Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedoph...

Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad

There are 3146 comments on the Examiner.com story from Sep 14, 2013, titled Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not so bad. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

"The God of the Qur'an is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2528 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
They were still far more tolerant that Islamic rulers would have been (or Christian) as they never stopped him preaching in the streets to pilgrims.
But remember, as far as the Meccan's were concerned, Muhammad was trying to convert their friends and families into a faith they considered false. That makes people angry.
are you sure you know what happened within the 13 years muslims lived in Mekkah ??
don't you know that the immigration to Al Medina wasn't the first immigration done by Muslims, they also had to immigrate to Al Habasha in order to live in peace, so Quraysh wasn't able to kill Mohammed because of his tribe (Banu hashim) position in Mekkah and because of his uncle the leader of Quraysh but that didn't stop them from harming weak Muslims, many were killed and tortured.

a group of Muslims immigrated to Al Habasha (Abyssinia) as they were ruled by a christian leader who was known for his justice and honesty (Al Najashi)
for more info you can check this article
http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/islam.asp

the other tribes couldn't stop Mohammed so they accused him of being a liar, magician and mad, and killed and tortured weak muslims such as slaves and people who don't descend from important tribes to harm the message of Islam and stop it from spreading, after that Quraysh declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim in order to put pressure on the clan to withdraw its protection from Muhammad, the terms imposed on Banu Hashim, as reported by Ibn Ishaq, were "that no one should marry their women nor give women for them to marry; and that no one should either buy from them or sell to them, and when they agreed on that they wrote it in a deed." The boycott lasted for two or three years but eventually collapsed mainly because it was not achieving its purpose and had caused extreme privation and the sympathizers within the Quraysh finally united to annul the agreement, furthermore the boycott of Banu Hashim was a source of great troubles for the Muslims, and they were forced to do their second migration to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they suffered hunger since no one should either buy from them or sell to them.

during the Boycott Mohammed's uncle, chief protector and the leader of Banu Hashim passed away, so then the leaders of some clans gathered to discuss the issue of Mohammed knowing that everything they tried before created nothing but increasing numbers of Muslims, so they decided to kill him in away that guarantees no revenge from Banu Hashim Clan and agreed on bringing a man from several clans and kill Mohammed with one strike thus his blood will be lost because apparently Quraysh wouldn't be able to take revenge from a bunch of clans all together, they headed to his house to kill him but didn't find him and found Ali his cousin lying in his bed instead, as Mohammed was already on the way to Medina, it didn't stop there as The Quraish announced a reward of 100 camels for anyone who tracked Muhammad and Abu Bakr and bring him dead or alive, you can see further details in the story of suraqa Bin Malik who pursued Mohammed when he was on his way to Medina and was able to find him since he was a clever and patient tracker who trailed people by their footprints on the sand, the excreta of the camels and horses.
you can read the rest of the story of suraqa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suraqa_bin_Malik

just briefly Muhammad (PBUH) promised him that he would one day wear the bangles of Khusrow of Iran, that promise was fulfilled during the caliphate of Umar (the second caliph) muslims defeated the Persians and Suraqa was brought to wear the bangles of Khusrow,

so were Mekkans tolerant ??? I don't think so

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2529 Mar 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why forget about your godbook? Blame where blame is due, that is what is limiting your comprehension.
And I have given you clear answers, two of which you seem to have ignored.
Who knows what evolution will bring?
I am not talking about my godbook that's why you should put it aside, however you say that evolution is science, but the scientific method requires observable and testable evidences, and all you do is tracking some little changes through tens of millions of years so such evidences are certainly not observable, or in other words you have faith in the Darwinian evolution or have faith in what some scientists say.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
We do know that it is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal, you may call this adaptation of it helps you rationalise your faith but that makes not the slightest difference that it’s genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity.
Why should it evolve to another kind of reptile, it may do in time but consider that you have evolved from an ape and guess what you are a developed ape.
so according to your own words that lizard is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal so it's genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity, that is exactly the definition of Adaptation, but Darwinian theory suggest an evolving from a kind to another like Dinus to birds and apes to humans, the lizard you are talking about will never evolve to a whole different species just like Giraffes adapted to survive and through time got their necks taller to reach trees, there is no problem with adaptation but evolving from a specific kind of species into a whole new one in my opinion it never happened and never will.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You will of course huff and puff about that but it still makes no difference. Evolution is a proven fact, not just once but many times over and with many independent lines of evidence.
Funny, only a few days ago Thinking and I had a quick chat regarding extremely intelligent Muslim students walking out of lectures because evolution was mentioned. I think it really is quite pathetic that they let outmoded religious dogma dictate their future employment in the science that they so obviously hoped to succeed in.
we still don't have any solid evidence for Darwinian evolution, some people claim that all the scientists agrees on the Darwinian evolution while there are a plenty of scientists against it, it just happens that you have faith in the opinion of some scientists while you don't have any evidence that you can observe and test by yourself.

