Atheism

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

Omg.

What is so hard to understand about evolution is a fact, explained by evolutionary theory.

Yes its been changed and built upon since darwin, the same way at first it was believed only DNA contained genetic material, but then we learned about RNA and viruses and proteins and prions. Does this prove Watson and cricks theory wrong.... NO.

How much simpler can one make it? It is so evident people don't even have a basic understanding of science here.

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

WTF. Insanity. Get off your high horse.

Disagreement is fine and accepted/expected. Swearing is not. In fact, swearing is indecent and shows that the person has lost arguments and reasons and hence retorting in such manner.

Try to avoid it. It's better for the discussion and the environment. God has also forbade us to use such language due to immorality such words represent.

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

W.e. bored uncle jee. Didn't swear at anyone. Stop twisting things.

[The_Jinx]

Re: Atheism

W.e. bored uncle jee. Didn't swear at anyone. Stop twisting things.

The use of the word that you exlaimed was indecent and part of swearing. Avoid using it and we have a good discussion.

[hareem01]

Re: Atheism

Omg.

What is so hard to understand about evolution is a fact, explained by evolutionary theory.

Yes its been changed and built upon since darwin, the same way at first it was believed only DNA contained genetic material, but then we learned about RNA and viruses and proteins and prions. Does this prove Watson and cricks theory wrong.... NO.

How much simpler can one make it? It is so evident people don't even have a basic understanding of science here.

In evolution's case and especially in case of human evolution, nothing has been proven so far. We know nothing about the origin of species for sure.

[hareem01]

Re: Atheism

@calypsodc

I think, the oldest fossil of a human ancestor found so far is *Ardipithecus ramidus. *the skeleton offers a window on what the last common ancestor of humans and living apes might have been like.
All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardipithecus ramidus’s feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees.
Her big toe, for instance, splays out from her foot like an ape’s, the better to grasp tree limbs. Unlike a chimpanzee foot, however, *Ardipithecus’*s contains a special small bone inside a tendon, passed down from more primitive ancestors, that keeps the divergent toe more rigid. Combined with modifications to the other toes, the bone would have helped Ardi walk bipedally on the ground, though less efficiently than later hominids like Lucy. The bone was lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.
According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape’s, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.
Even in the trees, Ardi was nothing like a modern ape. Modern chimps and gorillas have evolved limb anatomy specialized to climbing vertically up tree trunks, hanging and swinging from branches, and knuckle-walking on the ground.
While these behaviors require very rigid wrist bones, for instance, the wrists and finger joints of Ardipithecus were highly flexible. As a result Ardi would have walked on her palms as she moved about in the trees—more like some primitive fossil apes than like chimps and gorillas.

Meiosis in interspecific equine hybrids

Israeli rese… JPost - Health & Sci-Tech - Science & Environment

In Richard Leaky (an atheist)'s words,

" “If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.”

Same can happen to Ardi…in 10,20 years we might find out it’s a pygmy chimpanzee or something.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@yazdi

I could not stop laughing..

Your science discoveries are so convincing that it would be illegal to discuss them in science class room anywhere in civilized world. Hence the conspiracy theory. Your newly coined definition of atheist as a person who believes in evolution.. and now you want to change the opinion of all the world’s newly created Atheist (according to the recent definition by you) to change their opinion..

More you are posting, more you are getting exposed. You are like the priest who imprisoned Galileo.. you will eventually change the translation of scriptures as understood by literal religionist if you are slapped with evidence which will become impossible for you to defend. But you will remain a literal religionist..

The fact today is every scientist in the world who has any credibility recognizes evolution as a “fact”… It’s taught in every reputable educational institution in the world as a “fact”.. No matter you declare it a “conspiracy” or “belief”.. your views are illegal to be taught in science class rooms. The best possibility you have to propagate your views is in a madrassa or a theology class. Science community does not take people like you seriously. You can continue posting your non sense but with your logic and credentials you will not be able to change the position of the scientific community of the world that “evolution is a fact, explained by a theory.”…

The same old emotional arguments …

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

Why is it so that for centuries literal religionist like you read the scriptures and understood the universe to be geocentric. They declared Galileo a devil when he suggested otherwise. Suddenly they changed the translation-meaning of the scriptures when they could not defend their position any longer..

