Quran burning: Obama apologizes

I got a few paragraphs from a few different websites regarding evolution. Let me know why you guys disagree with this....

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Same thing as one of the other points but it's a little more in depth:

They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

Sorry for double post but i wanted to say, i think they make very good points about intremediates. If they were in a continual state of evolution, you would see some progression in some fossils.

kiranr wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:

I see what have happened to you my brother. Islam is in its worst state right now. I beg you not to judge this religion by its people. Please read the Quran alone, not even interpretations. I have said it before, this is what I believe destroyed Christianity, it is human nature to add to the words of people if we are supporting them strongly, but we are oblivious to the fact that we are actually harming them. Love your religion and accept its people. Religion doesn't decided people's personality. God gave us all a brain and that why there is Heaven and hell, your religion does not decide where you are going but it is your actions and how you follow the religion.

Finally, if God wanted he would have made us all Muslims but he gave us the freedom to explore and exploit this world.

You are asking him to not judge Islam based on its followers, yet, you are judging Christianity and saying it has been destroyed. I am guessing you arrived at this conclusion based on it followers?

I dont think you got understood what I have said. I will clarify it for you. Think of it in this way a person that is famous tells your friend a story, your friend tells you the story. Dont you think that there is a huge possibility that it has been altered? Words change over the years which is why I do not believe in hadiths and which is why i think Muhammad was sent.

•MilanDevil• wrote:
I dont think you got understood what I have said. I will clarify it for you. Think of it in this way a person that is famous tells your friend a story, your friend tells you the story. Dont you think that there is a huge possibility that it has been altered? Words change over the years which is why I do not believe in hadiths and which is why i think Muhammad was sent.

I get your point. And yes, the message will be altered.

But i have a question. Considering there are so many interpretations of Quran and some of them being used in a very bad way, dont you think it is time for a new prophet to be sent?

Jonathan28 wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:

StevieRayVaughan wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one have succeeded.

I sense you clearly feel that Quran is superior to Bible or Baghavad Gita. Why is Quran superior to any of these books? Just because Muhammed says so? Why should the Christians believe that?

I shall not discredit any Prophet in anyway nor would I discredit the people of the book. However, I will tell you what I believe and what seems the most logical. After the death of Moses and Jesus, people started to loose faith and their human nature allowed them to ruin the message of the prophets. This would have happened with Islam as well had God not ordered Muhammad to put his wisdom in a book, therefore, I do not believe in all hadiths since they can be misguiding.

Woah, woah, woah, where did you get this nonesense? That somehow Islam is pure and every other religion is corrupt? Both Christianity and Islam branched off Judaism, no matter how much you argue about it. If there is one true religion it would be it.

I said it earlier. the religions of Judaism and Christianity came in words, the Prophets were not ordered to write them in book. Words changed over they years which might have been the reason why Muhammad was sent. The prophets are equal and I personally believe that as long as you follow and Abrahamic religion and stay away from sins you are safe. Oh and Islam is not pure, only the Quran is, this is why I do not believe all the hadiths since they are words passed on from one human to another.

kiranr wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:
I dont think you got understood what I have said. I will clarify it for you. Think of it in this way a person that is famous tells your friend a story, your friend tells you the story. Dont you think that there is a huge possibility that it has been altered? Words change over the years which is why I do not believe in hadiths and which is why i think Muhammad was sent.

I get your point. And yes, the message will be altered.

But i have a question. Considering there are so many interpretations of Quran and some of them being used in a very bad way, dont you think it is time for a new prophet to be sent?

No, I do not think a prophet will be sent. Jesus will come back and guide people after they have lost their faith and belief in God, Jesus will fight the Antichrist also known as Dajal in Islam.

Are we not sure that Islam, Christianty and Judaism are really the same religion guys, just different ways of going about it? We all agree on the old Testament for sure, we all know that Abraham is essentially the main founder(well, sort of ) of the faiths, with his sons Issac and Ismael(sp?).

SO can't we all just get along? There was no need for the pointless wars like the Crusades and all the nonesense. To be frank, thats had nothing to do with religion at all, people just got greedy and wanted gold.

The Verminator wrote:Sorry for double post but i wanted to say, i think they make very good points about intremediates. If they were in a continual state of evolution, you would see some progression in some fossils.

