sickmusic

nope not on my own nope I do not have a brainwasher I look into religion and science, and use a variety of sources.. I like reading, I like thinking, simple as.

chat soon.

leave out the brainwash insults, is there any need to make it personal?

I could say the same about the silly theories fed into you.. There is no need

must dash though, and will address the cartoons, and everybody elses points I have not managed to answer very soon. peace.

sorry I have been busy 'programming' recently so havent had a chance to read your replies..

just catching up on someof the replies.. as there have been so many i will try to answer as many as i can, and come back to answer the rest as I've really gotta get this bit of programming done..

Fossils

They are extremely helpful but not required. You can demonstrate evolution using changes in allele frequencies over time using only DNA evidence from modern lifeforms.

of course they are required as being used as 'one of the' 'evidences' by evolutionaries..

What we see isn't exactly demonstrative of "code resuse," it's structures which served one function being dramatically and somewhat non-sensically retooled into an entirely different purpose. For example, three jawbones present in reptiles shrank dramatically in mammals and turned into the bones of the inner ear. Why would a "intelligent designer" try to repurpose bones into an entirely different, unrelated problem domain? From a programmer's perspective that would be like trying to write a word processor starting with the codebase of a spreadsheet, the problem domains are completely different so code reuse doesn't make sense, and you'll spend a lot of time frustrated trying to force code which was designed to do one thing to do something completely different and unrelated. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless the process doing the "designing" is mechanical, unintelligent, and has all the time in the world.

'Assuming' that, the structures share similar DNA - as originally the theory was put forward from observations of Therapsida... I believe you have answered your questions yourself. The reptile Jaw and Mammal ear theory is a classic one used by evolutionaries. I think it was in the National Academy of Sciences booklet that stated this theory. I believe it was under the chapter called 'Common Structures'.

Since they look the same, then from an OO programmers point of view code re-use would be the most efficient way of programming. Your argument on it being 'unintelligent' unfortunatly does not fit very well. A divine being to reuse code at that level demonstrates how powerful He is.

nevertheless, the alleged evolution of reptiles into mammals is a matter that contains several major difficulties for evolutionists. the fact that two mammal bones resemble certain bones in reptiles does not resolve the issue.

many questions remain unanswered. for example,

- how did jaw bones "migrate" to such an irreducibly complex organ as the ear, as a result of mutations?

- how did these mutations manage to shrink the two jaw bones, cause them to have them the ideal shape and dimensions, and form muscles around them?

- how did random changes build a perfect balance in the middle ear? And, finally, how did the animal manage to hear and eat while all this was going on?

All of these questions remain unanswered. Evolutionists are unable to answer them, because any one of them is sufficient to undermine the myth of the evolution of reptiles into mammals.

fossils of creatures belonging to the order Therapsida cannot substantiate the evolutionists' claims.

first and foremost, therapsid fossils do not appear in the fossil record in the sequence expected by Darwinism... for the evolutionists' claims to be true, therapsid fossils would need to appear in order in the strata from the most reptile-like to the most mammal-like, with respect to jaw features. yet, this order does not appear in the fossil record..

in his book Darwin On Trial, the famous critic of Darwinism Phillip Johnson makes this comment on the subject:

An artificial line of descent [between reptiles and mammals] can be constructed, but only by arbitrarily mixing specimens from different subgroups, and by arranging them out of their actual chronological sequence.

No it is not fact..

what fossils? - like i said in my other post.. there have been over 30 t-rex fossil discoveries but not one fossil discovery that proves mans common ancestory with ape.

science without religion is lame.. investigating Gods creation by denying that God created it, wont get u anywhere.. ur investigation is flawed from the beginning.

Then perhaps they need to re-evalutate their knowledge of god' date=' to a form that isn't inconsistent with known facts.

[/quote']

Well according to most religions.. known facts support their religion.

 

You mean the same way the head of geograph aggressively tries to convince you that the earth is round?

according to all religions the world is round.

 

There's no "convincing". It's a fact that some are too willfully ignorant to accept.

 

Neither does it mention plate tectonics. Shall we crusade against the infidels of geology next?