.. and voila.. now you found science in Quran which for centuries people who read the scripture could not find..

Peace yazdi

The Galileo comment I'm going to ignore it is meaningless in this discussion. However, I am not a religious literalist ... (I think that is what you meant ... Not literal religionist ... Because that too is meaningless) ... I am a follower of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ijma of scholars.

Regarding the Qur'an, the terms it uses make perfect sense to people in each age ... despite the concepts changing through time ... To a layman when it speaks of the path taken by the sun, they take it to mean something that had it been written more restrictively it would have been cause to fault the Qur'an, however, since the language used is both lucid enough to provide meaning, but at the same time general enough not to restrict how it is understood from common knowledge ... It makes the collective into a Book applicable in every age without fault.

What you have written above is nonsense.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

Evolution is a dogma ... A belief system ... If you don't believe me then let's compare Islam with Evolution with Electromagnetism and see which have more similarity Islam and Evolution or Evolution and Electromagnetism ...

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

List of organisms by chromosome count

Look at these various creatures chromosome count … All are even in number except the male wallaby… To suggest speciation occurs or to propose the idea that fertile hybrids are an explanation for evolution is ignoring the stark FACT that nature favours even number counts of chromosomes in most creatures.

The parents of most hybrids differ by a maximum of 2 chromosomes, many number the same amount.

To have transitional forms we would expect far more odd numbered creatures … It appears there are NO common ancestors living today … I mean how can there be they are ancestors for a reason … But likewise the animals living today cannot become common ancestors for another set of creatures in the future either. There are simply too many “assumed” common ancestors that do no exist in the fossil record … It works on paper … But why is it if we find a creature long extinct we call it a common ancestor. Is it done so we can’t possibly formulate a falsification test?

What aspect of evolution makes it so convenient that all of the ancestors that are a different species to their offspring are not alive today?

[chacha_Ghalib]

Re: Atheism

If there are people here who profess to a "science" - even if it is a true science, but cannot explain it - then that is BELIEF ... they trust MAN to be telling them such things as FACT. Conversely a true atheist needs to be a true scientist and leave nothing for chance - nothing for FAITH ... they need to be investigating everything until they arrive at the FACTS themselves ... and stop arguing on the basis that so many people of repute say such and such ... they are merely people of faith in other people if they do this ... !!!

And more importantly I intend to be as scientific as possible when it comes to the "science" of evolution or any other science.

At that rate, I believe in gravity, black holes, DNA and a million other things since I can't explain them. I rely on more knowledgeable people to explain them for me and tell me that they exist. None of these are science either I guess?

I see that you have quite a different standard for religious teachings. There you do rely on more knowledgeable people and take their word for stuff that you might not know. What gives?

[calypsodc]

Re: Atheism

@hareem01

Israeli rese… JPost - Health & Sci-Tech - Science & Environment

In Richard Leaky (an atheist)'s words,

" “If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.”

Same can happen to Ardi…in 10,20 years we might find out it’s a pygmy chimpanzee or something.

Good to know.

Now can you please elucidate the “theory” that you believe in ? How is it superior to what you call “evolution theory” ? Point by point explanation would be most helpful. I find creationism/Intelligent design nonsensical so please convince me otherwise.
Like Psyah said “My theory is better because it does not need so much complexity … It is a simple theory.”, I hope U r not trying to propogate something similar. I and a few like-minded individuals can band together and promote a new “theory” that planet Venus is made of cheese and pearl dust. How can anybody disprove it ? Has anybody set foot on Venus ? How do you even know I am not correct ? This is sounds exactly like what a few people here are trying to do . I remember a time when we studied about Niel Amrstrong and his moon landing in primary school and a couple of muslim kids tried to convince the class that Niel Armstrong and Co were not the first people on the moon since they had discovered human footprints there already which was made by their prophet who had undertaken this journey back in the 7th century. Ofcourse USA was covering up this fact :hoonh: . I was so impressed that I had told the parents who did not know whether to be mad or amused by this little gem of a fact. Honestly what is with people trying to justify their religion through science ?