And you do: any fossil, any organism, is an intermediate of a future organism. Evolution works at a very slow speed, and fosils are scarce. However, there are some lines of evolution well documented with fossils. Haven't you seen the fosil record of horses for instances? There are lots of intermediate fossils and fosils of species that disappeared that shows a huge picture of horse evolution.

The Verminator wrote:I got a few paragraphs from a few different websites regarding evolution. Let me know why you guys disagree with this....

ok, i've got nothing to do, i'll bite

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years.

this is quite possibly the stupidest thing i've ever read... systems need to function therefore they couldn't have evolved at the same time? what kind of reasoning is that?

we can actually track the evolution of all complex systems (nerves, vascular system, brain, etc etc) simply through observing species alive today... every single system has a damn wikipedia article on how it EVOLVED... that paragraph is simply astonishing ignorance

Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

see above

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils.

there is substantial fossil evidence, much beyond conclusive... again, complete ignorance on the topic

fossils aren't a perfect historical record, they're more like snapshots of history... if you had two pictures of yourself, one aged 5 and one aged 16, would that mean the years between that never happened?

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

buuuullshit

random mutations can and do produce new genetic material, or to be more technical alter the genetic material they have available... all it takes is for one protein to go wrong and bam, down syndrome... why do you think mothers who used drugs while pregnant have a higher risk of producing retarded babies? because the drugs screw with the proper development of the fetus... and this does occur naturally too, if your eyes are any colour other than brown you're a victim of a random genetic mutation too, congratulations

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

that makes absolutely zero sense, both scientifically and semantically

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time).

wrong, not even worth discussing why

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

that is so stupid it might actually have given me cancer

random mutations happen, and depending on whether they have a positive or negative impact on the survivability of the species they get carried on... whoever wrote that tripe has to look up the meaning of "mutation", it doesn't mean growing an extra arm

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

jesus *bleep* christ... new species don't evolve from old species, fruit flies aren't going to become bees, i bet what the scientists did get was fruit flies adapting to the environment they subjected them to

look up lenski experiment for conclusive proof of how mutational changes affect evolution and survivability

Same thing as one of the other points but it's a little more in depth:

They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

addressed above

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.

it actually is, whether you mean evolution of humans or evolution of animals... humans more so as we're a fairly recently evolved species, but shit like archaeopteryx, the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds, is really amazing, read a book

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there!

what exactly do you expect a "transitional structure" to look like? half fish half rabbit? every single "non-transitional structure" (thanks for admitting that there's billions of them btw) is actually a transitional structure, if i understand this made up word correctly

But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

nothing controversial about feathered dinosaurs, if it has hollow bones and looks like a dinosaur, it's a dinosaur that can fly... and whales are mammals so obviously they used to walk at some point

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.

that's like saying i've only got pictures of me sober and me drunk, not of me actually drinking from a bottle, therefore i was never drinking, it's just not conclusive enough

finally, do yourself a favour and read "the greatest show on earth" by dawkins, you'll be amazed how easily all this crap you just posted is disproved

The Verminator wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

You sure?

Have you read Vedas? Bible? Bhagavatgheetha? confusionism?

what exactly makes Quran superior to those and vice versa?

Not to mention the great number of dog races available, created in just a few thousand years, who look very different from one to another.

Adit wrote:

The Verminator wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

You sure?

Have you read Vedas? Bible? Bhagavatgheetha? confusionism?

what exactly makes Quran superior to those and vice versa?

The challenge itself its stupid. A book is a piece of art, and as everyone knows, art is subjective. Someone can see art in what someone else will only see a stained paper and viceversa. Same with books. So obviously, if whenever someone tried to compose a book like Qhuran or greater in its prose-verse style, the judges (all of them muslims) would dismiss it.

Adit wrote:

The Verminator wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

You sure?

Have you read Vedas? Bible? Bhagavatgheetha? confusionism?

what exactly makes Quran superior to those and vice versa?

The Quran is humble and respectful. :vagi:

Re. evolution: If you do not believe it to be fact then it's because you haven't comprehended it. Probably the best introductory book on evolution is "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne.

If you're a lazy f*ck then go watch some YouTube vids with Richard Dawkins:

Man, all I read is "Richard Dawkins this" or "Richard Dawkins that". Is he your messiah or something, because his word seems to be taken as law and everything he says is true and is fact. You guys are sounding every bit like the religious fundamentalists nuts you mock.