I dont know where "thinking" saw muslims getting out of a lecture when mentioning darwinian evolution theory because obviously we study this theory in our schools and universities but unlike you we know that its a theory not a fact and theory may be right and may be wrong, its not a fact ..!!!

"Water Boil at 100 Degrees" that is a fact that can be easily observed and tested, when you get that you can say Darwinian theory is a fact not a theory.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#2530 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about my godbook that's why you should put it aside, however you say that evolution is science, but the scientific method requires observable and testable evidences, and all you do is tracking some little changes through tens of millions of years so such evidences are certainly not observable, or in other words you have faith in the Darwinian evolution or have faith in what some scientists say.
<quoted text>
so according to your own words that lizard is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal so it's genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity, that is exactly the definition of Adaptation, but Darwinian theory suggest an evolving from a kind to another like Dinus to birds and apes to humans, the lizard you are talking about will never evolve to a whole different species just like Giraffes adapted to survive and through time got their necks taller to reach trees, there is no problem with adaptation but evolving from a specific kind of species into a whole new one in my opinion it never happened and never will.
<quoted text>
we still don't have any solid evidence for Darwinian evolution, some people claim that all the scientists agrees on the Darwinian evolution while there are a plenty of scientists against it, it just happens that you have faith in the opinion of some scientists while you don't have any evidence that you can observe and test by yourself.
I dont know where "thinking" saw muslims getting out of a lecture when mentioning darwinian evolution theory because obviously we study this theory in our schools and universities but unlike you we know that its a theory not a fact and theory may be right and may be wrong, its not a fact ..!!!
"Water Boil at 100 Degrees" that is a fact that can be easily observed and tested, when you get that you can say Darwinian theory is a fact not a theory.
Last time, evolution is proven in several independent ways and it is your godbook dictating your ignorance so it really does not matter what you want to believe

