Atheism is bullshit, change my mind

[tesfey67n]

any atheists on here want to debate?

Seems like not many atheists stepped forward and challenged my info, dont hide behind your screens.

I had a discussion with @Kafir
but even he was avoiding some topics, But still, I will give him respect for speaking out.

we will speak about the concept of God, evolution, and esoteric knowledge, and whatever shit you want to speak about.

 

[Ameen]

The discussion will lead to nothing fruitful

 

[tesfey67n]

The discussion will lead to nothing fruitful

if you are an atheist, then you cant and believe in the law of gravity and the changing of the seasons.
I can speak on it from an esoteric perspective if you want to debate.

 

[YourBroMoe]

Ｉ　ｓｅｅ　ｙｏｕ　ｔｏｏ，　ｌｉｋｅ　ｔｏ　ｌｉｖｅ　ｌｉｆｅ　ｏｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｅｄｇｅ．　　じ竹ス畏ヌ圧塩映壱ノ　蒸ド

 

[Kafir]

Why is evolution on your list? You don't think human evolution actually happened? I'm guessing you believe in some sort of conspiracy within all of Academia to keep this lie going right? Either that or you think they're just wrong. Anyway here's some of the evidence for evolution:

The Fossil record;
You can tell age of dug up fossils and other deposits from the depth it was retrieved. The lower layer the deposit was found, the older the date. You can think of it like a gradient with the newer deposits closer to the top and the older ones closer to the bottom.

Fossils of early humanoids and even earlier creatures were found... lots of them. You have neanderthals and Australopithecus afarensis like the famous Lucy for example. This is a reconstructed one from a neanderthal fossil in Mettmann, Germany

Here's the very important part, I want you to read this, from all the fossils of early humanoids you will find the ones more distant ones from modern humans exclusively within the lower layers of deposits. You won't for instance find a modern human fossil buried at the same depth as an Australopithecus afarensis fossil, nor will you ever find Australopithecus afarensis bones as high up as modern human fossils. The takeaway from this is that they existed in different times. When you go back in time far enough there stops being modern humans and instead you'll find these guys. What does that say to you? Other types of fossil dating includes radiometric dating and carbon dating. Would you be surprised to find out that they only support the deposit layer dating model? And by the way it's these fossils that make the foundation of the whole out of Africa theory. Since all of the very earliest forms of hominids are found almost exclusively in Africa.

While we're on the topic of bones, the bones between humans and other animals are eerily similar. More specifically between humans and other mammals. And once more between humans and other apes. Not only their bones but their entire biology. A biologist will explain this increasing pattern of similarity using the taxonomic tree with more common lineages going from animals to mammals to apes. As in going down a taxonomic tree to specific branches means more recent common ancestry. More recent common ancestry means more biological similarity. It's the same type of similarity you find between yourself and your siblings and less and less so with your distant and even more distant cousins.

DNA evidence;
The similarity is all because of DNA. A sequenced genome of a person is remarkably similar to that of a chimpanzee. Less similar to other mammals, less to other vertebrates, less to other animals broadly and even less so with non-animal life forms. You can see the same thing on a smaller scale between you and family members. Very similar DNA between you and your siblings, less so between you and your first cousins, even less so between third and fourth cousins. Why is this?

Also you can see more of this between humans and other primates (gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc...). Humans have a different number of chromosomes than these other primates. One less chromosome specifically. You would think this would be evidence countering the theory of evolution. Or at the very least put humans in a different lineage, but it turns out to be exactly the opposite. Humans unlike other primates are missing two relatively small sized chromosomes and instead have an unusually large second chromosome. As it turns out the two smaller proto-primate chromosomes fused in the human lineage. The fusion of these two smaller chromosomes created the large second chromosome you find today in humans.You want to know how you can tell that this happened? By looking at the structural difference of the second chromosome from every other one. A normal chromosome looks something like this: telomeres at its extremities, relevant DNA information follows, then a single centromere, more relevant DNA information and it finishes off with telomeres at the other end. Chromosome number 2 on the other hand has a layer of doubly long telomeres at its centre instead of a centromere. It also strangely enough has two centromeres further away from the centre. These two would be both in the centre if you split chromosome 2 into 2 smaller chromosomes. It looks a bit like this:

The nail on the coffin for this one is when you sequence the DNA of human chromosome number 2. You'll find a DNA match with the two smaller chromosomes you find in other primates. The fact that we see a change in genotype this dramatic between humans and their earlier ancestors just goes to show that evolution happened.