Mokele

 

it goes both ways.. to say man shares ancestors with monkeys is not based on fact.. its belief.. according to many; 'false beliefs'.. yep ignorance does go both ways here.

 

now i don't see how the crusades has any relevance to geology,.. thats an extreme view of God in the science class.

 

science offers a method by which the universe, and all the beings therein, may be examined to discover the artistry in God's creation,.. thereby communicating it to mankind. Religion, therefore, encourages science, adopting it as a tool by which to study the subtleties of God's creation...

 

scientific investigations without the consciousness of a God, who created matter and organised it as we perceive it is a waste of time and resources.

therefore natural selection cannot be the programmer? determiner?..

so what does genetically programmed in dawkins context actually mean? u know what forget it.. :-|.. ur right.. its nothing to do with evolution.. dawkins just got his words muddled up..?

Naturally selection is the "programmer". Satisfied?

 

However' date=' consider this: "genetically programmed" is an equivalent phrase to "genetically predisposed" which is also equivalent to the phrase "genetically determined", you agree with that much dont you? Now, when you overliteralize the phrase "programmed" to deduce that there must be a "programmer", you cannot overliteralize the phrase "predisposed" to deduce a similarly equivalent "predisposer" without sounding silly (likewise, you cannot use "determined" to deduce a "determiner"). So, given that the phrases are equivalent but you cant treat them equivalently reveals a problem: either the phrases are not equivalent in the first place, or perhaps the overliteralized account of the phrases effectively takes them out of a context? I think we both might agree on the latter.[/quote']

 

lol,, thanks for that.. okay without getting into a debate on english.. ur more clued up on dawkins work than me, ill accept your point regarding the context..

 

except for the naturally selection to be the programmer??.. hmm.. so now its survival of the fittest? but doesn't the theory of a species surviving by keeping the desirable genetic qualities and losing the undesirable ones happen as they go along.. or can genes/or an invisible force called natural selection see into the future to predetermine whats going to be desirable and whats not?

 

sorry my limited understanding again.. i need to clear this in my head.. and also for something to be predetermined.. im trying not to overliteralize, but predetermined by what? or predisposed by what? if by nothing.. and it happens to happen by chance, then it is not predetermined, predisposed or programmed? is it?

Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

-- Richard Dawkins' date=' The Selfish Gene[/i']

"It may just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically programmed to be altruistic."

-- Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 3

dawkins speaks constantly of creatures being programmed and analyzes their behavior based on this idea..

but he can't answer questions about who did the programming, how creatures were programmed and what the purpose of this programming is..

according to dawkins, there is a program of which the programmer is unknown. if someone asked Dawkins, and those who share his mindset, who created the program?, they would probably reply-to perpetuate the darwinist spell-that it's a "miracle of nature.".. ho ho ho

First, this is completely irrelevant. We don't need fossils to demonstrate the common ancestry of man and apes, because we have an immaculately preserved history in the form of our genes. You'll want to take a look at this thread for a detailed analysis of human common ancestry as evidenced by genetic similarities:

of course you need fossils.. not only are there lack of fossils of transional forms regarding man and ape, there hasn't really been any 'reliable' discoveries of transitional forms of any other species..

again, my limited understanding.. this time of the genetic similarities argument for evolution..? - i fail to grasp how it proves they have common ancestors? you don't have to go to the genetic level to state man and ape share characteristics.. is it not apparant just by looking at them..? we both have two eyes, we taste, smell.. etc etc? genetic coding are mere programming elements for functions the species can perform?.. it makes sense from a creationists/programmers point of view to re-use code.. hence is a standard practice amongst OO programmers.

hey we might as well go into the atomic level and say a man has hydrogen atoms in his body, so has the sun.. therefore they share the same ancestors.

Secondly, there are a large number of fossils which allow us to trace the evolution of man. I suggest you pick up Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale if you'd like to read a detailed account of these. They are too numerous for me to look up and list here (although I'm sure upon request, someone will if you continue to question their existence)

I've not managed to pick it up yet.. but a few examples that i've managed to find of the web have been put forward by dawkins as unreliable evidences, obviously we can discuss each one of them in its own debate.. but the fact that massive assumptions have been made on the legitimacy of the fossils used to support dawkins theory negate 'The ancestors tale' as proof of evolution.

