Power of mind

[Orpheus]

Originally posted by nayeem007

If you look at Islam's history, a strong emphasis has always been put in science. Some of the best minds in the scientific world were muslims.(Example: Jabir Ibn Haiyan(Geber)- Father of Chemistry, Al-Asmai-Zoology, Botany, Ibn Ishaq(Alkindus)-physics, optics,Abu Al Qasim(Albucasis)- father of modern surgery and many more....)

THem being muslim had nothing to do with their findings. They used their intelligence and observations to achieve those - not the Quran. So no point of looking at history - sorry!! If one of the scientist used the quran to come up with a chemistry reaction or an equation for physics - please enlighten me.

As for your evolution point. It is called "Theory of evolution" not "Law of Evolution" I hope you know the difference between the two.

Thank you for pointing out! AGain you are doing an word play - nothing to be proud of. It doesn't prove anything. The answer lies within your post. Lemme quote:

"A theory may always be disproven, but it must then be replaced with a better theory."

There are abundance of proof for evolution starting from fossil findings to DNA matching. Yes it is a strong theory. And your "theory of designer" is far from a theory (no proofs - whatsoever), let alone replacing Darwins.

If as you said, you can prove evolution in Lab then why do the scientific community still call it a theory not law?

Haha again word play. Things get stuck with names. Scientific community doesn't call it a law because they believe in Creator. It is still called a theory cuz there will always be sensitive people like you being in denial
But this I promise if you can bring me a better THEORY than evolution, I will gladly sing your song even though I have dreadful voice.

Please backup your statements with some reference to scientific journal where evolution of mankind from a single cell has been proved and agreed upon by all scientists.

You can search it on your own in Google. Most scientist do believe in Evolution. There will always be one or two smartasses trying to get some attention and stir things up. It's called - getting attention - just like some swedish cloneing company trying to get recognition claiming they cloned the first human baby. They are driven by what the mass wants to hear, not necessarily what evidence suggests.

Until you do that, my point still holds. I hope you come up with a better example next time.

What is your point again. God exists? Why don't you come up with a single example to your claim instead of dwelling on some definitions.

[Orpheus]

Chinaman, thanks for the article full of crap!! Media man - giving hope to the innocence

Behe argues that the complexity of the flagella and various "machines" inside cells could not have evolved from other life forms. Like a mousetrap or a wristwatch, he says, it is evident that these were designed, though by whom he is reticent to say.

what machines is he talking about? This article is definitely written for the below average. Look at the reporters play of language again.. "it is evident that these were designed though by whom he is reticent to say".. what does that mean?? Not a single scientist in their right mind will utter things like "oh yeah it was definitely designed but I aint telling youby who". Such a thing would be worth quoting I presume

One thing I will admit is we are just starting to unravel the "mystery" of Cell. So some of the things are still under tremendous research. But soon it will be solved dont worry - just like we now understand mendel's genetics observation. It's not magic It's a quote time.. give me a min!!



Edited on, March 27, 2005, 9:58 AM GMT, by Orpheus.
Reason: spelling?

[Orpheus]

“Knowledge will be advanced most surely by assuming that the problems of the cell can be
solved by converging upon them all our forces of observation and experiment. If we are
confronted still with a formidable array of problems not yet solved, we may take
courage from the certainty that we shall solve a number of them in the future, as so many
have been in the past. If Mendelian heredity, at first sight so inscrutable, is effected by so
simple a mechanism, we may hope to find equally simple explanations for many other puzzles
of the cell that lie beyond our present ken.” -Edmund B. Wilson, The Cell in Development
and Heredity, 1924

he said that in 1924 !! We have gone a long way since then.

[Orpheus]

Originally posted by razabq
the decision to accept existense of God or religion or to reject both, are borne out of inherent charachteristics of the individual

I don't think so. How do you explain conversions from one religion to another or none. And I am sorry, logic in the line of "it was in him" isn't convincing at all.

Yes we are manipulated a lot. But the logic that I will only accept things that I want to believe is wrong. When I go to my physics, chemistry or biology class - I am there learning the laws of the universe, atoms etc. Those are facts. Now with those facts in my head, I may be "manipulated" toward certain decision just like an Quran educated person will lean towards another.

There is nothing inherent about it! So there IS a point for discussions. You have choices or you will think better

[Orpheus]

I have too much time in my hand today. actually I don't but just being lazy.

sorry for all the posts!!!