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2531 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
are you sure you know what happened within the 13 years muslims lived in Mekkah ??
don't you know that the immigration to Al Medina wasn't the first immigration done by Muslims, they also had to immigrate to Al Habasha in order to live in peace, so Quraysh wasn't able to kill Mohammed because of his tribe (Banu hashim) position in Mekkah and because of his uncle the leader of Quraysh but that didn't stop them from harming weak Muslims, many were killed and tortured.
a group of Muslims immigrated to Al Habasha (Abyssinia) as they were ruled by a christian leader who was known for his justice and honesty (Al Najashi)
for more info you can check this article
http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/islam.asp
the other tribes couldn't stop Mohammed so they accused him of being a liar, magician and mad, and killed and tortured weak muslims such as slaves and people who don't descend from important tribes to harm the message of Islam and stop it from spreading, after that Quraysh declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim in order to put pressure on the clan to withdraw its protection from Muhammad, the terms imposed on Banu Hashim, as reported by Ibn Ishaq, were "that no one should marry their women nor give women for them to marry; and that no one should either buy from them or sell to them, and when they agreed on that they wrote it in a deed." The boycott lasted for two or three years but eventually collapsed mainly because it was not achieving its purpose and had caused extreme privation and the sympathizers within the Quraysh finally united to annul the agreement, furthermore the boycott of Banu Hashim was a source of great troubles for the Muslims, and they were forced to do their second migration to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they suffered hunger since no one should either buy from them or sell to them.
during the Boycott Mohammed's uncle, chief protector and the leader of Banu Hashim passed away, so then the leaders of some clans gathered to discuss the issue of Mohammed knowing that everything they tried before created nothing but increasing numbers of Muslims, so they decided to kill him in away that guarantees no revenge from Banu Hashim Clan and agreed on bringing a man from several clans and kill Mohammed with one strike thus his blood will be lost because apparently Quraysh wouldn't be able to take revenge from a bunch of clans all together, they headed to his house to kill him but didn't find him and found Ali his cousin lying in his bed instead, as Mohammed was already on the way to Medina, it didn't stop there as The Quraish announced a reward of 100 camels for anyone who tracked Muhammad and Abu Bakr and bring him dead or alive, you can see further details in the story of suraqa Bin Malik who pursued Mohammed when he was on his way to Medina and was able to find him since he was a clever and patient tracker who trailed people by their footprints on the sand, the excreta of the camels and horses.
you can read the rest of the story of suraqa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suraqa_bin_Malik
just briefly Muhammad (PBUH) promised him that he would one day wear the bangles of Khusrow of Iran, that promise was fulfilled during the caliphate of Umar (the second caliph) muslims defeated the Persians and Suraqa was brought to wear the bangles of Khusrow,
so were Mekkans tolerant ??? I don't think so
Can you please give me the names of Muslims killed in Mecca because nowhere does the Quran say any were killed or as far as I'm aware the hadiths.
There is a story of one woman dying but even them there are two versions of it.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#2532 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about my godbook that's why you should put it aside, however you say that evolution is science, but the scientific method requires observable and testable evidences, and all you do is tracking some little changes through tens of millions of years so such evidences are certainly not observable, or in other words you have faith in the Darwinian evolution or have faith in what some scientists say.
<quoted text>
so according to your own words that lizard is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal so it's genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity, that is exactly the definition of Adaptation, but Darwinian theory suggest an evolving from a kind to another like Dinus to birds and apes to humans, the lizard you are talking about will never evolve to a whole different species just like Giraffes adapted to survive and through time got their necks taller to reach trees, there is no problem with adaptation but evolving from a specific kind of species into a whole new one in my opinion it never happened and never will.
<quoted text>
we still don't have any solid evidence for Darwinian evolution, some people claim that all the scientists agrees on the Darwinian evolution while there are a plenty of scientists against it, it just happens that you have faith in the opinion of some scientists while you don't have any evidence that you can observe and test by yourself.
I dont know where "thinking" saw muslims getting out of a lecture when mentioning darwinian evolution theory because obviously we study this theory in our schools and universities but unlike you we know that its a theory not a fact and theory may be right and may be wrong, its not a fact ..!!!
"Water Boil at 100 Degrees" that is a fact that can be easily observed and tested, when you get that you can say Darwinian theory is a fact not a theory.
Biological adaptation is evolution, it really does not matter how you justify it with your godbook

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#2533 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about my godbook that's why you should put it aside, however you say that evolution is science, but the scientific method requires observable and testable evidences, and all you do is tracking some little changes through tens of millions of years so such evidences are certainly not observable, or in other words you have faith in the Darwinian evolution or have faith in what some scientists say.
<quoted text>
so according to your own words that lizard is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal so it's genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity, that is exactly the definition of Adaptation, but Darwinian theory suggest an evolving from a kind to another like Dinus to birds and apes to humans, the lizard you are talking about will never evolve to a whole different species just like Giraffes adapted to survive and through time got their necks taller to reach trees, there is no problem with adaptation but evolving from a specific kind of species into a whole new one in my opinion it never happened and never will.
<quoted text>
we still don't have any solid evidence for Darwinian evolution, some people claim that all the scientists agrees on the Darwinian evolution while there are a plenty of scientists against it, it just happens that you have faith in the opinion of some scientists while you don't have any evidence that you can observe and test by yourself.
I dont know where "thinking" saw muslims getting out of a lecture when mentioning darwinian evolution theory because obviously we study this theory in our schools and universities but unlike you we know that its a theory not a fact and theory may be right and may be wrong, its not a fact ..!!!
"Water Boil at 100 Degrees" that is a fact that can be easily observed and tested, when you get that you can say Darwinian theory is a fact not a theory.
Why do godbots always want new species bu magic? I'll tell you why, because it's the only way you read your godbook without throwing down the toilet.

