Evolution, why us?

[Alchemist]

Just read your prior post...

it's funny you say those things about me..."pseudo science" ...don't understand science? Fail at disproving science with science? Yet look at you ..."chump". You can't even get down to the abstracts of evolution...you still hover at the surface and dare not get down to the real hardcore stuff. I am still teaching you year one biology kid.

You are a friend of Chrughkoshon (aka Roshina)...figures ...birds of a feather flock together.

Neither of you could argue with me on the facts. But when it comes to making personal remarks (mostly slanderous) you win! Hands down! Both you and her are the champs at those types of arguments.

What have you proven so far of evolution?

Nothing!

Not it's mechanism, nor it's arbitrary systems and unproven hypothesis. I could have had a better debate just by myself...and delved much deeper into the subject. Still here you are...copy pasting from bbc. When I give you proofs you put your head in the sand ...you deny the sources...say the links don't work ...say you can't read it ...say you don't want to "discuss" it with me because I am hurting your feelings? You are a wuss and a half.. you and roshina are misguided fools. She is better off being ismailie than what she is right now. Who knows if you are even Muslims. Since Evolution is based on dialectal materialism...anyone that believes has denied the Attribute of Allah as Khaliq and Qadir. Scimitar is a different story. Your story is even more boring. You both know you are heratics which is why you will never dare discuss your REAL views on Islam on this forum. Ismailie is a best fit guess. Ismailies are the real practiioners of Taqiyaa. They never admit that they are who they are. They just let people think they are shia and leave it at that. Who knows what you are? Reformist? my foot! You are wannabes ...regardless. You don't know science or religion ...lost in translation ...between two cultures and paradigms ...the forgotten and voiceless ones ...here they chant one thing ..there another. Go figure out your selves first ...then debate me. Because I assure you ...keep this up ..and you'll start to doubt your own existence.

[Roshina]

I won't say how religious you are, but when you try to disprove science by using science, and then FAIL miserably, you are anything but acting with reason.

Bingo!

LOL @ the Ismaili part. It had me cracking up as well I once angered some beghairata dude around here, and so he told everyone, in extreme anger, that Qrratugai is an Ismaili. I also once saw that someone had visited my blog by googling "Qrratugai Ismaili from swat" ... Now, THAT was hilarious!

But it happens. They'll grow up. Hopefully.

[Midnight_Sun]

sources but dare not delve into the primary because of it's complexity:

Um, actually I posted a link there for you and anybody else who felt the need to read the entire article. I know what an Abstract is, and I have worked with research articles before, and I know what this means. The article is a summary, and that is the most accessible to all readers. I posted a link to the actual article at the bottom. If you actually read, rather than reacting, you might have seen it.

Notice first that this article is trying to refute another "evolutionary delusion" known as "Dollo's law". In effect, it reaffirms my earlier statement that within the theory of evolution, there is a war of ideas. There is no consensus amongst biologist on what really is evolution! Here the author tries to revive, and defend Dalton's law, which was first believed to be always true, then found to be not true...but now this author tries to recounter, and show a violation to dollo's law by "proposing a mechanism".

I knew you were going to criticize laws within evolution, but the fact remains, all of these scientists agree on evolution, it is only YOU who refuses to acknowledge ANY aspect of it.

The crux of this article lies on the method used by the quoted scientist:
time-calibrated phylogeny. In reality there is no such thing as "time calibrated phylogeny". This method is based on nothing but assumptions. The DNA time clock is just a hoax. Put simply, the "molecular clock" is ONLY a hypothesis! It is not a fact! OFF BY 50%! Nay, in fact, it could be off by at least 75%! So this is nothing more than guess work! [/quote]

Nice try there. The 50% quote is not even referenced in the wiki article you inferred to. Again, you are again arguing with yourself. I'll humor you, strict MCH is a problem because in many cases, important parts of the tree may be uncertain or unresolved, resulting in a number of plausible tree possibilities. You jumped to the conclusion that MCH was the way he determined some of his data, but he actually used quite a few different techniques. For example, scientists (including the writers of that article) used also statistical workarounds for the limitations of MCH. When dealing with huge spans of time, relaxed MCH is just one of the many tools they can use. And if there was a blatant abnormality in his works, it would be refuted by other colleagues in the same field. It happens all the time, such as in this article I found:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU04039.pdf

I'm not going to go any further arguing because I lack the patience to talk to someone who doesn't believe in taxonomy, but is quick to believe in racial classification, and call other members mongoloids.