Fab, I don't think Euthenasia is moral. What brings you to THAT conclusion? and I think you are taking "hurting" too literally!

[RazabQ]

Originally posted by Orpheus
I don't think so. How do you explain conversions from one religion to another or none. And I am sorry, logic in the line of "it was in him" isn't convincing at all.

Aah, but that's from one religion to another which means, tada - you have a predilection towards belief in the deity. How many Atheists who were raised as such from childhood converted to religion because of some logical argument presented to them? How many people who as adults are devout believers in a deity switch to atheism through logical reasoning only?

Originally posted by Orpheus
Yes we are manipulated a lot. But the logic that I will only accept things that I want to believe is wrong. When I go to my physics, chemistry or biology class - I am there learning the laws of the universe, atoms etc. Those are facts.

And faith goes a bit beyond learning science disciplines in the class. I believe we are comparing apples and oranges here.

Originally posted by Orpheus
Now with those facts in my head, I may be "manipulated" toward certain decision just like an Quran educated person will lean towards another.

There is nothing inherent about it! So there IS a point for discussions. You have choices or you will think better

I come back to my original question. Has anyone here drastically changed their belief system based on what was posted on a forum? I don't understand what constitutes a better thinker so I'll wait for elaboration.

p.s. yeah i too am procrastinating

[Orpheus]

OR NONE in my quote was very clear I thought. There are a lot of of ppl turning away from religion and it correlates with education. Higher the education, more less likey they believe in God.

Our Arnab is a good example of a person with religion turning to atheist.

The number of atheists are more than you think. There too many ppl who doesn't dont care. I think you can call them atheists. They are not "fundamental atheist".. lol whatever that means!!

No this thread is not converting anyone but I thought my reference to education was obvious. The more you learn, the better you think. From the posts of some, it is evident that they lack a lot of info - they have brain :p but they just never bothered to study things in details!

Thanks for your reply and who procrastinates sleeping?? only you razab!!

[imtiaz82]

Orpheus, actually you the one doing the "word play". Please come with a proof,and post it here.

No point in telling me to do google search. I have done that and haven't found anything that contradicts Quran.

So, you are saying scientists are not elevating "Theory of Evolution" to "Law" simply because they don't want to hurt people's emotion. What a pathetic explanation.LOL If you look at history there are numerous incidents where scientists have proven notions in other religions like Christianity wrong. For example,Bible says, earth is flat and the earth is center of the universe. Do you think scientists have kept quiet on those issues? They have proved them wrong by "laws" and the world has moved ahead.

As "chinaman" posted in the article from yahoo, there are numerous theories for and against "Theory of Evolution". The scientific world is divided in this issue. So you cannot use a point in your argument that even the scientific world hasn't agreed upon.(please note, some of the scientists against the theory of evolution are atheiest themselves)

Why don't you come up with some flaw in Quran that has been proved by a scientific law? If it is a book written by a man 1400 years back, there must be some scientific mistake that has been proved to be wrong for sure by laws. Why are you holding so dearly to a theory that has not even been proved?

Originally posted by Orpheus

THem being muslim had nothing to do with their findings. They used their intelligence and observations to achieve those - not the Quran. So no point of looking at history - sorry!! If one of the scientist used the quran to come up with a chemistry reaction or an equation for physics - please enlighten me.

Thank you for pointing out! AGain you are doing an word play - nothing to be proud of. It doesn't prove anything. The answer lies within your post. Lemme quote:

There are abundance of proof for evolution starting from fossil findings to DNA matching. Yes it is a strong theory. And your "theory of designer" is far from a theory (no proofs - whatsoever), let alone replacing Darwins.

Haha again word play. Things get stuck with names. Scientific community doesn't call it a law because they believe in Creator. It is still called a theory cuz there will always be sensitive people like you being in denial
But this I promise if you can bring me a better THEORY than evolution, I will gladly sing your song even though I have dreadful voice.

You can search it on your own in Google. Most scientist do believe in Evolution. There will always be one or two smartasses trying to get some attention and stir things up. It's called - getting attention - just like some swedish cloneing company trying to get recognition claiming they cloned the first human baby. They are driven by what the mass wants to hear, not necessarily what evidence suggests.

What is your point again. God exists? Why don't you come up with a single example to your claim instead of dwelling on some definitions.