Darwin provided a good start 150 years ago, things have moved on a bit since then. And yes the evidence is irrefutable

I have seen Muslims walk out on lectures myself so don't blame thinking for muslim inadequacy

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2534 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the lies told about evolution is that adaptation is not evolution.
Adaptation discuss evolution within the same kind of species, like Giraffes evolving into an evolved from of Giraffes, or some sort of bacteria evolving into a better one, evolving in the Beaks of some kinds of birds....etc all these examples discuss evolving within the same kind of species, but Darwinian theory suggest that a different kind of species can evolve into a whole different kind, its like saying a bird someday after million of years of evolution may become a dog.

lets say we have Amphibians, birds, fish, Invertebrates, mammals and reptiles
so is it possible form a particular species of a bird to evolve into a different species of fish or a species of reptiles to evolve into a different kind ??

adaptation suggest evolution within a particular species not to jump from a kind into another.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution:
1. All living things produce offspring which is different to themselves, either through sex mixing two sets of genes or mistakes in copying or because bacteria can swap genes Just observe how different you are to your parents and children.(That’s Random).
outstanding, so living things produce offspring different to themselves, but how much different ?? its still not likely for living things to produce offspring to a whole different species not even during a very long time.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
2. All living things produce far more offspring than can possibly survive on the resources available.
3. Most of those offspring will die (watch any nature program).
4. Those most likely to survive are those most suited to that environment. Different environments will suit different individuals (Non random Natural selection).
Again I see all of these things as adaptation techniques and ways.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
5. So over many generations, a species changes, becomes more adapted to its environment.
6. If a branch of a species changes enough, it might be called a different species, just as foxes are a different species to wolves.
different species but still within the same kind which is I think Canidae and the canidae is divided into two different tribes ; Canini and Vulpini.

Darwinian theory suggest a change of a kind not only species.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
7. Only tiny changes can be expected to happen from one generation to the next. So the evolution of all body parts such as the eye and brain has to be explained in very small steps. Scientists are sure they can do that.
In other words, what survives breeds, what doesn’t doesn’t.
It isn’t just the fittest that survive. Species can survive by becoming smaller, quieter and better at hiding.
Nor is it about increased complexity, that’s just one of many survival strategies.
Earthworms are very successful despite being very slow and dim.
This process is incredibly slow, but it does happen and as life has existed for about 3.5 billion years, it’s had plenty of time to branch into all the forms we see today.
Bacteria have plenty of food. There's no reason for them to abandon that food and grow bigger.
Eukaryote cells which are bigger, have multiple survival strategies, one of which is multicellular life.
http:/
Darwinism led many to try to make a link between man and this long chain of creation, but without having any clear or sound evidence,the current fossils record is still deficient I believe, having many gaps, as evidence by the very long period of record of life on earth (at least 3800 million years), which has been inhabited by several consecutive patterns of creation that increased in their number and complexity of structure as time went by, This correct observation has been used in making many wrong deductions and/or conclusions.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#2535 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not talking about my godbook that's why you should put it aside, however you say that evolution is science, but the scientific method requires observable and testable evidences, and all you do is tracking some little changes through tens of millions of years so such evidences are certainly not observable, or in other words you have faith in the Darwinian evolution or have faith in what some scientists say.
<quoted text>
so according to your own words that lizard is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal so it's genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity, that is exactly the definition of Adaptation, but Darwinian theory suggest an evolving from a kind to another like Dinus to birds and apes to humans, the lizard you are talking about will never evolve to a whole different species just like Giraffes adapted to survive and through time got their necks taller to reach trees, there is no problem with adaptation but evolving from a specific kind of species into a whole new one in my opinion it never happened and never will.
<quoted text>
we still don't have any solid evidence for Darwinian evolution, some people claim that all the scientists agrees on the Darwinian evolution while there are a plenty of scientists against it, it just happens that you have faith in the opinion of some scientists while you don't have any evidence that you can observe and test by yourself.
I dont know where "thinking" saw muslims getting out of a lecture when mentioning darwinian evolution theory because obviously we study this theory in our schools and universities but unlike you we know that its a theory not a fact and theory may be right and may be wrong, its not a fact ..!!!
"Water Boil at 100 Degrees" that is a fact that can be easily observed and tested, when you get that you can say Darwinian theory is a fact not a theory.
Like the theory of gravity, evolution is also a fact
Its a fact. A proven fact. The evidence is irrefutable.