[Roshina]

Wait ... what happened to my last post? The one in which I disappointed Alchemist by reminding him of how lacking he is in his knowledge of evolution and religion? Ugh - damnit, mods, did y'all HAVE to delete it?! God! It was simply a response to his ridiculousness. Funny how you folks select which posts are to be deleted/moved and which are to stay :s

And you can't even argue that it bore no pertinence to the thread. 'Cause it did.

And even the post in which I only provided a link to another post that was over 100% related to this discussion? :| Like, seriously? That had to be deleted, too? At least read them before deleting/removing them. Is that too much to ask?

[Midnight_Sun]

Just read your prior post...

it's funny you say those things about me..."pseudo science" ...don't understand science? Fail at disproving science with science? Yet look at you ..."chump". You can't even get down to the abstracts of evolution...you still hover at the surface and dare not get down to the real hardcore stuff. I am still teaching you year one biology kid.

Yeah, you've taught me a lot. By your own judgement:

1. Homo Sapiens are 1.5 Million years old by showing pictures of Homo Erectus. Then you claimed that Homo erectus is actually a Homo Sapien. By your reasoning, we should just get rid of taxonomy and just name everything either: Reptile, Human, Bug, Bird. There you go, Alchemist's answer to taxonomy!

2. I'm apparently a Mongoloid according to Alchemist''s theory of racial classification

3. Roshina is an Ismaeli because she is mysterious!

4. Nothing is proven, everything is a theory. Science Daily is propaganda!

You are a friend of Chrughkoshon (aka Roshina)...figures ...birds of a feather flock together.

Using Alchemist tried and proven theory of jumping to conclusions, we can assess this accusation that birds of a feather flock together and dismiss it wholeheartedly:

Step 1.

DISAGREE!! THAT DARN MONGOLOID HAS SAID SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG BECAUSE MY REASONING IS SUPERIOR!

Step 2.

Find an article in the web that can object to it. Using Midnight_Sun's theory of Internet-Objectional Plausibility, the article can be found doing a simple search:

"Birds of a Feather Don't Flock Together"

ANSWER FOUND!

Birds Of A Feather Don't Flock Together, DNA Reveals

A comprehensive analysis of the genes of aquatic birds has revealed a family tree dramatically different from traditional relationship groupings based on the birds' body structure, according to a research report in the July 7 issue of the Journal of the Royal Society and featured on the cover of that issue.

Source: Birds Of A Feather Don't Flock Together, DNA Reveals

Step 3:

Attack their character, then begin leading conversation towards something else. I"m sick of making up quotes, so I'll conveniently use some of Alchemist's own:

Not it's mechanism [evolution], nor it's arbitrary systems and unproven hypothesis...Since Evolution is based on dialectal materialism...anyone that believes has denied the Attribute of Allah as Khaliq and Qadir. Scimitar is a different story. Your story is even more boring. You both know you are heratics which is why you will never dare discuss your REAL views on Islam on this forum. Ismailie is a best fit guess. Ismailies are the real practiioners of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I'm superior blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....Because I assure you ...keep this up ..and you'll start to doubt your own existence.

By doubting my own existence you mean killing myself? Keep up your rhetorical rants and metaphysical quandaries and everyone in this forum will commit suicide.

[Alchemist]

You are a mongoloid not according to me but according to prominent, original, advocators of the theory of Evolution, in America and Europe. They classed the human species into three races, mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasian and studied the differences in the races.
I told you that the differences found between the races, is no more than the differences between the different "Species". But because you lack the ability to think logically, you keep harking on the emotional side of the argument and taking offense to fact that you are classified as a mongoloid and not a negroid or caucasian.
Then I showed you that homo erectus was an advanced race of people as archeological proofs exists that 700,000 years ago these people were sailing the sees, building ships. But you said you can't access the link? It means you suck at using the internet.