[Orpheus]

Originally posted by nayeem007
So, you are saying scientists are not elevating "Theory of Evolution" to "Law" simply because they don't want to hurt people's emotion.

Haha. No that's not what I am saying but you are funny. That was a joke of some level you didn't get. Dwelling on the meaning of theory in my opinion is the weakest defense against evolution. Like I said your definition of the word theory answers a lot of your own questions.

And I don't think you did any search at all. I am not gonna search for any reference but I am myself gonna try to explain to you! I will try to make it as simple as possible. It would have been so much easier had you used your best friend Google. I think my attempt will be much better than some link (like chinaman gave). I am disappointed at you chinaman bhai. You being a [] buying this load of crap, it's not far from your field.

If you need search terms - I can give you some ideas. Key words in my previous posts were fossils and DNA.

I will try to post an intro to evolutionary concepts within an hour or so. Lemme finish this chapter of my text

A request: Please don't quote the whole post. This thread is too big as it is. It bothers me - just quote relevant stuff. Thank you!


Edited on, March 27, 2005, 12:07 PM GMT, by Orpheus.
Reason: requesting

Edited on, March 27, 2005, 1:21 PM GMT, by chinaman.
Reason: ?

[dosadeel]

nayeem007, i've challenged ppl a few times before in this thread to show contradictions in the Quran and prove it wrong. But imagine, if in 1400 years no soul has been able to do that, how can you expect people who haven't even read Quran properly to do that. They've just avoided that question entirely with hollow rhetoric and good use of english. Wonder where the "power of mind" has gone.

As for the theory of evolution, it is a load of crap that has been refuted time and again by scientists, scholars, intellectuals and the like. Google search and you'll see abt 50-50 opinions for and against this theory. Certainly not enough to base one's idea of the world coming into being.

Orpheus above stated that the number of people turning away from religion has increased. I can only say, "you wish!". Look around brother. I never like to brag about numbers, but since you brought it up, even in countries like US and Canada, the number of converted/reverted muslims is rising exponentially, despite all the negative media propaganda after 9-11. Currently, the number of world muslims stands at 1.34 billion according to the World Almanac (2004 numbers). According to Islamic organizations its even higher. Thats 23% of the world population (in a time interval of 1400 years!!) Despite the muslims being portrayed as terrorists and outdated bearded veil covered illiterates, the rate of muslims in the world is increasing at 2.9%. This is faster than the world population itself which is increasing at about 2.3%.

Ofcourse I know there are many who profess to be muslims but don't really beleive. And even if you claim the rate of population growth in muslim countries is higher, the educated muslims are definitely on the rise in western countries with greater education. Close to 7 million muslims live in the US alone (2002 numbers), and the numbers are increasing faster than the rate of immigration. Its pure stats. The more ppl learn about science, the more they see the miracles of a book, which was written 1400 years ago and yet talks about those recent tech developments. God works in mysterious ways, subhanallah.

I saw this in a christian website and thought it was funny:
"I do not know what to attribute this to, but I wonder if the conflict with America that followed 9/11 is stimulating Muslims to have more children. It could be argued that in the long run the womb is mightier than the boom." Either that or, people are just getting to know the truth.

Edited on, March 27, 2005, 12:44 PM GMT, by dosadeel.

[Orpheus]

This is gonna be hard. Please read the post more than once and slowly.. LOL. Trust me - you will really enjoy it the third time. Promise. I will write things as if you don't even have background in high school bio.

I may seem like babbling but please patience I will connect everything at the end.

Before trying to connect Human with a Monkey, I will assume you already know the concept of evolution. There are just tons of examples. This is not really evolution but follow the concept please. Why do doctors hesitate to prescribe antibiotic? Well because the bacteria that is causing your illness might get resistant to it. It's like this - antibiotics breaks the bacterical cells but as time passes some bacteria get used to it. When they replicate, ther children are born with that resistant trait. So the old bacteria died and a whole new bacteria survived - with a new trait. Following me so far? Good!

Nayem: But Orpheus, it's still a bacteria
Orpheus: Chop. Ami ekhono shesh korchi? patience.

Now a bigger picture. But let's go to smaller one to understand the bigger one

DNA FACTOR

First let's go over some concepts:

1) DNA - what is this? I don't know. lol - I dont know why but I am really laughing writing this post. alright alright!! - damn I feel so stupid.

