in the eye so that it can focus?

If you are saying the human came from a creature that had 2 eyes in the beginning. How come this creature came with 2 eyes in the beginning with lenses, the ability to focus and calculate the distance from the focusing?

Evolution cannot program new programs, "Gene Codes"
Evolution does not have a brain to think with
Evolution does not have intelligence
Evolution is not smart
Evolution doesn't think ahead

Therefor => Evolution did not create

Evolution Exists
Evolution improves the "ALREADY EXISTING GENETIC CODES" of creatures and hence we get better breeds.

But EVOLUTION DOES NOT CREATE.

Nezmot,


All I give is scientific evidence, miracles of time, videos containing miracles of time and my own analysis. And you come up with your idea that I'm twisting facts to tell untruths.

Why would I make up truths? What have I to come here and waste my time and tell you evidence from the Quran? Why would I twist facts or lie?

I have not been and will never be a liar, "with God's help". I believe in God and lying is considered the biggest sin in Islam.

From the Hadeeth; a man came to Mohammad and asked him. Can Muslim steel and he would still be considered a muslim? Prophet Mohammad did not want to answer the questions although he knew the exact answer. Because they were would deter people from faith. But the person insisted. The prophet said yes. The person said: "can he commit adultery and still be considered a Muslim?" Same thing, the prophet said yes.

The final question was "can the Muslim lie and still be considered a Muslim?"
The prophet said 3 times:
A Muslim does not lie!
A Muslim does not lie!
A Muslim does not lie!

So I'm saying this to tell you that I don't lie. If I'm mistaken by something it is because I'm mistaken by it, nothing more.

This is not a tangent; it is to show you a miracle. What about waves, sounds of other dolphins and sea animals how can 2 dolphins understand each other 200 miles in the sea?

How can dolphins communicate? It means they have intelligence.
Are they not animals? Yes they are animals
So it means they have intelligence but not evolved.

So if they evolved, why are they not as advanced as humans? How can they have intelligence but no hands to make tools. To evolve, you needs hands to write on paper or wood or stone. they cannot hold anything in their hand, yet dolphins have a sophisticated language.

Have you seen previous versions of non sophisticated dolphins? there aren't.

Tecoyah, this is not boring at all. From your text, there's a proof that the universe came from God's creation in this text. One can use simple scientific methods:

1- elimination: Evolution cannot create, only evolve therefore the only creator left is God.

2- deduction: Since we were given all this evidence of time from the Quran, and all prophets’ point to God. And since aliens did not exist and even if they did exist, how come they did not write a book or refute God's books. So they do not exist. And since evolution cannot find ape like people in fossils, therefore the only possible reason is they were created by God.

So I thank your American scientist as well. I actually am impressed by American scientists because a lot of electronics, scientific etc books and inventions were made by them. I never undermined American scientists or any scientist. Many of my books in university were written by Americans. However Darwin and the people who think evolution alone made the universe have been simply, "mistaken scientists" in my opinion. Evolution evolves already existing genetic information, but it cannot create something from nothing.

Thanks again for this resource.

shakran,
Yes there were pigs like any other place. But that is not the question. How did Mohammad who was poor and worked as a goat herder and could not read or write travel around the world and learn that it is only the pig that has this worm or disease to humans? He couldn't. That’s one miracle of the Quran.

1- if meat gets to 750 it will burn and cannot be eaten
2- God will not risk the death of the people because they know or don't know how to cook.

But God gave humans all animals told them, do not eat the pig. It is a test.
Does this remind you of something?
God gave Adam the paradise, and told him do not eat from this tree. That was the first test.

Please see more. Mountains are not only nails. They have one of the purposes to act like nails to hold the lava. They have other purposes to store water inside. They have many purposes. This was one of the purposes. And the videos were not wrong, I had a big knowledge of the Quran and Islam before a month ago when I saw these videos. And when I saw them, they were the same as the knowledge I gained before.