Again, you FAILED at discussing the MECHANISM, the METHODOLOGY of the "source" (which again is SECONDARY) and just copy pasted a link to some random sight to feed your own small and puny ego. Do you know how the genes of the birds were studied? Do you know what method is used in comparing genes? How does DNA polymerases work? What type of strands were analyzed? Satellite? Telomeric? centromeric? Do you even know?

You are a sad little girl.

Your frustration is showing.

Go wash your face. Kid.

[Alchemist]

Wait ... what happened to my last post? The one in which I disappointed Alchemist by reminding him of how lacking he is in his knowledge of evolution and religion? Ugh - damnit, mods, did y'all HAVE to delete it?! God! It was simply a response to his ridiculousness. Funny how you folks select which posts are to be deleted/moved and which are to stay :s

And you can't even argue that it bore no pertinence to the thread. 'Cause it did.

And even the post in which I only provided a link to another post that was over 100% related to this discussion? :| Like, seriously? That had to be deleted, too? At least read them before deleting/removing them. Is that too much to ask?

stop spamming

you in the science section

Either write scientifically or get out

You can write about your distraught feelings and emotions somewhere else and I will happily psychoanalyze them for you.


This post may be deleted ...because it is just as vain as you are

good bye.

[Alchemist]

Um, actually I posted a link there for you and anybody else who felt the need to read the entire article. I know what an Abstract is, and I have worked with research articles before, and I know what this means. The article is a summary, and that is the most accessible to all readers. I posted a link to the actual article at the bottom. If you actually read, rather than reacting, you might have seen it.

Read what?

the opinion of some half baked writer on bbc's payroll?

Why not post original Journal Articles?

What is wrong with you girl?

Is english not your forte?

Do you not understand what I am asking you?

Stop making excuses for your incapabilities.

I am not impressed little girl.

I knew you were going to criticize laws within evolution, but the fact remains, all of these scientists agree on evolution, it is only YOU who refuses to acknowledge ANY aspect of it.

agree on what?

evolution?

What is evolution anyway? It is just some umbrella term that nothing fits under. All the different laws contradict each other.

Is this your idea of science?

Is the same true in Physic's theory of General Relativity? Do we have different formulas that predict the speed of light differently?

Does one theory say e = mc^2 and another theory say e = m/2* c^4 ?

Nice try there. The 50% quote is not even referenced in the wiki article you inferred to. Again, you are again arguing with yourself. I'll humor you, strict MCH is a problem because in many cases, important parts of the tree may be uncertain or unresolved, resulting in a number of plausible tree possibilities. You jumped to the conclusion that MCH was the way he determined some of his data, but he actually used quite a few different techniques. For example, scientists (including the writers of that article) used also statistical workarounds for the limitations of MCH. When dealing with huge spans of time, relaxed MCH is just one of the many tools they can use. And if there was a blatant abnormality in his works, it would be refuted by other colleagues in the same field. It happens all the time, such as in this article I found:

You have been humouring me for a long time now little girl.

Statistical workarounds? That sounds like guesswork to me.

So thanks for admitting that it is what I said it is. Now don't get too sure of your self and believe in a "theory" that is based on guesswork statistical tools ...which for sure is riddled with artifacts and molded a priori!

Just like I said before. You proved me right.AGAIN. But realize it not.

Why?

Because you are severely brainwashed.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=vie...id=MU04039.pdf

YES

THank you

that is what I've been saying. The method is FLAWED!!!

I'm not going to go any further arguing because I lack the patience to talk to someone who doesn't believe in taxonomy, but is quick to believe in racial classification, and call other members mongoloids.

excuses

excuses

excuses

this is how you quote science:

A methodological bias toward overestimation of molecular evolutionary time scales

[Midnight_Sun]

You are a mongoloid not according to me

Yes, actually, according to you.. You were trying to associate the entire science of evolution with what a few misguided miscreants used it for. The same principle of judging all Muslims by the acts of a few. I really do think you believe in racial classification. It all falls perfectly in place with your delusion of superiority.

Then I showed you that homo erectus was an advanced race of people as archeological proofs exists that 700,000 years ago these people were sailing the sees, building ships. But you
said you can't access the link? It means you suck at using the internet.