Alright follow me here. You have four DNAs. They are A, T, G, C. With those four letters you basically make up the whole genome of an organism.

It's like a program - some codes will execute some task. Same with DNA. Sequence of A, T, G, C basically gives the order to make your hand, nose, penis etc.

Nayeem: But Orpheus - what's the point. I am not in a biology class?
Orpheus: Chop shala.. abar kotha koi.

Here is the KEY - the sequence can get modified. So suppose if in a day, you were exposed to too much radiation from the sun, some of your sequence can change. (<-- causes for a lot of disease)

So suppose you have TTGGGAAATT, which makes a lot of hair in your body. You are protected from the cold. Now the SUN SHINES and all the T became an A. What do you have AAGGGAAAAA right? Here is the thing - this codes for LESS hair.

[disclaimer: above paragraph was a concept for you to grasp. those are fictitous sequence]

Now all the sequence that you have in you is stored and divided in something called chromosomes.

When you mate with a girl - your egg cell and her sperm cell fuses. Egg has 23 chromosome and the Sperm has 23 chromosomes. If everything is normal. It's all good.. you get a child with a PAIR OF 23 CHROMOSOMES. But SOMETIMES one chromosome become part of another one and all those DNA sequence in their are all messed up. Oh! Oh!

[disclaimer: chromosome cross over is very common. hopefully you wont ask for reference on this - lot of fetus don't even develop right .. but anyways..]

Now I connect: From the study of a lot of mammalian Chromosomes (hence DNA) - it is found that there are a great similarity. With human and Monkey - the similarity is so great that you would be confused to tell them apart. Here is a fact: A human contains a pair of 23 chromosome but all forms of Monkeys contain 24 pairs. Oh Oh!! Now check this out:

Here is a picture:



H - Human
C - Chimpanzee
G - Gorilla
O - orangutan

Check out Human Chromosome (that is chromosome # 2) - It is a COMBINATION OF TWO OF APES' chromosomes. Every single bands match!! WOW!!

Rest of the chromosomes eventhough not shown in picture - are hubuhu (a bangla word) SAME with all those four apes.

What does that tell you? I will wait for you answer. Thanks!!



Hopefully you can connect everything. The pic isn't everything - you should understand everything I said from the start and try to connect!! Lemme know your thoughts.

Bye!


See much better than a reference right? What do those stupid sceintists know anyway?

[Orpheus]

Orpheus above stated that the number of people turning away from religion has increased. I can only say, "you wish!". Look around brother.

Haire dosadel. Next time don't just start replying instead READ and RE- READ and try to understand what I am saying.

I never said ppl are turning away from religion. I said.. there is a correlation between EDUCATION AND RELIGION. More education tend to lead ppl toward disbelief in the creator. Thanks!!

Rest... all drivel on 50/50 or whatever.. who cares what others are thinking.. most of them havn't a clue and are NOT scientists - sorry. If you know what you ar talking about that's all it matters!!! Frankly - you don't.

Edited on, March 27, 2005, 1:20 PM GMT, by Orpheus.

[Orpheus]

by the way Nayeem, I wanted to put up a fossil factor as well but that's just too much for one post or one thread!!!! Sorry if it's too long.. didn't mean to!!

[RazabQ]

Originally posted by Orpheus
Thanks for your reply and who procrastinates sleeping?? only you razab!!

nah! It was my consumer behavior paper Oh and missed the "none", sorry. I would frame a reply but spring break is over and as I mentioned before, so is my participation on this discussion.

[al Furqaan]

Fantastic. So you concede that atheism has nothing to do with morals and that atheists can have morals. Thank you.

yes, i will concede that.

This is where I disagree. I am not sure if you have studied the "logic" behind moral aguments very thoroughly.

Let me give you a taste of the "logic" behind me helping a lady walking across the street. By helping an old lady like that, I feel good about myself, and the lady also feels good being helped by me, which further increases the good feeling inside me. The feeling of goodness that I experience from this action may outweigh the cost of "energy", "time", etc. And it makes perfect moral and logical sense. There is nothing illogical or irrational about this. Do you agree?

it may or may not be rational. however, you acted in your own self-interest since you helped the lady out and felt good about it. if you had felt bad helping her out, you wouldn't have done it, once again furthering your own best interest.