“Be strong ...”

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#2536 Mar 7, 2014
Sorry for the bitty posts. The mobile site is not as easy as the main site.I

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2537 Mar 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do godbots always want new species bu magic? I'll tell you why, because it's the only way you read your godbook without throwing down the toilet.
Darwin provided a good start 150 years ago, things have moved on a bit since then. And yes the evidence is irrefutable
I have seen Muslims walk out on lectures myself so don't blame thinking for muslim inadequacy
because obviously if you don't have a solid evidence for a new species or at least any kind of observable evidence to a change of kind (just like what Darwin suggested) then you have faith in what Darwin and other scientists said.

as I said to Igor trip Darwinism led many to try to make a link between man and this long chain of creation, but without having any clear or sound evidence, the current fossils record is still deficient, having many gaps, as evidence by the ancient record of life on earth (at least 3800 million years), which has been inhabited by several consecutive patterns of creation that increased in their number and complexity of structure as time went by. This correct observation has been used in making many wrong deductions.

so you certainly only have faith in the Darwinian theory Just like religious people have faith in god because obviously you'll never be able to observe any changes or see any new species or change in a kind within your short life after All Richard Dawkins is the one who said that we are condemned to live for a very short periods of time that we will never be able to observe evolution happening.

your whole life and beliefs is based on a theory that can be proven to be right or wrong.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2538 Mar 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the theory of gravity, evolution is also a fact
Its a fact. A proven fact. The evidence is irrefutable.
Wrong, because obviously Gravity can be tested and observed easily just hold a cup of glass and let it go.

who told you that evolution is a fact and who told you that its a proven fact with an irrefutable evidence ???!

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2539 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please give me the names of Muslims killed in Mecca because nowhere does the Quran say any were killed or as far as I'm aware the hadiths.
There is a story of one woman dying but even them there are two versions of it.
The Makhzum clan used to take out Ammar ibn Yasir with his father (yasir ibn amer) and mother (Sumayyah bint khayyat), who were Muslims, in the heat of the day and expose them to the heat of Mecca.

Yasir was tortured to death by Abu Jahl along with his wife Summayah after converting to Islam but the son Ammar survived.

Sumayyah was the first person in history to be martyred for having adopted the faith of Islam, in pre-Hijra Mecca.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasir_ibn_Amir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Kh...

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2540 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
The Roman's (actually Byzantines) and the Persians had been fighting each other for centuries. It was not that hard a prediction that the Roman's would regain some of their territories.
Most translators translate 30:3 as the nearest land.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/30/3/
There was no battle around the dead sea (the lowest point on the earth). It was Jerusalem that was besieged.
the thing is that Muslims were sad because Romans were considered as people of the book (people of the gospels) or Christians so to Muslims Christians are far more better than Persians who were pagans, so revelations came down saying that Romans were defeated in the lowest lands and they will again be victorious in a few years; precisely from 3 to 9 years and Romans defeated Persians in 7 years and that was proved by many historians.

I think you are borrowing what some Christians scholars say about the lowest and the nearest land issue, all you have to do is to get a dictionary and see by yourself what adna means, adna was translated into the nearest while adna with no doubt also refers to lowest.

I wish I could get you the word Adna in Arabic letters so you can copy and paste it into any dictionary from Arabic to english and see by yourself, but unfortunately this website doesn't support Arabic language, anyways you can check this article on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet
scroll down to the table of basic letters or click 1.2.1 from contents
and gather the isolated following letters from the table ; first get the isolated letter which has the name Alif (&#257;).

- get the isolated letter which holds the name d&#257;l (d).