Sorry, but wrong assumption. How did you know I have not studied other points of view, Hitler, Darwin, the ape which looked like a man in London and then turned after 50 years to be a fake? The people who pray to the devil, the Satanist religion, the gypsies who think that life is for pleasure at every moment only. Sorry again, but you’re mistaken. I always search for new information and I do not believe in an untruth. I believe in God. He gave me scientific evidence of his existence. There are many people that have more suspicion than you and were concerned about what will happen when the remaining 60 years of their life finished. I was one of those and I made researches, studies and mathematic formulas because I couldn't sleep knowing what will happen if I die? VOID!? I wanted to know what will happen and I learned.

WHO ARE YOU? who are you to say that I don't know anything about geology or chemistry? I know more than you and I loved these in education and understood how to work with them and made a few little formulas of my own, and I can recall the chemistry formulas in 20 minutes if I read the book again after 15 years of learning them.

Mountains have one of the purposes as nails. That’s one of the purposes.

Even if supposedly all worms and egg worms die at 160 degrees Did they have thermometers in the old days? Why would a man with a family and kids eat pork that can kill him or his kids. Because, he "thinks" that he boiled it enough to have no worms. Do you think God will tell them in the Quran to buy thermometers and make sure its 160 degrees Fahrenheit? and the use a formula, F= 9/5 *C + 32? And how can he be sure by himself that all worms are dead? Would you take the chance of sleeping with someone if you know they have HIV but you have a condom? What if the condom was not 100% fool proof?

Of course you can fully burn it and then the pig will have all the worms dead. But the pork meat for man is a test like the apple tree of the heaven.

SecretMethod70

I'm going to be honest here and point out I don't have the time, patience, or inclination to debate this at length with you, but I can't help but respond to this section. It stuck out to me as one of the more obvious examples of misunderstanding of basic scientific facts that brings into question many other things you say as well. Since I was as young as 9 - and maybe even before then but it was at the age of 9 that it was first taught in school - I have known that there are *nine* planets in the solar system:

Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto

I don't need to, but I'll point it out anyway, 9 planets - Earth != 7 planets. Even more significantly, nearly 200 planets have been definitively discovered outside our own solar system, most of them with masses similar to that of Jupiter. Not that it's needed, but such an egregious flaw in your statements calls everything else you say even further into question than it already is.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

pig

Secret - I came so very close to making some crass joke about your anus, but I'm glad to see you beat me to the punch.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tecoyah

OK...I think we are about done playing this game Nanotech. I have watched this thread since you reposted it after we removed what was considered Spam. I then followed your ramblings knowing you dont use english as a first language, and was hoping we were dealing with a communications issue, we are not. While it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the knowledge level of a member, as you have done, I can and will take what action in needed while attempting to seem Unbiased.

This thread is now moved to Nonsense, as it would only tarnish Paranoia.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

shakran

It is not only the pig who has a worm or disease that humans can get if they eat it. It's just that Mohammad apparently did not know about the other animals that can give you disease. And pork will not kill you if you cook it properly, just as beef won't kill you if you cook it properly.

Mohammad's ignorance of the disease potential of other meats does not constitute a biblical miracle.


That's nice. I didn't say you should cook the meat at 750. I said the oven is capable of reaching 750. My car can go 120mph. That doesn't mean I actually drive it that fast.


Then why didn't he ban all meat? Because if you undercook ANY meat you take the risk of getting sick and/or dying.




Easy experiment to prove this wrong. Drive a nail into a glass of water and see how well it does at keeping the water from moving.

Whaaaat? Where did you get this?

And that's exactly my point. If the videos had said something that disagreed with the Quran, you'd have rejected them out of hand as being false. You have many of us telling you things which do not agree with the quran, but which have withstood decades of rigorous scientific analysis, and are rejecting them out of hand because they do not dovetail with what you read in the Quran. You refuse to acknowledge any new knowledge unless it is not, in fact, new at all but just a retelling of something from the Quran.


Mountains are water-holding nails that keep the world still. You have stated this several times. You believe in untruths.

Sorry, but none of the evidence you have cited qualifies as scientific evidence.

Please give us the mathematical formula you used to prove the existance of God and the afterlife.


Again, you said mountains are nails that store water and keep the world still. That's pretty clear evidence right there.

But the problem is, what you know is not true.