Similarly, stealing something that is owned and used by someone else has the possibility of making that person whose stuff got stolen feel bad, an as a whole undermines the security of living in a society and enjoying things one owns, and sets a bad precedence. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to not steal. In fact, you admitte it yourself. Man is a rational animal and it's the ANIMAL in man that wants to steal, but it's the "rationality" in him that makes him NOT steal. Do you get it?

suppose i am in dire need of $500, and i see a lady with any amount of money. logic would dictate, that i take it from her, forcibly if necessary (it wouldn't hurt to ask first). here is the logic:

a) if i act "morally" and not steal, i still have the dilemma of coming up with $500, which leads me to have a large headache. this makes me feel bad.

b) if i act selfishly, and do take the money, i have my financial problems solved. end of dilemma. and i feel good.

this is, obviously, a very anarchic and bleak picture of a dog-eat-dog world. but the only reason we have these moral codes of conduct is to prevent society from decending into an "every man for himself " chaos.

so there is no right or wrong, only what mankind deems to be right or wrong. some organize their self-interests in accordance with these societal norms and others do not.

And you certainly did not read my post properly. Where did I say anything about "act unilaterally"? I am talking about "act utilitarianism". Pay attention to the second word. And then look it up.

oops, my mistake. what a horrid one indeed.

That is a very debatable hypothesis, and EVEN if it is true, it probably bolsters the logic behind my moral actions as I escribe above.

i disagree with you wholeheartedly. it would bolster your logic, except that initially you accepted the existance of absolute morality. you agreed that lying, cheating, killing, were all absolutely wrong.

as for the superiotity issue: perhaps i was mistaken in my earlier assumptions about you. if so, my bad, and my apoligies.

and maybe you didn't berate people, but there beliefs. again, my mistake perhaps.

but how would you feel if someone attacked athiesm on this forum? i'm sure if someone started spewing forth with less than pleasant things to say about athiesim or prominent athiests, you would feel the need to say a thing or twenty in reply.

while you may not have started this thread...the topic was initiated by you. we went from alpha and beta people to how muhammad was a "manipulator."

suppose i start to talk about athiests as manipulators of logic? would that have a chance of being offensive to athiests. i mean, after all, i wasn't really praising the heck out of them.

not to mention all your other unfavorable remarks (e.g how does someone marry his 10 year old daughter to a 60 something "damra") or something like that.

if you wish to reply, please u2u me. i will do the same. perhaps the others here do not wish to read all this.


Edited on, March 28, 2005, 2:05 AM GMT, by Arnab.
Reason: formatting

[Arnab]

I will answer this not all at once and add things as I get more free time.

yes, i will concede that.

Awesome.

it may or may not be rational. however, you acted in your own self-interest since you helped the lady out and felt good about it. if you had felt bad helping her out, you wouldn't have done it, once again furthering your own best interest.

First of all, let me point out that the use of the word "rational" here is not correct. If you have taken introductory logic, you would realize that this is not the case of a "descriptive" argument, where the issue in question is about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future. This is a "prescriptive" argument, where the issue in question is about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad.

Second, what is your point of contention in the above quote? You started by saying that if an atheist decides to help an old lady walk across the street, this decision of his is irrational (or "illogical"; for our discussion let's assume they both mean the same thing) because of the cost of time and convenience involved. Then I showed you that there are valid "reasons" for an atheist to make that decision:
a. It makes the atheist feel good
b. It makes the old lady feel good.
and c. the combination of (A+B) may outweigh the cost of helping the lady.

Now you are saying that "it may or may not be rational", but it still shows self-interest. So firstly, you are backing off from your comment about the decision being completely "irrational" and now ambivalent about the "rationality" of the atheist's moral decision. And secondly, about your comment on self-interest, what are you trying to say here? Is self-interest in this particular case of walking an old lady across the street inherently bad, i.e., is it doing any harm to me OR the old lady? No. Did I say that one should ALWAYS act on self-interest (or even the same amount or quality of self-interest) in all cases other than this particular case? No.

I will add more. Don't reply until I am done.

Edited on, March 28, 2005, 2:40 AM GMT, by Arnab.

[al Furqaan]

adding more is fine...rather than "rational", perhaps i should use "logical"

[dosadeel]

I never said ppl are turning away from religion. I said.. there is a correlation between EDUCATION AND RELIGION. More education tend to lead ppl toward disbelief in the creator. Thanks!!

thats exactly what I was refuting, that mroe and more educated ppl in western countries are converting/reverting to Islam. Maybe you need to READ and RE-READ my posts.