[Ghost14]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

What aspect of evolution makes it so convenient that all of the ancestors that are a different species to their offspring are not alive today?

Natural selection. Evolution doesn't just happen, it is a response to the environment. You develop an immunity to chicken pox once you contract it, that's evolution. A strain of bacteria becomes resistant to a certain type of anti-biotic, and previous strains of said bacteria cease to exist and so on. These are all response to outside stimuli. It's not convenience that obsolete forms don't exist, it's inevitable.

[Southie]

Re: Atheism

Last sentence is priceless.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

At that rate, I believe in gravity, black holes, DNA and a million other things since I can't explain them. I rely on more knowledgeable people to explain them for me and tell me that they exist. None of these are science either I guess?

I see that you have quite a different standard for religious teachings. There you do rely on more knowledgeable people and take their word for stuff that you might not know. What gives?

chacha_Ghalib ... These are things that can be checked up by other scientists. We use the models and parameters in the hypotheses of the pioneering scientists to arrive at the same conclusions ... But with evolution we have a long way to go regarding being able to reproduce an experiment to test the argument.

The scientists involved in this pushing are expecting the others to accept it wholesale without cross-examination ... My standard for my belief system is that it is my belief system ... All I want the evolutionists to admit is that evolution is a dogma and not a science in the sense that it is falsifiable and/or testable.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@Ghost14

Natural selection. Evolution doesn’t just happen, it is a response to the environment. You develop an immunity to chicken pox once you contract it, that’s evolution. A strain of bacteria becomes resistant to a certain type of anti-biotic, and previous strains of said bacteria cease to exist and so on. These are all response to outside stimuli. It’s not convenience that obsolete forms don’t exist, it’s inevitable.

Ghost14 … You think I don’t know the theory? I’m not refuting it … I merely want the supporters of it to accept it is a belief system. Like this immunity to chicken pox … Evolution huh? … OMG … So are you saying that my children will be immune to chicken pox, because I became immune to it? Evolution works across generations not within the lifetime of an organism ..

This ignorance is beginning to annoy me …

When will a particular strain of bacteria through its resistance become a form of other organism? That is the question I am asking …

@Southie

Last sentence is priceless.

**It’s not convenience that obsolete forms don’t exist, it’s inevitable? **You think this is a priceless statement? It’s a worthless statement …

Here is why … The convenience I was alluding to was the convenience in the argument being raised by the evolutionist … Not genetic convenience … So his play on words is simply misplaced. He refers to obsolete forms … But this presupposes that the forms were even there to begin with making them obsolete. Lastly he missed the essence of the question … Which was that if one creature can become the ancestor of two separate creatures … Then it can also continue to remain a creature in its own right … What mechanism is it that brings the parent creature to an end when it’s genetically different offspring appear?

He made a profoundly nonesensical response and you followed him in it …

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

sub apko pata hai. :)

yet you ignore the basic arguments of people who are more knowledgeable than you on the subject matter. You keep on posting about what you feel like. You so easily ignore posts when they make sense.

Everything doesnt happen the way it seems in your head.

Again, go out. do experimentation. publish. until then, learn to accept that people have spent years on their research and have contributed to science. unlike you.

[Southie]

Re: Atheism

Bhai Psyah - the discussion in general was over my head. I had not read all the previous posts closely nor did I fully understand all of them. The last sentence just caught my attention.

[psyah]

Re: Atheism

@philosophy

sub apko pata hai.

yet you ignore the basic arguments of people who are more knowledgeable than you on the subject matter. You keep on posting about what you feel like. You so easily ignore posts when they make sense.

Everything doesnt happen the way it seems in your head.

Again, go out. do experimentation. publish. until then, learn to accept that people have spent years on their research and have contributed to science. unlike you.

… Science please …

[Krypton]

Re: Atheism

@psyah

The same old emotional arguments …

no. he made a lot of sense. don’t have a sensible reply?