Removed!
Some more science for MickyG.
- Thread starter Homesafe
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Removed!
L
Lincsbodger
unfortunately, theres no supporting proof for the theorem provided, or contact info, which university did this Professor Allah work at ? Also I can find no reference to a Mr Lord, whom you claim is the publisher.
No no Newgas this is where you have misunderstood what NS is.
There are mutations in EVERY generation, (this is why no offspring ever looks exactly like their parents) but if the mutation has an advantage which allows them to breed better, this mutation is normally passed on.
For example, a giraffe might have 2 offspring, one with a longer neck, one with a smaller neck...the one with the longer neck has access to more food up the tree allowing them the advantage if food was every scarce. Therefore they are more likely to have children. The mutations are completely random, but they are all vetted by surviving.
Mutations do happen all the time, most are not helpful so therefore do not increase the chance of breeding better...a few are helpful so they breed better meaning in the next generation there are more individuals with this trait, which may end up becoming the 'norm'.
What 'missing link'? I am saying there are fossils, so I will have no idea what you mean by 'missing link'...from Plants to animals? From fish to amphibians? From Amphibians to Reptiles(birds)? From Reptiles to mammals? What fossil are you 'missing'?
There are no such things as too complicated for NS. Given billions of years of tickering per generation, you can come up with some fantastic things, and as long as they are beneficial, they will exist.
With the moth, it wasn't a good guess, he realised that in order for a plant to be able to breed, being that it's pollen was a foot down a flower tube, was that there was a creature (likely a moth as most other flowers in the region are pollinated this way) would have the means to do this.
Darwin saw through the charade of Religion and God when he realised that God wasn't needed for science to explain almost everything for him...and as there was no proof, no need and trying to crowbar a God into a system that has no need for him would be difficult and pointless. The fact that he saw his daughter die of an illness brought home the godlessness of the planet.
Anything and everything that resembles 'science' in the Koran is due to Greco influence. The greeks knew all the things you are claiming to be modern knowledge only known by the Koran and traded and lived amongst the Arabian tribes so all of the greeks teachings were pretty common knowledge.
As an example, give me a 'modern science' passage in the Koran and I will find a Greek source of this information at least 200 years older than the Koran.
There are mutations in EVERY generation, (this is why no offspring ever looks exactly like their parents) but if the mutation has an advantage which allows them to breed better, this mutation is normally passed on.
For example, a giraffe might have 2 offspring, one with a longer neck, one with a smaller neck...the one with the longer neck has access to more food up the tree allowing them the advantage if food was every scarce. Therefore they are more likely to have children. The mutations are completely random, but they are all vetted by surviving.
Mutations do happen all the time, most are not helpful so therefore do not increase the chance of breeding better...a few are helpful so they breed better meaning in the next generation there are more individuals with this trait, which may end up becoming the 'norm'.
What 'missing link'? I am saying there are fossils, so I will have no idea what you mean by 'missing link'...from Plants to animals? From fish to amphibians? From Amphibians to Reptiles(birds)? From Reptiles to mammals? What fossil are you 'missing'?
There are no such things as too complicated for NS. Given billions of years of tickering per generation, you can come up with some fantastic things, and as long as they are beneficial, they will exist.
With the moth, it wasn't a good guess, he realised that in order for a plant to be able to breed, being that it's pollen was a foot down a flower tube, was that there was a creature (likely a moth as most other flowers in the region are pollinated this way) would have the means to do this.
Darwin saw through the charade of Religion and God when he realised that God wasn't needed for science to explain almost everything for him...and as there was no proof, no need and trying to crowbar a God into a system that has no need for him would be difficult and pointless. The fact that he saw his daughter die of an illness brought home the godlessness of the planet.
Anything and everything that resembles 'science' in the Koran is due to Greco influence. The greeks knew all the things you are claiming to be modern knowledge only known by the Koran and traded and lived amongst the Arabian tribes so all of the greeks teachings were pretty common knowledge.
As an example, give me a 'modern science' passage in the Koran and I will find a Greek source of this information at least 200 years older than the Koran.
Sponsored Links
Removed!
ignore!
This is where you have misunderstood, Darwin never said that only good mutations happened. He said that generally only good mutations get PASSED ON to the next generation...but mutations happen at ever stage for good or bad. This is at the core of Natural Selection.
I have no problem with people not believing in anything New, that is their right...but you seem to be disbeleiving in something which has nothing to do with NS.
I will answer any NS questions you have and if you still wish to disbelieve it, that is fair enough...but you have been 'taught' that it is incorrect it would seem...and seem to have been told lies about it in order to make it seem more unlikely.
While technically Humans are a type of Ape, so there would technically be no such thing as an ape to human fossil...(in the same way that there is no Dog to Pitbull 'link') i still know what you mean. Ok,
..To name but a few, Ardipithecus (this is thought to be roughly where chimps and humans started evolving apart), Australopithecus, then Homo Habilis...Erectus, Sapiens..there are more, but lets widen it a bit.
Pikaia gracilens is a good invertabrate to fish transitional fossil..
The fact that Whales still have evidence of legs is also a bit of a give away...along with all the aqua mammals having lungs...
These fossils are everywhere and a lot of creatures are alive today that seem to be changing. For example.. Penguins..these are birds, that cannot fly, but swim underwater for a long period of time. These, are well on their way to evolving from a bird (which flys) to a dolphin like hybrid.
With Homochirality/Chiral discrimination. (this is the complexity I spoke about, how everything can be accounted for by step by step changes over billions of years).
Neither you or I are chemists, so you are getting your information from elsewhere, as am I. You sources are telling you that this is proof of creation, my sources are telling me this fits in perfectly with evolution. So this particular topic we haven't got anything for ourselves to know if it is right or wrong.
We have to trust our sources..and considering my sources include the founder of this field, i would say that mine are more trust worthy than religious people LOOKING for creation. For example I could tell you this is easily explainable using the hurendium theory on molecular expanationism...and you would have no idea if i was telling the truth. (I made 'hurendium theory on molecular expanationationism' up so don't spend time looking it up
).
With the Moth thing, he wasn't claiming to have seers powers, but the evidence and his theory pointed towards a creature like the one found after his death.
Like, if we say a human foot print and another and another going in one direction...it wouldn't require unseen knowledge to know that someone walked in that direction at some point.
I have no problem with people not believing in anything New, that is their right...but you seem to be disbeleiving in something which has nothing to do with NS.
I will answer any NS questions you have and if you still wish to disbelieve it, that is fair enough...but you have been 'taught' that it is incorrect it would seem...and seem to have been told lies about it in order to make it seem more unlikely.
While technically Humans are a type of Ape, so there would technically be no such thing as an ape to human fossil...(in the same way that there is no Dog to Pitbull 'link') i still know what you mean. Ok,
..To name but a few, Ardipithecus (this is thought to be roughly where chimps and humans started evolving apart), Australopithecus, then Homo Habilis...Erectus, Sapiens..there are more, but lets widen it a bit.
Pikaia gracilens is a good invertabrate to fish transitional fossil..
The fact that Whales still have evidence of legs is also a bit of a give away...along with all the aqua mammals having lungs...
These fossils are everywhere and a lot of creatures are alive today that seem to be changing. For example.. Penguins..these are birds, that cannot fly, but swim underwater for a long period of time. These, are well on their way to evolving from a bird (which flys) to a dolphin like hybrid.
With Homochirality/Chiral discrimination. (this is the complexity I spoke about, how everything can be accounted for by step by step changes over billions of years).
Neither you or I are chemists, so you are getting your information from elsewhere, as am I. You sources are telling you that this is proof of creation, my sources are telling me this fits in perfectly with evolution. So this particular topic we haven't got anything for ourselves to know if it is right or wrong.
We have to trust our sources..and considering my sources include the founder of this field, i would say that mine are more trust worthy than religious people LOOKING for creation. For example I could tell you this is easily explainable using the hurendium theory on molecular expanationism...and you would have no idea if i was telling the truth. (I made 'hurendium theory on molecular expanationationism' up so don't spend time looking it up
).With the Moth thing, he wasn't claiming to have seers powers, but the evidence and his theory pointed towards a creature like the one found after his death.
Like, if we say a human foot print and another and another going in one direction...it wouldn't require unseen knowledge to know that someone walked in that direction at some point.
Now, back on a subject I feel much more home on.
Embrology in the Quran consists of
Many many many passages saying that God made us out of dust...not true.
Many many passages saying that we were formed from a clot of blood...not true.
Many passangers saying that we come from 'nutfah'..semen.
This is true...but was VERY VERY common knowledge.
Hippocrates, wrote extensively on this subject 1000 years before the Quaran. Interestingly, the same mistakes are made in his work, as are in the Quaran (that sperm comes from somewhere near the kidneys and not the testicles).
I am in no way saying that the writers of the Quran were 'stealing' the knowledge. If i wrote about E=mc2 in a paper I would not be pretending to have come up with it, but the knowledge does not suggest a divine author. Infact given the errors mirrored from common knowledge of the day, it would suggest that it was written by someone educated in the 500-700AD ish.
Caliph Uthman changed the quran by bounding together all books in the quran and translating some of them to Quraish.
Hadith 201:Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started to search for the Quranic material and to collect it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart)."
So ...you think there is NO chance it could be changed?
That is your belief, you are entitled to it, but beliefs are not proof of anything.
Embrology in the Quran consists of
Many many many passages saying that God made us out of dust...not true.
Many many passages saying that we were formed from a clot of blood...not true.
Many passangers saying that we come from 'nutfah'..semen.
This is true...but was VERY VERY common knowledge.
Hippocrates, wrote extensively on this subject 1000 years before the Quaran. Interestingly, the same mistakes are made in his work, as are in the Quaran (that sperm comes from somewhere near the kidneys and not the testicles).
I am in no way saying that the writers of the Quran were 'stealing' the knowledge. If i wrote about E=mc2 in a paper I would not be pretending to have come up with it, but the knowledge does not suggest a divine author. Infact given the errors mirrored from common knowledge of the day, it would suggest that it was written by someone educated in the 500-700AD ish.
Caliph Uthman changed the quran by bounding together all books in the quran and translating some of them to Quraish.
Hadith 201:Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started to search for the Quranic material and to collect it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart)."
So ...you think there is NO chance it could be changed?
That is your belief, you are entitled to it, but beliefs are not proof of anything.
Creationalists will always find missing links. In fact, for every missing link found by the scientific community, creationalists will find two more, one either side of the link that was just discovered
ignore!
ignore!
A
alsheating
I must have been several different breeds or species of human in the last 10 years with all the different styles I have had
according to skitzee
A
alsheating
Skitz and all athiests are already half muslim
They just dont know it yet and are still wondering about it, to become muslim you have to declare the shahada
la ilaha il Allah
No God Except Allah
Athiest have said their is "NO GOD" they just ned to finish the sentence.
They just dont know it yet and are still wondering about it, to become muslim you have to declare the shahada
la ilaha il Allah
No God Except Allah
Athiest have said their is "NO GOD" they just ned to finish the sentence.
I was referring to YOU, Newgas, when I said 'New'.
Quote:
I have no problem with people not believing in anything New(gas), that is their right...but you seem to be disbeleiving in something which has nothing to do with NS.
What you under misunderstanding is that there is no 'decision' to mutate. There is no intelligence involved in when the mutation happens. It is just a copying error. Some errors work out well and get passed on, others, not so well.
The 'not so well' errors, which are the majority, are what are responsible for a lot of the deformities and problems that people are born with have.
For example, if you have a painting and make a random change to it, 99% of the time it will be for the worse, so that is an example of a bad change. Every 1% though might be a good one.
Cells don't go "Hmm, you know what would be great, Barry-the-cell?"
"What's that Simon-the-cell?"
"Mitochondria!"
"Alright, let's get cracking!"
Mutattions are completely random.
Lucy and Ardi are not fakes, and the only place you will find these claims are on websites that tell you God created us in 6 days and we co-habitted with dinosaurs.
I meant the founder of the field in Homochirality/Chiral discrimination, not atheism. Atheism goes back thousands of years before Islam after all so of course 'he' would not know about it.
I would not lie to you, but all I meant is that without either of us having a full understanding of Homochirality/Chiral discrimination we would just be posting our diffferent sources without being able to answer counter arguments.
The moth example is a great example of hypothesis ( and later proof) using the theory of Natural selection.
My comments on the Koran are accurate. Do not forget theology is my thing.
The Koran is almost certainly not the original.
Embrology in the Koran consists of recycled Greek knowledge from 1000 years earlier. The Koran also mentions 'atoms' in a loose way, which people also point at and say "This is proof! How could they have known??!" ...neatly glossing over the fact that the word Atom comes from the greek word 'Atomos', coined in around 500BC by Leucippus for the material which everything is made of.
As I have said, you are entitled to your belief, but I will not sit back and tolerate scientific falsehood go unanswered.
Your teachers have kept a wonder mind opener from you by not teaching your NS properly, as you haven't even been told the main processes.
Quote:
I have no problem with people not believing in anything New(gas), that is their right...but you seem to be disbeleiving in something which has nothing to do with NS.
What you under misunderstanding is that there is no 'decision' to mutate. There is no intelligence involved in when the mutation happens. It is just a copying error. Some errors work out well and get passed on, others, not so well.
The 'not so well' errors, which are the majority, are what are responsible for a lot of the deformities and problems that people are born with have.
For example, if you have a painting and make a random change to it, 99% of the time it will be for the worse, so that is an example of a bad change. Every 1% though might be a good one.
Cells don't go "Hmm, you know what would be great, Barry-the-cell?"
"What's that Simon-the-cell?"
"Mitochondria!"
"Alright, let's get cracking!"
Mutattions are completely random.
Lucy and Ardi are not fakes, and the only place you will find these claims are on websites that tell you God created us in 6 days and we co-habitted with dinosaurs.
I meant the founder of the field in Homochirality/Chiral discrimination, not atheism. Atheism goes back thousands of years before Islam after all so of course 'he' would not know about it.
I would not lie to you, but all I meant is that without either of us having a full understanding of Homochirality/Chiral discrimination we would just be posting our diffferent sources without being able to answer counter arguments.
The moth example is a great example of hypothesis ( and later proof) using the theory of Natural selection.
My comments on the Koran are accurate. Do not forget theology is my thing.
The Koran is almost certainly not the original.
Embrology in the Koran consists of recycled Greek knowledge from 1000 years earlier. The Koran also mentions 'atoms' in a loose way, which people also point at and say "This is proof! How could they have known??!" ...neatly glossing over the fact that the word Atom comes from the greek word 'Atomos', coined in around 500BC by Leucippus for the material which everything is made of.
As I have said, you are entitled to your belief, but I will not sit back and tolerate scientific falsehood go unanswered.
Your teachers have kept a wonder mind opener from you by not teaching your NS properly, as you haven't even been told the main processes.
don't worry mate, give it another hundred years when the religions have all but died off and finally accepted the overwhelming evidence against it they'll be saying:
No God, no really, there's no god
Sponsored Links