Rest... all drivel on 50/50 or whatever.. who cares what others are thinking.. most of them havn't a clue and are NOT scientists - sorry. If you know what you ar talking about that's all it matters!!! Frankly - you don't.

Glad you mentioned that. I was just trying to say what the scientists have said about the theory of evolution. As long as it doesn't get elevated to the status of a law, we can't claim that its the reason behind the existence of human beings. If you would like to believe it no matter what others think, thats perfectly fine with me

[dosadeel]

Originally posted by Orpheus
See much better than a reference right? What do those stupid sceintists know anyway?

Thanks for the interesting overly simplified lesson on evolution. If only things were that simple. From my research on Genetics, I know that the genetic system is comprised of much more than just a bunch of DNA. There are enzymes that read the code on the DNA, messenger RNAs produced after reading these codes, a ribosome on which messenger RNA will mount according to this code, transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome to be used in production, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous intermediary processes. For all this to happen, DNA needs to be in an isolated and controlled environment, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist (in other words, the cell). What I"m trying to say is that for DNA to evolve, it needs an appropriate environment where it can survive, exchange materials, and get energy from its surroundings.

This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sudden" with its incredibly complex structure. TO clarify, I'll give you an example:

Let us resemble the cell to a high-tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is comprised of a much more complex and developed system than a car with its motor and all its technical equipment.) Now let us ask: what would you think if you went out trekking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a latest model car among the trees? Would you think that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the raw materials making up the car are obtained from iron, plastic, rubber, earth or its by-products, but would this fact lead you to think that these materials had synthesised and evolved over time and then come together and manufactured such a car?

Without doubt, anyone with little intelligence would know that the car was the product of a conscious design, that is a factory, and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of a jungle. The sudden origination of a complex structure in a complete form out of the blue shows that it is created by a conscious agent. A complex system like the cell is no doubt created by a superior will and wisdom. In other words, it came into existence as a creation of Allah.

Saying all this, I won't want to get into further discussions refuting the theory of evolution, because it is still not accepted entirely in the circles of science as a fact. Until that happens, there is no point really for us to argue over it.

Edited on, March 28, 2005, 3:20 AM GMT, by dosadeel.

[imtiaz82]

LOL You are giving an oversimplified explanation (as dosadeel pointed out ) of the theory of evolution. If it's so simple then the scientist community won't be in disagreement regarding it.

The funny thing is you have conveniently used my name to stir emotion. But I am not a small kid who will get aroused with simple play of words

Instead of me giving you an alternate explanation of the theory of evolution and boring people here, why don't you read some of the points agianst it yourself from the following websites:

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution01.php

Also,,because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process. Then after sometimes, the scientists will refute that too due to more contradictory information.

So unless the scientific world comes to a complete agreement regarding this issue and accept it as a Law, there is no point for us in arguing for or against it.

Let me know about your thoughts, after reading the articles above.

I will end with "What do those stupid scientists AGAINST EVOLUTION know anyway?"

Originally posted by Orpheus

See much better than a reference right? What do those stupid sceintists know anyway?

Edited on, March 28, 2005, 5:47 AM GMT, by nayeem007.

[Orpheus]

RAZAB

spring break is over and as I mentioned before, so is my participation on this discussion.

Yeah mine is over too. Have class today. TIme went by like nothing man. I am still not on campus feeling so lazy. Yup participation for me here will definitely be reduced.

Dosadeel

thats exactly what I was refuting, that mroe and more educated ppl in western countries are converting/reverting to Islam. Maybe you need to READ and RE-READ my posts.

REally you were refuting that? And why connect education with West only. And I wasn't talking about Islam, I was talking about God in particular. Getting away from God!! As razab mentioned if you convert from one to other, not much is changed really. anyways.. google it up if you want to confirm the data


Dosadeel SECOND POST

Thanks for the interesting overly simplified lesson on evolution. If only things were that simple. From my research on Genetics, I know that the genetic system is comprised of much more than just a bunch of DNA. There are enzymes that read the code on the DNA, messenger RNAs produced after reading these codes, a ribosome on which messenger RNA will mount according to this code, transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome to be used in production, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous intermediary processes. For all this to happen, DNA needs to be in an isolated and controlled environment, where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist (in other words, the cell). What I"m trying to say is that for DNA to evolve, it needs an appropriate environment where it can survive, exchange materials, and get energy from its surroundings.