You're lying. You posted a link that actually proved my point, which I quoted for you and you never went back to analyze. I'm sick of playing these games with you. Just stop already.

Again, you FAILED at discussing the MECHANISM, the METHODOLOGY of the "source" (which again is SECONDARY) and just copy pasted a link to some random sight to feed your own small and puny ego. Do you know how the genes of the birds were studied? Do you know what method is used in comparing genes? How does DNA polymerases work? What type of strands were analyzed? Satellite? Telomeric? centromeric? Do you even know?

Oh I'm sorry I didn't go into the details of a work disproving another work. Maybe it's because I'm sick of playing these games. You always try to use science to disprove science, but you end up looking stupid because the sources you point to, usually enforce my original arguments. Stop already, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Alchemist]

Yes, actually, according to you.. You were trying to associate the entire science of evolution with what a few misguided miscreants used it for. The same principle of judging all Muslims by the acts of a few. I really do think you believe in racial classification. It all falls perfectly in place with your delusion of superiority.

You are the one DENYING the HUMANITY of a RACE of PEOPLE simply because they LOOK different!
YOU are the one who calls them another species, when they are of our own species!
Chihuahas look different than pitbulls, does that mean they are of different species?
Can you still define what a species is? No?
Get lost! little girl!
You can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. No more excuses!

You're lying. You posted a link that actually proved my point, which I quoted for you and you never went back to analyze. I'm sick of playing these games with you. Just stop already.

And then you woke up!
And realized that the unicorn that was sailing you across the blue sky was just a figment of your imagination...just like the link that proved your point.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't go into the details of a work disproving another work. Maybe it's because I'm sick of playing these games. You always try to use science to disprove science, but you end up looking stupid because the sources you point to, usually enforce my original arguments. Stop already, you're embarrassing yourself.

you are sick of playing games yet you have been playing games with me from day one.

Didn't I prove to you that homologous and analogous were arbitrary terms? Did you take me up on that challenge? Could you tell the difference between a tasmanian "tiger" and north american "wolf" ...when according to evolutionary theory the two don't even have any common "wolf" link? that just RANDOMLY two species came to be with the EXACT skeletal system? Seriously?

You seriously believe that RANDOM mutations gives rise to BENEFICIAL Traits?

I told you guys...if you show me ONE beneficial mutation ...beneficial on its own rights, not beneficial because of bad conditions...(and I can disprove those 4 silly examples in your outdated textbooks, so becareful)...I will LEAVE THIS FORUM. Bannish myself.

so come on little girl

three challenges...(including the archeological data that shows homo "erectus" were advanced enough to sail the seas)

take a jab at any...

if you dare ...

and you'll shut me up ...


wuss...

you can't ...


so get out


and shut up


and stop praying homage to Lord Evolution.

You fraud.

[طالب]

Well mountain goat.
If Wikipedia says it is fact...then it must be. After all Wikipedia is an accredited scientific journal like talkorigins and nature magazine ...

The material on Wikipedia is referenced. If you have a problem with it please point out exactly where Wikipedia is wrong, how it is wrong, and link to a reliable source as evidence.
You've used Wikipedia yourself and even do so later on in your post. Why would you try and discredit something and go on to use the exact same source to support your argument? You're a hypocrite (being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong though).

Since you say the mechanism is irrelevant then we are no longer discussing a science.

Wrong, a theory does not have to explain a mechanism in order to be science. The important question here is how do we define science? It's a debated subject, but I've yet to see any definition mention that in order for something to be science it has to "explain a mechanism".
Without going into a debate about the definition of science, let me put forward the one described by Wikipedia (the very first line on the "Science" page):

"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."

So, based on this definition, is my theory science? Yes because it organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. The knowledge is that living creatures come from living creatures, living creatures are different from each other and simple organisms existed on Earth long before more complex ones. The explanation for where complex organisms came from is that they came from the simple organisms. And most importantly, we can make predictions and test the explanation! The prediction is that every time we find and date a fossil, it will fit into the fossil record. If we find a vertebrate fossil, it will always be dated millions of years after the first invertebrates. Thus we're actually testing the theory every time we start an excavation. If we find just one fossil out of place, the whole theory comes crashing down.
As of yet, not a single such cause has been found though.
Finally, if you take issue with the definition of science please state your own, with references.

This is a logical fallacy:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation

I didn't propose post hoc evidence on its own. I gave two other facts, the fact that living things come from living things and that living things are different from each other.
Thus, the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy does not apply.

Fallacy of the single cause Occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Again, I'm not trying to explain why evolution occurred, but that it must have occurred.

Homunculus fallacy: Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.

I've defined and explained the concept in detail. It's really very simple, the homunculus fallacy does not apply at all here. I'd like you to point out exactly how my argument leads to an infinite regress?

Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.

Whaaat? If anything my argument is the complete opposite of Gambler's fallacy. All we've seen thus far is living creatures coming from living creatures, and the fossil record showing that simple organisms came before complex organisms. That's what my argument is based on, I never stated anywhere that this would change, so how is it an example of Gambler's fallacy? It doesn't apply in any way whatsoever.

Base Rate Fallacy. using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability

I haven't even mentioned conditional probability and you bring up the Base rate fallacy? Again, the fallacy has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. These fallacies are so random, it's like I'm trying to explain to you that 2+2 = 4 and then you go "no it isn't, because I love chapli kebab!".

Begging the question where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

The conclusion of my argument is not implicitly nor explicitly assumed in any of my three premises. Thus the fallacy does not apply.

Regression fallacy ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.

I haven't failed to account for any natural fluctuations, the fossil record is clear, so is the fact that living creatures come from living creatures. That has been taking place for the past 3.5 billion years. We've never observed anything else so where are these natural fluctuations that I haven't accounted for? The fallacy does not apply.

Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)

In the whole of the fossil record we've not seen a single example countering my argument. Neither have we observed a living creature created by a non-living thing. Accusing me of insufficient evidence is frankly ridiculous.

Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact

Excuse me where have I argued that "a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact"?
That's right, nowhere. The fallacy does not apply, next...

Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so

My point was that biology books are scientific books. Evolution is science. Since you can't come up with another scientific explanation for how complex organisms came to be on earth, evolution is described in biology books. I.e. it's the only scientific explanation we have.

Thus, I've not made any appeal to the masses and the fallacy does not apply.

Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.

My conclusion is not particular, the fallacy does not apply.

You have a weak understanding of the complexity of living organisms, which is why you believe keep saying "invertebrates existed 3.5 billion years ago."

The invertebrates that existed 3.5 billion years ago were much less complex than the organisms that exist today. How is that a weak understanding of the complexity of living organisms? Do you disagree that the organisms 3.5 billion years ago were less complex?

The reason why I indicated to you that 95% of living animals are invertebrates is to allude to the fact that this taxonomy casts a wide net.

So what? Doesn't change the fact that vertebrates didn't exist 3.5 billion years ago, but they do now.

What you mean to say is that prokaryotes existed 3.5 billion years.

...and they were less complex than the organisms that we have today.

However, evidence suggests that prokaryotes also exist on Mars. And I wouldn't be surprised if they found some on the moons of Jupiter as well. If the statement holds true that simple life leads to complex life, then why not mars?

There have not been found fossils of complex organisms dated to before less complex organisms on Mars, thus the case for evolution still stands.

By the way, life has not been found anywhere else than Earth. No, life has not been found on Mars. Believe me if it had been found the world would know about it.
That is not to say that life doesn't exist other places than Earth, it just hasn't been found yet. Anyway, let's get back to the case at hand.

Also eukaryotic life is not evident in the fossil record date to 1.2 billion years, red algae. Even the earliest prokaryotes dates to only 1.5 to 2 billion years ago...So I don't know why you religiously say 3.5.

Untrue:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old.

However, these numbers are not based on an exact science.

The numbers don't have to be exact for the case for the FoE to stand. The fact remains that no vertebrates existed on earth 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2 or 1.5 billion years ago. Invertebrates existed though. That is shown by the fossil record. Now where did the vertebrates come from?

As we begin to learn more and more about the earth, we find that previous assumptions, such as yours are wrong and misleading:
New Analysis Throws Age of Life on Earth Into Doubt

Hahaha, do you even read the articles that you post? The article states that:

A fresh reading of the geology and geochemistry of an isolated corner of Greenland could shave at least 50 million years off the presumed age of the first living thing on the planet.

50 million years?!? That is nothing, when we're talking about a range of 3.5 billion years! For God's sake man, use the brain that was given to you before you further embarrass yourself!

The onus is on you to support your statements with proofs.

Yes, and I have.

Show me this 3.5 billion year old invertebrate evidence and how you have come to know that it is in fact 3.5 and not 2.1 or 1.5 or .5.

Look above. It doesn't matter if it's 3.5, 2.1 or 1.5. Fact remains that vertebrates didn't exist on earth 1, 2 or 3 billion years ago, but invertebrates did.

Try not to be dogmatic about this. A real scientist is always a skeptic.

That is correct.

Show me a single protein that has formed spontaneously.

Irrelevant to the case at hand for the FoE. If living creatures come from living creatures, and simple organisms existed before more complex organisms, then the complex organisms must have come from the simple organisms. How the process occurred is a different discussion, one of the ToE.
I have laid out a case for the FoE. It is now on you to object to that case, and me to defend it. If one of the three premises fall, the case for the FoE falls. Until now you have not voiced any objection that even comes close to rocking any of the three premises.

Also keep in mind that for life to form, it requires at least 250 proteins. Which is mathematically improbable.

As I've tried to explain a few pages back, questions about the origin of life is a red herring. The FoE "concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began.".

You keep saying that we don't know why Salmon fish upstream. You don't know. But they are genetically programmed to do so:
Physiological ecology of Pacific salmon - Google Books
Ay yes...but you are not interested in the how or why...Alas..

You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I was trying to explain to you, that even though we might not know the process of evolution, it does not mean that it doesn't happen, and thus discussing the process of evolution is utterly irrelevant to the case for the FoE.

In order to simplify it for you, I used the example: "If we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?". Notice the "if" word? That means it's hypothetical, it's an example. I wasn't referring to whether or not we know how salmons find their way back to their spawning grounds!
I even tried to use another example with a bike which...you know what, forget it. It's obvious that either you're not reading my replies properly, your English is not advanced enough or your mental capacity is simply too limited.
Either way, I'm not going to waste my time posting the example again. For anyone honestly interested they can go back in the thread and read the examples themselves.

In conclusion, if you still don't understand the fallacies that I have pointed out to you...then it goes to show that you in fact just a goat and lack the ability to think logically.

Your post has nothing to do with logic. When I first saw your post, I knew it was a case of one of two things:

1. You were trolling.
2. You were so desperate that you looked up a list of fallacies and copy pasted any that seemed remotely related to my argument.

The fact that just about all of those logical fallacies have nothing whatsoever to do with the case I laid out just shows how desperate you are. You're not interested in an honest debate, you're just spouting random rubbish in the vain hope that people will grow tired and stop posting.

And I haven't even mentioned the insults and accusations that you throw around. I like how you accuse people of being atheists, as if that somehow makes their arguments irrelevant. Some Muslim you are, borderline lying and judging other people. There is only one who can judge and you are not that one.

You know what the funny thing is? These last paragraphs of text will be the ones that you will focus on and respond to most vehemently. Read my lips. You don't care about all the other refutations I've provided, you want the discussion to come down to this level. You want to turn this into a Muslim vs. atheist discussion where you can throw around your insults.
I'm going to ignore those insults from now on, just wanted to let you know that I know exactly what kind of game you're trying to play. I wont play by your rules though.

[Alchemist]

mountain goat,

you are selectively reading and filtering my argument off it's proofs and rewriting it to fit your own grade 3 understanding of the world.

in another post, midnight sun quoted bbc, i checked the primary source, and the scientist admit that there are NO DIRECT evidence of prokaryotes existing 3.5 billion years. "Use your brain before you embarrass yourself". How do you suppose a small cell can exist from 3.5 billion years ago? Rather, the presumed evidence is of "shells" in the rocks, supposed "imprints". This is purely a subjective method and only as presumptuous as you are. Talk to me about the method, how they know how old it is. But that is beyound your ability and knowledge. Instead it is sufficient for you to just quote a line that affirms your delusions. Why don't you post a real scientific journal with irrefutable proof, that shows exactly how the dating of the supposed fossil of "singular" organism is found to be 3.5 billions? The reason why I critiqued wiki was because it is not a primary source, but a tertiary source. Thus it does not go into details of the how, but quotes another source. You obviously have not even entered a university level education, so arguing with you is like explaining to a child why the sky is blue..the child can't understand why light diffracts and how the earth rotates about it's axis since children lack the faculty necessary for such abstraction. Similarly, you lack the ability to critically think, therefore you think you can defend your fallacious arguments by reiterating your "good" intentions and grasping for straws by highlight your use of 'conditional' statements like 'if we don't know'...when in fact we do know but you are just ignorant. Tell the child that the sky is not actually blue, but he/she won't accept it. Similary, you keep refuting evolution by saying that the process is bogus, but still believe it to be true, without evidence. Then you say stupid things like this:"...and they were less complex than the organisms that we have today." when I say to you prokaryotes...even though that "less complex organism" still exists to this day! Clearly you are a fool, since you accept even evolution cannot explain "the origin of life", when this was what evolution was first written to explain ! In a nut shell, you yourself have disproved evolution as a theory, but still want to call it a fact. Based on what? On fallacious assumptions. You miserably tried to refute only 2 of the fallacies laid against you but couldn't do the rest so you ignored them. Your whole post was devoid of any logic or evidence. And just like the other emos that defend evolution, it seems that your major complaint is that I hurt your feelings too. Boo hoo. Truth is often bitter.

[faye]

alchemist, none of us have 'proof' about the beginning and origin of creation. we all have a faith in a belief system or we speculate. there is no need to be so insulting of those who believe differently to us.

[Alchemist]

alchemist, none of us have 'proof' about the beginning and origin of creation. we all have a faith in a belief system or we speculate. there is no need to be so insulting of those who believe differently to us.

My proof is Qur'an.
You want to debate me on it, let's go. I can prove everything I believe in.
I am not you. (don't take it as an insult)


And yes, believing in evolution is equal to kufr in my books because the one who believes denies the attributes of Allah, as Khaliq and Qadir. Evolution is based on dialectical materialism. I don't believe in evolution, but as a biologist, I would used it's language, because biology, unlike chemistry and physics, has no theory otherwise..and this becomes the best fit model for now...even though it has gone EXTENSIVE revisions over the last 100 years. I remember in my biochemistry class...the first day...the professor said it from the beginning...."I am not going to argue on whether this is true or not...but this is what we will go on for now" Meaning, he knew the shortcomings of this theory himself, but we had to use something. This is the only reason we follow the "linear" theory of evolution, which goes from A to B to C to D, when in reality life is a heck of a lot more complex and totally beyound our ability to understand. We rack our brains trying to create life in the lab, trying to mutate organisms with super powers and still fail. So really, it is only delusional people who believe in evolution, because even the sober scientists know it is devoid of real meaning as a "theory". So you faye...clearly have not even been to a single class of biology in your life...yet you have an opinion on this subject and follow the thread, thanking everyone that even remotely tries to "insult" me...but go read my posts in this thread with a cool head and see where I slandered anyone? If I said you are delusional, then you are. If I said you are kafir, then you are. So why take insult to it? Rather you take insult because you can't do much else against me but feel offended because I burst your bubble. Boo hoo faye...boo hoo.

[طالب]

mountain goat,

you are selectively reading and filtering my argument off it's proofs and rewriting it to fit your own grade 3 understanding of the world.

Please, point out exactly where I've rewritten your objections.

in another post, midnight sun quoted bbc, i checked the primary source, and the scientist admit that there are NO DIRECT evidence of prokaryotes existing 3.5 billion years.

1. Listen, this is pretty much agreed on by everyone. Wikipidia states the first living organisms to be more than 4 billion years old. I can post a few news articles that talk about the 3.5 billion year old fossils. It wouldn't take me more than a few minutes on google, you can even do it yourself.

2. Please, post the source. I want to read it before I comment on it.

3. Do you disagree that vertebrates did not exist 1, 2 or 3 billion years ago? Do you agree that invertebrates existed on earth before vertebrates?

How do you suppose a small cell can exist from 3.5 billion years ago? Rather, the presumed evidence is of "shells" in the rocks, supposed "imprints". This is purely a subjective method and only as presumptuous as you are. Talk to me about the method, how they know how old it is.

I'm happy you want to learn about the method. Luckily I don't have to suppose anything and the method is far from a "purely subjective" method.

1. The cyanobacteria itself does not "exist from 3.5 billion years ago". Rather, we have stromatolites of fossilized cyanobacteria.

2. A stromatolite is (very simplified) a rock formed in shallow water by the growth of blue-green algae (i.e. cyanobacteria).

3. The biogeneicity of the stromatolites are not determined "purely subjectively" by "supposed imprints", rather a number of criteria have been put forward for recognising genuinely biologica structures from non-biological structures that could rise from purely physical or chemical processes alone. You can read more about it in this article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32485930/T...Sandy-Deposits

4. Radiometric dating is used to date the stromatolites. That's how they know "how old it is".

Instead it is sufficient for you to just quote a line that affirms your delusions. Why don't you post a real scientific journal with irrefutable proof, that shows exactly how the dating of the supposed fossil of "singular" organism is found to be 3.5 billions?

Here is a real scientific journal that explains how dating is carried out:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2&searchtype=a

I have just found out that the 3.5 billion figure is in dispute. It cannot be ruled out that the fossils are not biological in nature. However, I was just using the 3.5 billion year figure as an example. I did a quick search for the earliest fossils and found the article about the 3.5 billion old stromatolites. And that's what you don't seem to understand. Even if those fossils turn out not be biological in nature, we still have other fossils billions of years old.

The fact remains that invertebrates existed on earth billions of years before vertebrates did. Now do you dispute that?

The reason why I critiqued wiki was because it is not a primary source, but a tertiary source. Thus it does not go into details of the how, but quotes another source.

Exactly, it quotes a source, and you can check the source for yourself if in doubt. I've yet to see you complain about any source though so I assume you accept them. Only thing you've done thus far is complain about Wikipedia, why don't you be more specific for once and point out exactly which unreliable sources Wikipedia is using?

Oh wait, I forgot, you never looked at the sources, you just complained about Wikipedia because you had nothing better to offer.

highlight your use of 'conditional' statements like 'if we don't know'...when in fact we do know but you are just ignorant.

No, it's obvious you haven't understood a word of what I was saying. I told you I used it as an example. I even gave you another example using a bike: Lets say you put your bike in the garage and leave home. When you come back suddenly your bike is standing in front of your house. Are you going to start arguing that the bike was not moved from the garage because you don't know how it happened? Of course not, you might not know how it was moved, but you still know that it was moved.

Similary, you keep refuting evolution by saying that the process is bogus, but still believe it to be true, without evidence.

I never said the process is bogus. I said it is utterly irrelevant to the case for the FoE. Can't you understand that?

Then you say stupid things like this:"...and they were less complex than the organisms that we have today." when I say to you prokaryotes...even though that "less complex organism" still exists to this day!

So what if "less complex organisms" exist to this day? The point is that today we also have complex organisms. These complex organisms did not exist billions of years ago, but simple organisms did. Thus, somehow, in the course of those billions of years, complex organisms must have arrived. They weren't there to start with.

Clearly you are a fool, since you accept even evolution cannot explain "the origin of life", when this was what evolution was first written to explain !

No, it wasn't. The FoE explains how animal and plant species develop out of other species not at all like them. Nothing more nothing less.

In a nut shell, you yourself have disproved evolution as a theory, but still want to call it a fact.

Again, you don't know what a theory and a fact is in the scientific sense. I've tried explaining it to you but you simply don't want to read it. And what you read you don't understand. If you did indeed read and understand you wouldn't be making these wrong statements. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. This is confusing to you because you don't think of the terms in the scientific sense. You think of them according to some popular definition.

Based on what? On fallacious assumptions. You miserably tried to refute only 2 of the fallacies laid against you but couldn't do the rest so you ignored them.

You're never specific. You just make broad statements and hope that something sticks. Which fallacies are you talking about? Where exactly is my reasoning lacking? I didn't ignore any of the fallacies you copy pasted, in fact I responded to your whole post bit by bit. If you don't point out where exactly I'm wrong, then I can't respond.