- get the isolated letter which holds the name n&#363;n (n).

and after that scroll down to Modified letters or click 1.2.3 from the contents
then get the isolated letter which holds the name alif maq&#7779;&#363;rah.

when you copy each isolated letter and alif maqsurah you'll get the word adna but in Arabic letters , the letters should be all together with no space between them, and then you can copy and paste the word adna in Arabic language in any dictionary you prefer and tell me what translations you get, you'll probably get several meanings and one of them will be lowest.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2542 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation discuss evolution within the same kind of species, like Giraffes evolving into an evolved from of Giraffes, or some sort of bacteria evolving into a better one, evolving in the Beaks of some kinds of birds....etc all these examples discuss evolving within the same kind of species, but Darwinian theory suggest that a different kind of species can evolve into a whole different kind, its like saying a bird someday after million of years of evolution may become a dog.
lets say we have Amphibians, birds, fish, Invertebrates, mammals and reptiles
so is it possible form a particular species of a bird to evolve into a different species of fish or a species of reptiles to evolve into a different kind ??
adaptation suggest evolution within a particular species not to jump from a kind into another.
There is no jump between species.
All species are very similar.
All animals begin as a single eukaryote cell. Only the dna varies.
Cats and Dogs are different species so tell me what is the difference between them? What does a cat have that a dog doesn't and a dog have that a cat doesn't? Why couldn't they share a distant ancestor?

There are fish that gulp air.
There are lung fish that (you've guessed it) have lungs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish
Change fins into legs and we have an amphibian. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4638587/ns/technolo...
Want a fish that grows legs and lungs? It's called a Tadpole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadpole

We share with fish a backbone, ribs, skull, limbs where fins are, a heart, blood, stomach, liver, kidneys, brain, two eyes, mouth, tongue, teeth. We aren't that different.
There's nothing preventing fish evolving into us and all the other land vertebrates by millions of tiny steps.

If you think there is can you please specify it
hazem selawi wrote:
outstanding, so living things produce offspring different to themselves, but how much different ?? its still not likely for living things to produce offspring to a whole different species not even during a very long time.
Lots of small steps equal one big step.
There are no wholly different species. Species are really very similar.
hazem selawi wrote:
Again I see all of these things as adaptation techniques and ways.
Evolution is adaptation to the environment.
hazem selawi wrote:
different species but still within the same kind which is I think Canidae and the canidae is divided into two different tribes ; Canini and Vulpini.
Darwinian theory suggest a change of a kind not only species.
You're trying to draw an artificial line that doesn't exist.
hazem selawi wrote:
Darwinism led many to try to make a link between man and this long chain of creation, but without having any clear or sound evidence,the current fossils record is still deficient I believe, having many gaps, as evidence by the very long period of record of life on earth (at least 3800 million years), which has been inhabited by several consecutive patterns of creation that increased in their number and complexity of structure as time went by, This correct observation has been used in making many wrong deductions and/or conclusions.
Then why do the fossils we find fit into the tree of life just as evolution expects?

Skulls that show humans evolving from apes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/image...

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2543 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
The Makhzum clan used to take out Ammar ibn Yasir with his father (yasir ibn amer) and mother (Sumayyah bint khayyat), who were Muslims, in the heat of the day and expose them to the heat of Mecca.
Yasir was tortured to death by Abu Jahl along with his wife Summayah after converting to Islam but the son Ammar survived.
Sumayyah was the first person in history to be martyred for having adopted the faith of Islam, in pre-Hijra Mecca.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasir_ibn_Amir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Kh...
Strangely this isn't mentioned in the Quran or hadiths yet as the first martyrs they should be.
And the sentence for apostasy in Islam is still death.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2544 Mar 7, 2014
hazem selawi wrote:
<quoted text>
the thing is that Muslims were sad because Romans were considered as people of the book (people of the gospels) or Christians so to Muslims Christians are far more better than Persians who were pagans, so revelations came down saying that Romans were defeated in the lowest lands and they will again be victorious in a few years; precisely from 3 to 9 years and Romans defeated Persians in 7 years and that was proved by many historians.
I think you are borrowing what some Christians scholars say about the lowest and the nearest land issue, all you have to do is to get a dictionary and see by yourself what adna means, adna was translated into the nearest while adna with no doubt also refers to lowest.
I wish I could get you the word Adna in Arabic letters so you can copy and paste it into any dictionary from Arabic to english and see by yourself, but unfortunately this website doesn't support Arabic language, anyways you can check this article on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet
scroll down to the table of basic letters or click 1.2.1 from contents
and gather the isolated following letters from the table ; first get the isolated letter which has the name Alif (&#257;).
- get the isolated letter which holds the name d&#257;l (d).
- get the isolated letter which holds the name n&#363;n (n).
and after that scroll down to Modified letters or click 1.2.3 from the contents
then get the isolated letter which holds the name alif maq&#7779;&#363;rah.
when you copy each isolated letter and alif maqsurah you'll get the word adna but in Arabic letters , the letters should be all together with no space between them, and then you can copy and paste the word adna in Arabic language in any dictionary you prefer and tell me what translations you get, you'll probably get several meanings and one of them will be lowest.
If a word has multiple possible meanings, how are we to know which one is correct?
You can't just take the most convenient one and ignore the others.

And there was no battle anywhere near the Dead sea.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#2545 Mar 7, 2014
Sadly, I think he is just another evil religitard like Hitler or muhammad.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Is it natural do you think or is it an act???
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#2546 Mar 7, 2014
Correct. Steve Jones,(who is no "in your face" Dawkins type) bemoans otherwise intelligent muslims turning their back on evidence when they walk out of Evolution lectures. He's a kindly diminutive scouser that is obliged to wear socks and sandals because his feet have been in a mess all his life.

But if they want to be taxi drivers and kebab merchants rather than respected biochemists, who am I to intervene?
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why forget about your godbook? Blame where blame is due, that is what is limiting your comprehension.
And I have given you clear answers, two of which you seem to have ignored.
Who knows what evolution will bring?
We do know that it is evolving from a forest dwelling animal to a cave dwelling animal, you may call this adaptation of it helps you rationalise your faith but that makes not the slightest difference that it’s genetic profile is evolving to environmental necessity.
Why should it evolve to another kind of reptile, it may do in time but consider that you have evolved from an ape and guess what you are a developed ape.
You will of course huff and puff about that but it still makes no difference. Evolution is a proven fact, not just once but many times over and with many independent lines of evidence.
Funny, only a few days ago Thinking and I had a quick chat regarding extremely intelligent Muslim students walking out of lectures because evolution was mentioned. I think it really is quite pathetic that they let outmoded religious dogma dictate their future employment in the science that they so obviously hoped to succeed in.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2547 Mar 7, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
If a word has multiple possible meanings, how are we to know which one is correct?
You can't just take the most convenient one and ignore the others.
And there was no battle anywhere near the Dead sea.
if you read the history of Byzantium or Roman empire you'll realize that it was theoretically impossible at that time for them to defeat Persians (specially in a very short period of time )but they did after 7 years of the loss, and the Quran stated that they (the Romans) will be victorious within three to nine years, used the word (beda'e) beda'e in Arabic refers to numbers from 3 to 9.

I don't know where you got from that there was no battle anywhere near the dead sea ..!!
because for Christian Byzantium, the loss of the True Cross was the heaviest blow in that defeat in Jerusalem, the dead sea is 21 miles away from Jerusalem and its also the intersection point of the lands belonging to Syria, Palestine, and Jordan.

when Byzantines were defeated ,the Persians seized control of Damascus, Armenia, and Jerusalem so that leave us with no other choice but to be sure that Persians and Romans actually fought at the Dead Sea basin (the lake of Lut).

This Arabic expression adna al-Ard is interpreted as "a nearby place" in many translations. However this is not the literal meaning, but probably a figurative interpretation. The word adna, derived from the word dani (low), means “the lowest”. The word ard means “the world.” Therefore, adna al-ard means "the lowest place on Earth."

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#2549 Mar 7, 2014
Thinking wrote:
But if they want to be taxi drivers and kebab merchants rather than respected biochemists, who am I to intervene?
<quoted text>
so are you saying that taxi drivers and merchants are less respected than biochemists ??
I think after many discussion one will finally show his real skin, it turned out that you are arrogant, racist, supercilious and concerned with appearances.

so do all of us a favor and stop talking about morals because An empty hand has nothing to give.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr dollarsbill 6,066
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 6 hr Eagle 12 - 100
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 9 hr George 3rd persec... 234
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr MIDutch 93,434
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515