Yes simplified yet hard to understand It’s good that you have done a lot of research on Genetics. What you just described above is the TRANSCRIPTIONAL process. That has little to do with the overall concept that I was trying to give. I am not gonna write a genetics books in this thread – thank you very much. Yes DNA needs to be in a “controlled” environment to be replicated or transcribed – what’s your point? DNA is in the cell? No ****!! I wouldn’t have disagreed with you.

By the way, DNA doesn’t necessarily need a cell – It can exist in a virus as well and survive.

This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sudden" with its incredibly complex structure.

Really?? I don’t think so. Like I said, even though this is not the answer but DNA can survive w/o a cell in bacteria. Instead of going into all those details (there is no point – not that I don’t mind), your logic has a flaw of its own. Let’s go with your logic:

Basically, you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) – is that the first Cell was CREATED. Alright I accept. Then what? Now DNA has an “environment” to survive and replicate and also divide itself. Now with all the division, replication, adhesion etc – we are making something… Thus ultimately it’s from the cell, organisms are being made and hence Evolution is right. Right?? – going with your logic. Please have consistent thoughts!!

Would you think that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a vehicle

This is the saddest analogy I have seen. What do I sound like to you – a five year old? I would have thought about it had the Car replicated it self – or does anything at all by itself. This analogy is just sad and I hope you see it too. After all you are a well respected researcher: p

won't want to get into further discussions refuting the theory of evolution, because it is still not accepted entirely in the circles of science as a fact.

It is accepted by almost all. My point is why you would listen to one and not the other. Shouldn’t you decide it for yourself? Shouldn’t you try to understand the concept yourself and see the evidence and think for yourself? I am not here to prove the non-existence of GOD. I would be the happiest person on earth if God is proven right. I believe in God. The problem is the evidence for the existence of God and they are the holy text. And when you read them and see what it says – your belief just becomes lighter. I agree with you that Quran can be used as a book of law, economics etc just like Karl Marx’s books.

Nayem

LOL You are giving an oversimplified explanation (as dosadeel pointed out ) of the theory of evolution. If it's so simple then the scientist community won't be in disagreement regarding it.

Yes oversimplified. Did you understand it? Were you able to connect them all? Forget about the scientist community for a second (whatever that is), I mean if you and I are studying science, we are also part of that community as well right. For a sec just forget about God and try to actually learn something. You didn’t even think about it. Did you even look at Human Chromosome 2 picture and ponder what’s going on – considering you know something or at least read my attempt at clearing some concepts? Read it again and try to think to yourself how feasible the idea of common parents for all those apes is. Thank you.

Instead of me giving you an alternate explanation of the theory of evolution and boring people here

Oh no I don’t think anyone will get bored. It will be the best thing coming out from forget forum cricket

So unless the scientific world comes to a complete agreement regarding this issue and accept it as a Law, there is no point for us in arguing for or against it.

Again you are just harping over and over on the same thing. Scientific community. Theory – law. You have a brain of your own. Use it for God Sake.

On you articles – I clicked – I saw the title. I shut. The problem with you ppl is you buy everything that is put forward to you. I figured there is no point of going to details here… this forum is definitely for this.
I just don’t get when they say something can not be evolved.. lol.. what a load of crap. How do you figure that? You can say – by what means it came about we don’t know yet but we will certainly find out. I think the concepts should be very clear if you just understand the simple thing about DNA modification. It’s those DNA sequence that’s coding everything. Understand? Something doesn’t need to get “evolved” in step by step… There was an experiment where they stuck the coding sequence for a leg into the coding sequence of an eye in Drosophila. Next thing you know legs were coming out of the drosophila’s eye. I am keeping my discussion very simple (over simplified in your case) but I still get the sense you are having some what difficulty understand the concept.

Ah the fossil evidence. What nonsense of the creationist. We have plenty of evidence seeing how we came about from Australopithecus co. We have evidence for the redesign of our hip to the redesign of our hand allowing us to throw remotely and become the most dangerous creature ever produced on this mother earth, to the expansion of our brain allowing us to control this motha fu**ing universe. Try googling “Nariokotome boy”. Anyways, I tried – now I don’t have the time or the energy to educate you. Education is free from public library.


CONCLUSION

THis post was way too long - I dont' like that. Anyways - Good luck and be enlightened!! Allah Hafez. I start class from tomorrow. so all the God fearing and believing soul.. pray your hearts out for ME Bangalee manush.. vikka obbash ta ekhon jai nai.

[imtiaz82]

On you articles – I clicked – I saw the title. I shut. The problem with you ppl is you buy everything that is put forward to you.

The first article I posted is by Dr David Menton who has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. And you did not even read the article and his explanation just because it goes against your view.

Funny, how people point finger to religious people and say they have blind faith.It looks like you have blind faith in your "theory of evolution" as you are not even willing to read other's point of view if it goes against your personal belief.



Edited on, March 28, 2005, 10:42 AM GMT, by nayeem007.

[Orpheus]

Originally posted by nayeem007

The first article I posted is by Dr David Menton who has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. And you did not even read the article and his explanation just because it goes against your view.

Funny, how people point finger to religious people and say they have blind faith.It looks like you have blind faith in your "theory of evolution" as you are not even willing to read other's point of view if it goes against your personal belief.

Edited on, March 28, 2005, 10:42 AM GMT, by nayeem007.

Alright I just read your article - and I am sorry he barely talks about the eye. He talks about probability. Maybe he has a "phd" in statistics :p From reading that article it is pretty obvioius who were the target audience. And frankly, he doesn't sound like he holds a phd in cell bio. Probably he didn't even write this

He is comparing an eye with a computer and saying how it is "impossible" for a computer to generate such process so fast. An eye is obviously not a computer. what does that have to do with evoultion - I dont' know. AGain he barely talked about an eye.

I would have given you a much better response quoting a lot fo the things in article when I read that at home. Right now I am in school and I don't have time for it. (It wouldn't make any difference anyway - I guess )

Well lemme see I can enlighten you with something. The photon receptor in the eye is a G-protein called rhodhopsin. In your body there are thousands of G-protein receptors and most of them follow the same steps. Maybe you can tell me why such a wide spread of one particular receptor throughout. ACtually 50% of the drugs that you find in a pharmacy does something in G-protein mechanisms. I dont' know why i am writing this.. NO point.

And I don't even know how he gives a stupid analogy with the lettering. Even change in a SINGLE letter of the sequence can give you totally different protein. BUt more on that later.. if you are confused.

[fab]

Orphy - IMO humans should be given the opportunity to have a dignified death. If someone is suffering from immense pain then they should be allowed to die peacefully. We kill animals who are in severe uncurable pain, but we do not give the same level of respect to humans because of our own selfish needs. That is just my simple take on the matter.

PS:

Originally posted by Orpheus
When you mate with a girl - your egg cell and her sperm cell fuses.

Haha! You're hilarious. That is the funniest insult I've read in a long time.

[imtiaz82]

Originally posted by Orpheus

Alright I just read your article - and I am sorry he barely talks about the eye. He talks about probability. Maybe he has a "phd" in statistics :p From reading that article it is pretty obvioius who were the target audience. And frankly, he doesn't sound like he holds a phd in cell bio. Probably he didn't even write this

http://www.clclutheran.org/rlc/menton.htm

Just to show that I didn't make up the article with his name. He does hold a Phd in cell biology. You will find his biography and more articles about "evolution theory" in the above site.

As I said before, the scientific community is not in agreement with it. (Even people who have done research in this field like Dr David Menton is not convinced by this evolutionay theory). He has find numerous flaws in the theory as he states in his articles, which has been published in Scientific Journals all across the world.(not religious magazines).

There has been arguments for and against the "theory of evolution" for the last 140 years and you expect people to believe the theory based on your 2 paragraph explantion

From your post, it clearly looks like that you are a serious proponent for the "Theory of Evolution" but the fact is Professors and scientists who have done much more research in this field than you are not in agreement with it.(I am assuming that, since you haven't given your credentials).

Earlier you were saying that, the theory is so simple that even if a layman uses his brain should get it. I wonder why, scientists who have been researching for years in the field of Microbilogy are in disagreement regarding it.(I guess all those scientists are retarded or something )

PS Dr David Menton is one of the many scientists against this theory, if you want I can give you names of other prominent scientists ....



Edited on, March 29, 2005, 9:44 AM GMT, by nayeem007.