Personally, I don't agree with Dawkins at all

*Watch his followers pick up pitchforks"

he just reminds me of a smarter version of Che, no offense dude, just saying.

"Intelligent design": Running a sewage line through a recreational area.

Jonathan28 wrote:

Personally, I don't agree with Dawkins at all

*Watch his followers pick up pitchforks"

he just reminds me of a smarter version of Che, no offense dude, just saying.

offense? that's exactly what he is lmao

it's also nice that you don't agree on the matters of biology and zoology with someone who's spent his lifetime researching the field of biology and zoology

Jonathan28 wrote:Man, all I read is "Richard Dawkins this" or "Richard Dawkins that". Is he your messiah or something, because his word seems to be taken as law and everything he says is true and is fact. You guys are sounding every bit like the religious fundamentalists nuts you mock.

Yeah, because we go around killing, torturing and oppressing people because they're too stupid to comprehend adaptive radiation and natural selection.

The reason why Dawkins is being mentioned is because he's one of the leading people in the field. He's popular because he was taught by a renowned ethologist (Tinbergen) and has written several excellent books on evolution and ethology. Not to mention that he was the first Simonyi Professor of Oxford which gave him attention in the public sphere.

He has his silly moments (e.g. "Atheists for Jesus" and "defining atheists as brights" ) but he's up there amongst the best spokespeople for evolution.

Personally, I don't agree with Dawkins at all

What is it you don't agree with? List your reasons.

•MilanDevil• wrote:If God would not exist then we wouldn't have the feeling of hope, since without God, this feeling is unnecessary. This is the same as love, if those who we are supposed to love do not exist, then there is no need to have the feeling of love.

Okay, let's revisit this and let me explain why it made me angry.

This is one of the prime examples of religious ignorance, and intolerance. You might have not meant it in a spiteful way, but this is the very basis for persecution of (religious) minorities.

This argument, or position, is of the same ilk as the idiots proclaiming atheists to be incapable of having morals, because they're not afraid of divine punishment.

Just as I can have morals because of my humanist ideals, I can have hope without god. I don't even comprehend how god ties into the concept of hope. Sure, if you mean hope for an afterlife, maybe.

But what would the Dalai Lama say? He certainly doesn't believe in any god, he's a buddhist. He can't have hope?

Or more simple, let's take me: I don't believe in anything I haven't seen evidence for. I can't hope for a better life, for a better world, for progress?

Oh, and @Jonathan: Of course you don't like and disagree with Dawkins. He's disproved most evangelical arguments ever put forward. I'd hate him as well, if I was opposed to logic, reason, skepticism and evidence.

Also: the websites you quote on evolution are laughable, the "missing link" argument isn't even worth rebutting since about the '60s.

If you're serious about this and you want me to refute it, read an article or two on evolution and phrase a question that makes me believe you understood evolution, yet have still questions about it's validity.

VivaStPauli wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:If God would not exist then we wouldn't have the feeling of hope, since without God, this feeling is unnecessary. This is the same as love, if those who we are supposed to love do not exist, then there is no need to have the feeling of love.

Okay, let's revisit this and let me explain why it made me angry.

This is one of the prime examples of religious ignorance, and intolerance. You might have not meant it in a spiteful way, but this is the very basis for persecution of (religious) minorities.

This argument, or position, is of the same ilk as the idiots proclaiming atheists to be incapable of having morals, because they're not afraid of divine punishment.

Just as I can have morals because of my humanist ideals, I can have hope without god. I don't even comprehend how god ties into the concept of hope. Sure, if you mean hope for an afterlife, maybe.

But what would the Dalai Lama say? He certainly doesn't believe in any god, he's a buddhist. He can't have hope?

Or more simple, let's take me: I don't believe in anything I haven't seen evidence for. I can't hope for a better life, for a better world, for progress?

Oh, and @Jonathan: Of course you don't like and disagree with Dawkins. He's disproved most evangelical arguments ever put forward. I'd hate him as well, if I was opposed to logic, reason, skepticism and evidence.

Also: the websites you quote on evolution are laughable, the "missing link" argument isn't even worth rebutting since about the '60s.

If you're serious about this and you want me to refute it, read an article or two on evolution and phrase a question that makes me believe you understood evolution, yet have still questions about it's validity.