They show an overall trend of an increase in brain size, starting at the size of our common ancestor with chimps and gradually growing to its present size (or larger, in the case of Neanderthals) We also see changes in the shape of skulls that show a gradual transition from an ape-like to a man-like configuration.

hmm.. for more than a century now, evolutionists have been claiming that there was an increase in brain volume during the imaginary human evolution process.. they also relate the myth that during this fictitious process human beings acquired the intellect and powers of creativity and speech they possess in parallel to the growth in brain volume. absolutely none of these tales is of any scientific value..

with the discovery of H. floresiensis, the myth that human intelligence emerged together with increase in brain volume has become even less credible than ever.. That is because H. floresiensis, with a brain volume no larger than that of a chimpanzee, exhibits behaviour no different to that of a large-brained human being, thus proving that human intelligence and mental ability are not proportional to brain volume..

Regarding the neanderthal, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis ) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.

neanderthals were a human race,.. a fact which is admitted by almost everybody today.. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as a "primitive species," yet all the findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today.. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University, writes:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.

Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals"

Just because you've never bothered to research these fossils doesn't mean they don't exist. They most certainly do, they are numerous, and they fully corroborate evolution.

Do they?

Thats the problem amongst the evolutionarist's they rely too much on assumptions. Okay admittedly I'm no expert, but ur wrong in assuming i've not researched it..

fiction..

fossil records??

From my limited understanding of the earths history Dinosaurs existed before man?

Then how comes there have been over 30 T-rex fossil discoveries, but not one 'reliable' species that suggests man and ape share the same ancestors?

surely they would be higher up in the earths crust?

creationism, evolution, and religions that are 'of intrest' to the pupils should be taught..

those who say God should be left out of the science room as evolution does not deny the existence of God, I disagree with.. its not about denying his existence.. Evolution to many denies the existence of God 'as they know him' (i.e. through scriptures).

I'll give an example.. When I studied science, our head of science at school aggressively tried to convince us that man and ape shared the same ancestor..

Now that rang alarm bells in the heads of the Muslims and Christians in the class,.. as it should.. We've been bought up to believe that God made Man from clay.. the scriptures go into a fair amount of detail on the sequence of events that occured in Gods creation of the Humans and their legacy on planet Earth.

Nowhere in the scriptures does God mention Adams bretheren King kong..

As I'm a Muslim, Living in the UK.. its a bit more difficult.

Islam is a Religion as well as a Nation, where the defenition of nation I am using has nothing to do with Race, Colour, or status..

I am also British, and abide by British Law as I dont always agree to it, but I have respect for it.

First and foremost I must respect my Religious Laws - as the set of Religious laws I have to follow will have a greater impact on my future.. after I die basically.

I will also follow British law as long as it does not force me to compromise on my Religious Laws.

Thats one of the reasons I totally Respect British Law, as it allows Muslims to get on with their everyday lives., without compromise

i doubt there will ever be peace there.

the plots too thick.

but this is my point of view..

bit of a vicious circle - Palestinians want their homes back, isaeli's don't want to give it back, and put the palestians in a situations where they slip up, and commit illegal acts, which gives Israel a reason not to give them their homes back,.

my prediction anyway, the region will have a war which will lead to a World War(some argue its already started). israel can't take on all Arab countries surrounding them. Therefore the US and UK and a few other nations will jump in.

At that point anything can happen. on one side you got all the weapons that can cause mass destruction, on the other you have got a 'divided' Nation who are awaiting a Muslim Leader (the mahdi) who will re-unite the Islamic states, and Jihad will be declared. There are already things happening in all Islamic countries where they are trying to get rid of corrupt 'puppet' leaders, ranging from the middle east right through to Indonesia.

call me pessimistic if u want. but i see it all happening within the next 15 years.

I don't think anyone wants it to happen, but the rate of change of power in the world is scary.. its a bit of a Race for whose set of Laws should rule the world?!?