You cannot have a hypothesis, and then make up the evidence, and then claim it's all true. This is what separates you from the scientifically minded. If we have a hypothesis, we search for evidence to support or reject it. If you have a hypothesis, you search for evidence only to support it, ignoring any evidence that rejects it. And as you've just indicated, if you can't find that evidence, you dream up a "formula" that supports it.


No, it is not.

And I don't have a thermometer when I cook a pork chop either, but I haven't died yet because I cook it with enough heat for enough time.

Unless you're a vegetarian, you must answer the same question. What if you get undercooked meat which is not pork? You too could die and/or kill your family. Why would you do this? I'll give you a hint: You know how to cook beef to the point where it will not harm you.

No. I think the MEN who wrote the Quran and who would not yet know how to safely cook pork would tell people that God told them not to eat it.

Again apples and oranges. I can't cook my sexual partner (well. . not without going to jail anyway). But if I COULD cook her, it would kill off the HIV and the sex would be safe. . if a bit crispy. . .

I can cook the pork to the point where it is not dangerous.


Maybe I'm just a better cook than you are, but I'm perfectly capable of cooking pork to an internal temperature that's safe without burning it

Coppertop

This thread is now where it belongs, people. It is quite obvious that nanotech will not change his mind no matter how often or well his arguments are refuted, nor is he likely to change anyone else's mind with his "scientific proof." I do get a kick out of his "science" though: mountains as nails.

Move along, nothing to see here.

CSflim

Good call.

I also think it's pretty funny that a thread entitled 'Proof that god created the universe' gets shunted off to nonsense, and yet a thread called 'If you could, would you play racquetball with God?' manages to survive

__________________

tecoyah

But....that doesnt answer the question...I mean.....would you?

Seems to me she would kick anyones ass all over the court.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

pig

the only thing i dislike is that the monster "facts o' evolutionary theory" post(s) that tec made will get buried in the ass detritus that this thread is destined to become. is there any way to keep that part around for any future threads on the subject?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

tecoyah

Stored here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=1#post2026186

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

nanotech

Yes thanks for being honest, the planets was a subject I learned in school around 15 years ago. I have forgot something but everybody forgets. From the amount of subjects and references I'm discussing I think it is reasonable for a human to forget something. It is still better than some who make silly sarcastic jokes and don't offer useful information. Again thank you for reminding me that the planets are 9. After I read them, I realized that I studied them all but that I forgot something. This is good for me because it means that the other supposition of the 7 heavens is the correct meaning, unless there are other 7 heavens near that might be found in the future. There are meanings in the Quran that are still being discovered by modern science.

Should I behave as an adult and not reply to this nonsense or should I behave the same? Well I kind of feel I have be fun too

pigglet, I was going to eat your head but then I realized pigs have worms inside.

Game? I am a direct to the point and honest person. The only games I play are video games. Someone insults me and I reply, but I'm wrong... Is this just a little biased?

Beef meat cannot be compared to pork meat, health wise.

Let me ask this. If species are created by evolution, why is this worm only in pigs, and how did the prophet know it was only in pigs? What if it was in the amazons or the polar creatures? He couldn't go there to make sure that they don’t have it.

Water doesn't do it, the earth crust is made of many layers. The mountain has a deep root which goes inside. Several mountains doing this function would lessen the movement and shifting of continents



You are imagining. I am always open to new ideas if they are scientifically valid. I read about scientology and part of book online about materialist and the history that Darwin methodology affected the world. Transitional species don't exist. A hypothesis doesn't become a theory until it has been globally agreed by scientists.

Should I repeat the miracles again and all i said again?.. bah

I posted it

I am scientific minded, as do people and teachers whom I knew at school had told me. I have given evidence and references. The videos I referred to gave thoughts on both sides: materialists and creationists. Its titled: "Collapse of Darwinism".

There is a high level of danger in pork meat for average humans of the times before us. With no science, many people would have been dead because they didn't cook pork well. What a purpose to die for... God knew this and pork was created, but it has the purpose like the forbidden tree of heaven.

They are not refuted. They are being argued but not refuted. "Well, you're wrong", there is a lot of evidence of God's existence to see in here and in the videos I referred to.

SecretMethod70

Another error. The Trichina worm occurs in more than just pigs and humans, pigs just happen to be the most common host.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=12513

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling