Religeonz Are Gangz
- Thread starter KFatal
- Start date
this is where your wrong
evolution is caused from small changes, slight genetic changes that make a particular species more adept to survive and reproduce and then they out compete existing species, then when they reproduce this genetic alterance is passed on little by little.
you have no idea what your talking about and you make it sound like things transform over night.
your another uneducated individual who talks out of his ass..
rather than posting something YOU probably cant even understand, try to understand what evolution is, it isnt saying things are changing, its saying things are evolving, little by little, and the proof that there are mammals today that didnt exist a million years ago proves that, if your so sure explain for me, why did certain species go extinct, and why did certain species that werent around when the dinosaurs were here, where did they come from, did god wave his magic wond and put them here. fish didnt form crocodiles, etc etc, that simple statment shows me you dont know shit about evolution.
o by the way, evolution is a 21st century idea thats gaining more steam as we speak.
go study then come back to me wiht your weak ass story of creation that has no scientific evidence except that, the world is magically created
my point about water proves the earth is older than the bible claims
there are no mention of dinosaurs in the bible.
none of you disproved one of my points except with stupid questions.
rukas tech didnt do a good job of anything except showing he doesnt know shit
Actually I think he, and the people he quoted, infact does.
Why cant you just say, "oh fuck I didnt know that Ill look into it and get back to you," or admit to something! Why do people on here always just go on with their side of the argument even when presented with facts that disprove it?
Thats the WoW way, when disproved, just ignore the facts and pretend it didnt happen!
because im not going to constantly type the same shit over and over again, im not going to answer a question that was answered in the previous 3 posts, the bible doesnt account for a lot of things evolution easily proves, there are holes in evolution of course, thats why its still a theory, but there is more factual, hands on evidence than the story of creation
"my point about water proves the earth is older than the bible claims
there are no mention of dinosaurs in the bible."
I did. Read up. But you'll deny it based on your blind belief and claim my belief isnt valid.
Evolution is just a theory, and while survival of the fittest does work and play a part in it, it doesnt explain the "evolutional jumps" that occur, the missing links etc etc.
again i said i belive in god, but the story of creation has NO basis man. thats what i said, stop twisting my words i dont appreciate it
evolution has holes, as you said missing links, etc, but there is so much evidence to show that in all instances evolution is quite real, but people who are bible thumpers cant accept the fact their beloved story of creation has not holes, but HUGE unbelievable gaps
everything started somewhere, and i in my heart believe it began with god, but not like were told
What you fail to comprehend is what I said, evolution and creation go hand in hand.
Look at it this way, if God created everything, he created evolution, he created science.
Im not even disputing the fact that the bible has mistakes, but you cant seem to comprehend the fact that religion and belief exists outside of the bible and that is the problem with scientists and people like you. You are so used to reading things in books and them being facts and that is how you base your knowledge and belief, from reading them in books, so you automatically assume we think like you and use our book, the bible, in the same way. Thats not the case.
While I didnt read all your post, only answered the questions that were quoted by Glockmatic, I dont believe I said you didnt believe in God either. If I did I appologize, but whether you believe in God or not is not relevent, you have the mind set of a scientist.
by the way heres a recent study techneek...just for you
Human ancestor Australopithecus did indeed walk upright
Was Australopithecus ancestral to humans? Were they merely cousins in the evolutionary chain? Or simply a stage between apes and humans? Among various debates about these early hominids is the argument whether or not they could stand and walk upright like people do.
William Sanders, a paleontologist at the University of Michigan, has found that Australopithecus shared many, but not all, of the anatomical features that enable humans to walk upright. He will present his findings April 3 at the Geological Society of America's North-Central Section and Southeastern Section Joint Meeting in Lexington, Kentucky.
"It turns out that in mammals, there is a strong correlation between structural differences in the lower back, and particular types of locomotion and posture," Sanders said. "Humans display a large number of lower back specializations that allow us to stand upright habitually, and to walk effectively and efficiently on two legs. These differ from the anatomical complexes seen in the backs of apes and monkeys."
Sanders examined the association between soft and bony tissue in the lower back and function of this region for posture and movement in a number of animals related to australopithecines, including baboons, gibbons, chimpanzees, and modern humans. He compared these observations with his examination of australopithecine specimens, including the partial skeleton of a 2.8 million year-old large male Australopithecus africanus (Stw-431). This individual was found in South Africa and had never been analyzed before.
"Like humans, Australopithecus had an S-shaped spine to hold an upright trunk on a tilted pelvis, and vertebral facets that are immense and become wider as you progress downward through the column—lending stability to an upright column. They also had powerful ilio-lumbar and lumbo-sacral ligaments to stabilize the sacrum and lower back on a tilted pelvis," Sanders said. "The pelvis is tilted in humans to give leverage to leg muscles that extend the legs backward during bipedal striding and running. However, unlike modern humans, Australopithecines have relatively small vertebral bodies and exhibit much pathology in these vertebral bodies. This suggests that while the back part of their vertebrae (the neural arch) was well designed for bipedal behaviors, the front part of their vertebrae had not yet evolved into an efficient weight-bearing pillar."
He concludes that the differences in spinal anatomy between humans and Australopithecines are not just due to gross size differences but are more likely to be biomechanical differences.
"Australopithecines were likely habitual bipeds, but differed in overall spinal mechanics and efficiency," he said. "They are also important because they show that all anatomical regions should be considered together in behavioral reconstructions of fossil animals
they walked up right, the study you refer too deals with "LUCY" and they admitted later that the legbone they studied was found over a mile away from her and wasnt hers..
nemore questions?
Human ancestor Australopithecus did indeed walk upright
Was Australopithecus ancestral to humans? Were they merely cousins in the evolutionary chain? Or simply a stage between apes and humans? Among various debates about these early hominids is the argument whether or not they could stand and walk upright like people do.
William Sanders, a paleontologist at the University of Michigan, has found that Australopithecus shared many, but not all, of the anatomical features that enable humans to walk upright. He will present his findings April 3 at the Geological Society of America's North-Central Section and Southeastern Section Joint Meeting in Lexington, Kentucky.
"It turns out that in mammals, there is a strong correlation between structural differences in the lower back, and particular types of locomotion and posture," Sanders said. "Humans display a large number of lower back specializations that allow us to stand upright habitually, and to walk effectively and efficiently on two legs. These differ from the anatomical complexes seen in the backs of apes and monkeys."
Sanders examined the association between soft and bony tissue in the lower back and function of this region for posture and movement in a number of animals related to australopithecines, including baboons, gibbons, chimpanzees, and modern humans. He compared these observations with his examination of australopithecine specimens, including the partial skeleton of a 2.8 million year-old large male Australopithecus africanus (Stw-431). This individual was found in South Africa and had never been analyzed before.
"Like humans, Australopithecus had an S-shaped spine to hold an upright trunk on a tilted pelvis, and vertebral facets that are immense and become wider as you progress downward through the column—lending stability to an upright column. They also had powerful ilio-lumbar and lumbo-sacral ligaments to stabilize the sacrum and lower back on a tilted pelvis," Sanders said. "The pelvis is tilted in humans to give leverage to leg muscles that extend the legs backward during bipedal striding and running. However, unlike modern humans, Australopithecines have relatively small vertebral bodies and exhibit much pathology in these vertebral bodies. This suggests that while the back part of their vertebrae (the neural arch) was well designed for bipedal behaviors, the front part of their vertebrae had not yet evolved into an efficient weight-bearing pillar."
He concludes that the differences in spinal anatomy between humans and Australopithecines are not just due to gross size differences but are more likely to be biomechanical differences.
"Australopithecines were likely habitual bipeds, but differed in overall spinal mechanics and efficiency," he said. "They are also important because they show that all anatomical regions should be considered together in behavioral reconstructions of fossil animals
they walked up right, the study you refer too deals with "LUCY" and they admitted later that the legbone they studied was found over a mile away from her and wasnt hers..
nemore questions?
^^
You do realize they had a completely different year system, what makes you think they were using this calendar? It wasn't even invented yet. Hundreds of babies, how did you get that? I need money, does my religion tell me I should get rich or die trying? Nah, I don't think my religion changes for human needs.
You also do realize that Australopithecus africanus was the supposed ancestor of Lucy? Some parts have different evolutionary features or none at all. They claim they were just unique apes they got extincted. Who knows?
But on the other hand, one gets the impression that much subjective judgment goes into phylogenies. Reading between the lines, one also sees the subjective nature of choosing characters in determining evolutionary relationships. If a similar character cannot be related by evolution, it is simply assumed to be due to parallel or convergent evolution, in other words to a hypothetical similar environment. Hilarious.
You do realize they had a completely different year system, what makes you think they were using this calendar? It wasn't even invented yet. Hundreds of babies, how did you get that? I need money, does my religion tell me I should get rich or die trying? Nah, I don't think my religion changes for human needs.
You also do realize that Australopithecus africanus was the supposed ancestor of Lucy? Some parts have different evolutionary features or none at all. They claim they were just unique apes they got extincted. Who knows?
But on the other hand, one gets the impression that much subjective judgment goes into phylogenies. Reading between the lines, one also sees the subjective nature of choosing characters in determining evolutionary relationships. If a similar character cannot be related by evolution, it is simply assumed to be due to parallel or convergent evolution, in other words to a hypothetical similar environment. Hilarious.
The notion of toleration was borrowed from the Muslims like I stated in above. This is evidently in the words of N.Daniel in 'Islam, Europe and Empire' when he wrote: "The notion of toleration in Christendom was borrowed from Muslim practise".
Then you're not an student of history. Millions of innocenent civilians would've died due the intolerance of the medieval nations if the Muslims didn't liberate them. Persecuted Jews and Christians fled to the Islamic Empire to find justice. Let me share a historical episode of which Balazuri, a famous Muslim historian, tells about how pleased the native peoples were with their Muslim conquerors is of great significance:
When Heraclius massed his troops against the Muslims, and the Muslims heard that they were coming to meet them, they refunded the inhabitants of Hims the tribute they had taken from them, saying: "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied: "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your help, repulse from the city." The Jews rose and said: "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanguished and exhausted." Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of other cities - Christians and Jews- that had been capitulated did the same. When by God's help the unbelievers were defeated and Muslims won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and players of music, and paid the tribute. (Futuh al-Buldan)
"out of date" (sigh). The Islamic ideology is the best solution for mankind and sooner or later, you'll concede that when a Caliphate emerges. The current state of the Muslim Ummah is weak. M.M.Pickthall said in one of his lectures that "In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people....It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it (tolerance) had never been preached as an essential part of religion...
Don't base your judgement on somethin' you've haven't observed. Once the sleeping giant awakens, it'll bring justice to this world like it has done in the past. The Islamic Empire went in decades from the ignorant Arab tribes to the one of the greatest if not the greatest civilization that mankind has ever witnessed.
Most Shariah Laws are partly installed and wrongly interpretated in the sense that rulings are taken out of context. You cannot interpretate the Qur'an accordin' to your own desire but you've to go back to the Sunnah of the Prophet (P). Afterall, since you asserted that you were a "muslim", you should know this. I was wonderin', despite the fact that not many people leave Islam, but those who do are either ignorant of the religion or are easily duped.
Innocenent in the general sense. That means, the noncombatants, the children, women etc.
Yes, since you listed the Islamic Expansion as a act of aggression.
What do you expect. The decline of the Islamic Empire occurred when the Moghuls massacred millions of Muslims, when the Crusaders burned and raped millions of Muslims and when the Christian pirates continuously attacked the Islamic economy. Not to mention the fact that Muslim Africans were enslaved and shipped to the Americans and forcefully converted to another faith.
If you're goin' to accuse me of bein' in denial then atleast try to refute what I stated. Muslims are the founders of modern science which is a irrefutable fact.
Your opinion which you're entitled to. As long as you do not fabricate historical accounts to suit your opinion.
Offcourse, Spain was a Muslim country that belonged to the Jews, Christians and the Muslims. The Christians expelled the Jews and the Muslims and massacred them. The Muslims do not want to attain Spain again since no oppression is practised. The only reason why Muslims conquered these lands was to abolish the oppression practised. Muslims do not want to conquer the world-- on the contrary, it is their lands that are being conquered bit by bit at the hands of western forces. Muslims discovered the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus. Why didn't they conquer those huge piece of land. What they did was married the Natives and hold trades with them. Palestine is a exceptional one since Muslims ruled Palestine for hundreds of years and that Jerusalem third holy city in Islam. Muslims allowed the Christians and Jews to live peacefully in Palestine. The Muslims has the ability to expell the Jews and the Christians but didn't since it goes against the tenets of Islam. But let's use your logic, The Children of Israel conquered Canaan (Palestine) thousands of years ago. Does that justify the fact that they should re-conquer Palestine for the sole basis that they ruled the 'land' once.
Then you're not an student of history. Millions of innocenent civilians would've died due the intolerance of the medieval nations if the Muslims didn't liberate them. Persecuted Jews and Christians fled to the Islamic Empire to find justice. Let me share a historical episode of which Balazuri, a famous Muslim historian, tells about how pleased the native peoples were with their Muslim conquerors is of great significance:
When Heraclius massed his troops against the Muslims, and the Muslims heard that they were coming to meet them, they refunded the inhabitants of Hims the tribute they had taken from them, saying: "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied: "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your help, repulse from the city." The Jews rose and said: "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanguished and exhausted." Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of other cities - Christians and Jews- that had been capitulated did the same. When by God's help the unbelievers were defeated and Muslims won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and players of music, and paid the tribute. (Futuh al-Buldan)
"out of date" (sigh). The Islamic ideology is the best solution for mankind and sooner or later, you'll concede that when a Caliphate emerges. The current state of the Muslim Ummah is weak. M.M.Pickthall said in one of his lectures that "In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people....It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it (tolerance) had never been preached as an essential part of religion...
Don't base your judgement on somethin' you've haven't observed. Once the sleeping giant awakens, it'll bring justice to this world like it has done in the past. The Islamic Empire went in decades from the ignorant Arab tribes to the one of the greatest if not the greatest civilization that mankind has ever witnessed.
Most Shariah Laws are partly installed and wrongly interpretated in the sense that rulings are taken out of context. You cannot interpretate the Qur'an accordin' to your own desire but you've to go back to the Sunnah of the Prophet (P). Afterall, since you asserted that you were a "muslim", you should know this. I was wonderin', despite the fact that not many people leave Islam, but those who do are either ignorant of the religion or are easily duped.
Innocenent in the general sense. That means, the noncombatants, the children, women etc.
Yes, since you listed the Islamic Expansion as a act of aggression.
What do you expect. The decline of the Islamic Empire occurred when the Moghuls massacred millions of Muslims, when the Crusaders burned and raped millions of Muslims and when the Christian pirates continuously attacked the Islamic economy. Not to mention the fact that Muslim Africans were enslaved and shipped to the Americans and forcefully converted to another faith.
If you're goin' to accuse me of bein' in denial then atleast try to refute what I stated. Muslims are the founders of modern science which is a irrefutable fact.
Your opinion which you're entitled to. As long as you do not fabricate historical accounts to suit your opinion.
Offcourse, Spain was a Muslim country that belonged to the Jews, Christians and the Muslims. The Christians expelled the Jews and the Muslims and massacred them. The Muslims do not want to attain Spain again since no oppression is practised. The only reason why Muslims conquered these lands was to abolish the oppression practised. Muslims do not want to conquer the world-- on the contrary, it is their lands that are being conquered bit by bit at the hands of western forces. Muslims discovered the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus. Why didn't they conquer those huge piece of land. What they did was married the Natives and hold trades with them. Palestine is a exceptional one since Muslims ruled Palestine for hundreds of years and that Jerusalem third holy city in Islam. Muslims allowed the Christians and Jews to live peacefully in Palestine. The Muslims has the ability to expell the Jews and the Christians but didn't since it goes against the tenets of Islam. But let's use your logic, The Children of Israel conquered Canaan (Palestine) thousands of years ago. Does that justify the fact that they should re-conquer Palestine for the sole basis that they ruled the 'land' once.
you gotta be kidding me
excuses
but this is what's being done
ok, but they founded their sciences on persian and old greek sceience just like modern science is based on islam
never pretended i was
that's cute, i know there was evidence about phoeniticians and egyptians (pharaonic era), but muslims?? come on
that mentality is as much islamic as jew
excuses
but this is what's being done
ok, but they founded their sciences on persian and old greek sceience just like modern science is based on islam
never pretended i was
that's cute, i know there was evidence about phoeniticians and egyptians (pharaonic era), but muslims?? come on
that mentality is as much islamic as jew
The Greeks made some erroneous theories which the Muslims gradually corrected it. Muslims had their own contributions but NEVER denied the contributions made by other civilizations. That includes, the contributions made by the Greeks, the Chinese, the Persians etc. Muslims always attributed the credit to their rightful owners unlike the western "scientists" that copied the inventions from the Muslims and regarded as their own. Stop makin' this presposterous claims that Muslims "copied" their science from the Greeks.
I've covered this in an another thread which unfortunaley was lost due the switching from one domain to another. Do the research.
Since you didn't respond to my points, I'll regard this "discussion" as a waste of time.
I've covered this in an another thread which unfortunaley was lost due the switching from one domain to another. Do the research.
Since you didn't respond to my points, I'll regard this "discussion" as a waste of time.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.