I dont think you understood my point clearly and I do not blame you, I sometimes find it difficult to translate my thoughts in to words. However, I will try to provide a better explanation, imagine that people accepted death as normal thing in their life, why would humanity have the feeling of fear? I once read about an experiment( it might not be real) in which scientists wanted to test for how many minutes can a person survive while having a cut on his wrist, they told a group of prisoners that if they were to volunteer their family would get some money, the prisoners did not mind as they were about to be executed. The scientist lied as this was not their experiment, infact, their experiment was to test the effect of faith on the human body, they shut the prisoners' eyes and made it seem as if their vein was cut, however, they only spilled water on their hands which would eventually empty in a bowl. The prisoners' heart started to stop beating and they eventually died, the moral of this story is to show you how much faith has effect on one's life. You might be an atheist and you can stay so, afterall, you are entitled to your own opinion but if you care about other people you should not take away their faith since its what will keep them alive. Finally, I will ask you if you are about to die, who would you talk to? Would you also disbelief in God's existence? In the end, God said in the Quran that those who do not believe in his existence are the losers and told the muslims that they can bet it is true, so are YOU prepared to bet? because I am!

Jonathan28 wrote:Are we not sure that Islam, Christianty and Judaism are really the same religion guys, just different ways of going about it? We all agree on the old Testament for sure, we all know that Abraham is essentially the main founder(well, sort of ) of the faiths, with his sons Issac and Ismael(sp?).

SO can't we all just get along? There was no need for the pointless wars like the Crusades and all the nonesense. To be frank, thats had nothing to do with religion at all, people just got greedy and wanted gold.

They are the same religion and that is why I said as long as you follow one of them you might be safe.

Adit wrote:

The Verminator wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

You sure?

Have you read Vedas? Bible? Bhagavatgheetha? confusionism?

what exactly makes Quran superior to those and vice versa?

I answered this question earlier. Please do look back. I think its in page 15.

free_cat wrote:

The Verminator wrote:Sorry for double post but i wanted to say, i think they make very good points about intremediates. If they were in a continual state of evolution, you would see some progression in some fossils.

And you do: any fossil, any organism, is an intermediate of a future organism. Evolution works at a very slow speed, and fosils are scarce. However, there are some lines of evolution well documented with fossils. Haven't you seen the fosil record of horses for instances? There are lots of intermediate fossils and fosils of species that disappeared that shows a huge picture of horse evolution.

Where is the intermediate of a giraffe? That's what i wanna know. If the fossils of dinosaurs can be found then surely the fossils of an intermediate of a giraffe can too. I wanna take a look at these horse fossils though. I might take a look at it.....

che wrote:

The Verminator wrote:I got a few paragraphs from a few different websites regarding evolution. Let me know why you guys disagree with this....

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.

that's like saying i've only got pictures of me sober and me drunk, not of me actually drinking from a bottle, therefore i was never drinking, it's just not conclusive enough

finally, do yourself a favour and read "the greatest show on earth" by dawkins, you'll be amazed how easily all this crap you just posted is disproved

Very different scenarios. It is a well established fact, that drinking gets you drunk. You're saying Monkeys shared a common ancestor to humans and then evolution occured and now monkeys have evolved into humans. This is not 100% proven as a fact. As of right now, that's a belief. If you want to prove it you gotta have intermediate fossils of whatever it is that was not fully human and not fully monkey.

I didn't reply to the rest of your post because like i said it was copy and pasted from another website so i just wanted to see what you guys had to say about it.

Adit wrote:

The Verminator wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

You sure?

Have you read Vedas? Bible? Bhagavatgheetha? confusionism?

what exactly makes Quran superior to those and vice versa?

The Quran is from the word of God. The bible is from a bunch of authors as i understand it. The beauty of the Quran as it is read in Arabic cannot be replicated. There is no other book that has been memorized by millions of people. The easy to memorize, free flowing Surahs cannpt be replicated. Challengers have come and go. None have succeeded. in addition the Quran has talked about fascinating things that scientists had not yet discovered including fomation of embryo in the womb of the mother (surah 98); deep seas partitions; waters that do not mix; clouds and how they make rain and how lightning is caused by ice crystals; formation of the earth's mountains deep underground; orbits of planets and stars and moons - and even the mention of space travel (surah 55:33).


And i would like to know something. You guys say that monkeys evolved into humans over time (something to do with a common ancestor as i understand). Do you wanna explain how they became smarter? Do you wanna explain how they started talking? How did they form a language? I'm awware animals communicate, but noowhere near the level that we do. Why haven't other animals become as smart as us? Dolphins are incredibly smart for an animal, yet they can't speak a language like we can, and they haven't evolved into anything that is as smart as us either....

The Verminator wrote:

free_cat wrote:

The Verminator wrote:Sorry for double post but i wanted to say, i think they make very good points about intremediates. If they were in a continual state of evolution, you would see some progression in some fossils.

And you do: any fossil, any organism, is an intermediate of a future organism. Evolution works at a very slow speed, and fosils are scarce. However, there are some lines of evolution well documented with fossils. Haven't you seen the fosil record of horses for instances? There are lots of intermediate fossils and fosils of species that disappeared that shows a huge picture of horse evolution.

Where is the intermediate of a giraffe? That's what i wanna know. If the fossils of dinosaurs can be found then surely the fossils of an intermediate of a giraffe can too. I wanna take a look at these horse fossils though. I might take a look at it.....

che wrote:

The Verminator wrote:I got a few paragraphs from a few different websites regarding evolution. Let me know why you guys disagree with this....

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.

that's like saying i've only got pictures of me sober and me drunk, not of me actually drinking from a bottle, therefore i was never drinking, it's just not conclusive enough

finally, do yourself a favour and read "the greatest show on earth" by dawkins, you'll be amazed how easily all this crap you just posted is disproved

Very different scenarios. It is a well established fact, that drinking gets you drunk. You're saying Monkeys shared a common ancestor to humans and then evolution occured and now monkeys have evolved into humans. This is not 100% proven as a fact. As of right now, that's a belief. If you want to prove it you gotta have intermediate fossils of whatever it is that was not fully human and not fully monkey.

I didn't reply to the rest of your post because like i said it was copy and pasted from another website so i just wanted to see what you guys had to say about it.

Adit wrote:

The Verminator wrote:

•MilanDevil• wrote:In addition, for all of those who are interested, the Quran has a challenge, it challenges humanity to produce a book like itself, until now, no one has succeeded.

Yea exactly. It's been ages since this challenge was set. But not one person has created anything like it. And i'm very sure that there are tons of people out there who are willing to disprove Islam once and for all...

You sure?

Have you read Vedas? Bible? Bhagavatgheetha? confusionism?

what exactly makes Quran superior to those and vice versa?

The Quran is from the word of God. The bible is from a bunch of authors as i understand it. The beauty of the Quran as it is read in Arabic cannot be replicated. There is no other book that has been memorized by millions of people. The easy to memorize, free flowing Surahs cannpt be replicated. Challengers have come and go. None have succeeded. in addition the Quran has talked about fascinating things that scientists had not yet discovered including fomation of embryo in the womb of the mother (surah 98); deep seas partitions; waters that do not mix; clouds and how they make rain and how lightning is caused by ice crystals; formation of the earth's mountains deep underground; orbits of planets and stars and moons - and even the mention of space travel (surah 55:33).


And i would like to know something. You guys say that monkeys evolved into humans over time (something to do with a common ancestor as i understand). Do you wanna explain how they became smarter? Do you wanna explain how they started talking? How did they form a language? I'm awware animals communicate, but noowhere near the level that we do. Why haven't other animals become as smart as us? Dolphins are incredibly smart for an animal, yet they can't speak a language like we can, and they haven't evolved into anything that is as smart as us either....

You really do not understand evolution or how natural selection works. Please before writing such things, look back, do some research, understand what you are talking about, and write.
Not trying to be mean but my 13 year old cousin understands evolution better than you.

Yup i clearly got some research to do. I was thinking about not posting because i don't understand evolution because i never had a reason to research it. But i thought i'd ask these questions because they genuinely baffled me.

The Verminator wrote:Yup i clearly got some research to do. I was thinking about not posting because i don't understand evolution because i never had a reason to research it. But i thought i'd ask these questions because they genuinely baffled me.

I can tell that you are on the right track atleast. You can always watch some documentaries by BBC regarding this subject, it will be worth you time.

Btw, Verminator, there are tons of intermediate fossils between our Ape common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Gorillas:Austrolopitecus, Homo Abilis, Homo Erectus(extinct), Homo mauritanicus, homo rodensiensis, and finally us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

You can see how this fossiles are going from more ape to more human quite clearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution