Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Cruorem_Deus

Member
  • Content count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cruorem_Deus

  1. Your blatent quote mining and dishonesty sickens me. He didn't say that he believes that Aliens created us, he said that it's just as likely as God creating us, neither of them have any evidence to support them, and that disproving evolution could just as easily mean that aliens created us as Allah or God. Push your little agenda as much as you like, but being dishonest will get you nowhere.
  2. Firstly, "Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism" is nonsense. It's neither shamanistic or a religion, it's a scientific theory, also referred to by virtually all biologists as the unifying theory of biology. Secondly, it's not called "Darwinism", that's like calling the theory of general relativity "Einsteinism", or germ theory "Pasteurism.", it's ridiculous. Ok, let's go through some of this, then. No it doesn't. Spontaneous generation was refuted some 400 years ago, before Darwin was even born. Try to keep up. ------------------------------ Not only do you contradict yourself by saying it can't happen, then that there's a chance it cam happen (1 in 10,950 is not 0.), but you've made so many mistakes here. 1) Evolution doesn't claim "life arose by chance.". 2) Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. 3) Abiogenesis doesn't claim "life arose by chance.". 4) 1 in 10,950? How did you get those numbers? I have a suspicion you pulled them out of your rectal cavity. You fail at intellectual honesty. Seriously are all these going to be half-baked strawmen? ----------------------------- At last, something accurate. Well, except for the "Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism" part. All modern species did indeed descend from earlier, more primitive ancestors. ----------------------------- Really? Because it's been observed time and time again. Populations adapting through genetic mutations has been very well documented. But then if you took 5 minutes and actually bothered to research "Observed speciation examples" instead of regurgitating nonsensical PRATTs (Points refuted a thousand times), then you'd know that speciation has been observed by modern science, and modern science in no way claims "species cannot descend from one another.). Fail. ---------------------------- That they do. ---------------------------- You're right, no single fossil shows any signs of transition from one species to the next. To see this transition, we need to look at OTHER FOSSILS AS WELL. How can we see transition from one species to the next with only one single fossil? Of course, we can't. We need to compare it to other fossils. Either way: Ardipithicus. Australopithicus Afarensis. Homo Habilis. Homo Erectus. Homo Heidelbergensis. Pakicetus. Ambulocetus. Remingtonocetus. Protocetus. Durodon. Just a couple of well known examples to show everyone who bothers reading this how wrong you are. ------------------------ Accurate, again. ------------------------ Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They do cause species to diversify, and we know this BECAUSE WE HAVE OBSERVED IT UNDER CONTROLLED LABRORITORY CONDITIONS. Hang on, let me copy-paste what I said earlier. " if you took 5 minutes and actually bothered to research "Observed speciation examples" instead of regurgitating nonsensical PRATTs (Points refuted a thousand times), then you'd know that speciation has been observed by modern science," ----------------------- Almost, we're descended from apes. "Not ape-like creatures". ---------------------- Wrong again. We are still taxinomically classed as apes - just as lions, tigers and tabby cats are all classed as felines. Dispite physical similarities such as: Sharing ERV markers. The chromosomal fusion in Human Chromosome #2 being made of two chromosomes found in all other chimps, as evidenced by two sets of centromeres and telomeres? These two genetic traits can ONLY occur through common descent. --------------------------------------- Finally! You got something completely correct! Natural selection can't cause things to evolve or give rise to new life forms, but then, no one's saying it can. Natural selection, along with artificial selection and sexual selection, is a selective process - it selects which paths of evolution are better suited to survive. It doesn't cause evolution, all it does is remove the "random" part you creationists seem so obsessed with. Natural selection uses the environment to determine what mutations survive and what mutations die, completely removing the random element. What causes evolution and speciation is genetic mutation.
  3. 'sup?

    Hey... um.... Not much to say, really. Play 40k, listen to metal, drink a lot, play guitar (badly)... 'sabout it.
  4. Ok, here I ask the question in the title. One reason at a time, and I'll attempt to provide refutations or reasons why that reason is innacurate, or why it's wrong. A few requests: 1) No strawmen. No saying things like "Because evolution says we came from a rock.", or "Because evolution says dogs can give birth to cats.", because that's not what evolution says. 2) No "Evolution doesn't explain the meaning/origin of life!" because evolution isn't supposed to explain that, evolution deals with life AFTER it formed, and how it has changed AFTER it began. The theory of evolution does not include the origin of life - only what happens to it after. 3) No "Because the Qu'Ran/Bible/Torah says Allah/God made everything as it is!" or anything along those lines, no using any holy books. We're looking at observable, empirical evidence here, not religious faith. Belief in things without evidence is blind and has no place in scientific discussion. Aside from those, fire away. :sl:
  5. Science And The Quran

    If this is accurate, then why wasn't the Qu'Ran used to discover this? It's all very well saying "The Qu'Ran said this!" retroactively, but if there is scientific accuracy in the Qu'Ran, then why does it take independent discovery? What I'm getting at is, if there's scientific accuracy in the Qu'Ran, then why isn't the Qu'Ran helping make new scientific discoveries? I mean, the Mayans knew about the orbit of Venus around the Sun long before anyone else, and they attributed it to their gods (Venus was worshipped as a god.), they claimed that the knowledge of Venus was given to them by their gods, and built whole buildings to observe it, but you wouldn't claim the Mayan gods imparted scientific knowledge onto them, would you?
  6. Help Me Prove This Evolution Theory Wrong

    Doesn't seem to understand thermodynamics, either. The 2nd law doesn't state that " Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly.", it states that all energy in a closed system will transfer energy to reach an equilibrium. >_< Nothing to do with order, or being left alone, or any of that nonsense.
  7. Proving Evolution Wrong.

    Or not - if Earth was a closed system, then yeah, it would work. But it's not. You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. You see that big burning ball of hydrogen and helium in the sky? Well, the energy that it gives off is diffused onto our little rock. Imagine there's two gas tanks, one is more pressurised than the other. Link them together and according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the energy in the one that has a higher pressure (And more energy) will transfer pressure (or energy) to the other one until they both reach a state of equilibrium (Both have equal pressure/energy.). Ok, now think of the Sun, with all it's energy, as the more pressurised gas tank, it transfers some of its energy (As it dissipates.) to Earth (The less pressruised tank.). This is where life gets its energy from, and why life gets more complex as time goes on - because it has a massive supply of energy coming from the Sun to fuel it.
×