Vestige traits; there are parts of the human body that serve no purpose to us today and yet we still have them. Vestige traits like our wisdom teeth or how some people can move their ears. or humans having tails while they're still embryos (the massive similarity between human embryos and even the embryos of distant relatives like dolphins also serves as evidence). These traits only exist in us today because our ancestors actually made use of them.

You can see evolution today just from looking at HIV and cancer cells. You can think of cancer cells as evolution taking place in a person's own body to their detriment. A cell dividing in a person's body needs to replicate its DNA first. Mistakes can be made (in fact it's these mistakes that are the driving force of evolution in the first place). Sometimes the mistake in DNA replication results in a gene sequence that promotes a cancerous growth. This is what you call a hit. Mistakes like continuing to divide even without the normal enzyme signaling. Since this cell is now dividing much more frequently it has an even greater opportunity to make another mistake during DNA replication allowing another hit to happen. These hits include altered DNA sequences leading to more resistance against the host immune system or allowing for even more mistakes during DNA replication. What you see in a person who has cancer is evolution. It's this evolution that makes the cancer so deadly. The cancer cells after having divided so often end up having multiple different lineages of cancer cells descending from a single cancer cell competing with one another for survival. This leads to a type of natural selection in which the cancer lineages with more hits end up surviving and spreading beyond control. You can take a DNA sample from a cancer cell of a person in the early stages of cancer and see the massive difference between the DNA from that same person's cancer cells at a later stage. The later stage and more proliferating cancer cells have multiple changes in their DNA that show a bunch of hits and are more deadly than their more tame ancestors.

 

[tesfey67n]

Fossils of early humanoids and even earlier creatures were found... lots of them. You have neanderthals and Australopithecus afarensis like the famous Lucy for example. This is a reconstructed one from a neanderthal fossil in Mettmann

the thing is, lucy is very "questionable". why?

the sunken continant "Lemuria" is the origin of humankind



Promulgation[edit]
After gaining some acceptance within the scientific community, the concept of Lemuria began to appear in the works of other scholars. Ernst Haeckel, a Darwinian taxonomist, proposed Lemuria as an explanation for the absence of "missing link" fossil records. According to another source, Haeckel put forward this thesis prior to Sclater (but without using the name "Lemuria").[6] Locating the origins of the human species on this lost continent, he claimed the fossil record could not be found because it sank beneath the sea.



God gathred the waters together and made the sea, separating the land from the water, in the period of the world's formation which we speak of as the Moon Period.

Comparing this different days of creation with the Epochs, the formless, dark first day of creaation corresponds to the Polarian Epoch. The man was yet mineral-like. When God commanded the light to shine and the vegetation to grow, the vegetable kingdom was formed, whichoccurred in the Hyperborean Epoch. God said,"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." This portion of the Bible story of creation refers to the fire-fog of the Lemurian Epoch, when man's body was beginning to harden. We have then the evening and the morning of the fifth day, when God let the earth bring forth creatures after their kind, cattle and creeping things. In the 26th verse, it is recorded thatGod said: "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thhing that creepeth upon the earth. 27th verse: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created Hethem.We have here the sixth day. These verses refer to the Atlantean Epoch.

Afterman became a reasoning being, having a mind with which to think, God gave him/her dominion over the lower kingdoms. After God had turned the lower kingdoms over to man, God rested; not as the literal religionists would have Him do, namely, sit down and refuse to work, with a man servant and a maid servant to serve Him. God was in the same position then as a mother is who has brought her boys and girls to the stage of puberty, watching over and caring for them until they are old enough to be responsible for their own acts. So did God turn man out of the child garden of play, the Garden of Eden, and made him responsible. God was then released from the task of directing all his activities. However, if He really ceased His work for but one instant, all the world would fall topieces.


im just quoting this, its 4 am, I'm just too tired to write an essay again. hopefully, we can continue this tomorrow.

 

[tesfey67n]

Why is evolution on your list? You don't think human evolution actually happened? I'm guessing you believe in some sort of conspiracy within all of Academia to keep this lie going right? Either that or you think they're just wrong. Anyway here's some of the evidence for evolution:

The Fossil record;
You can tell age of dug up fossils and other deposits from the depth it was retrieved. The lower layer the deposit was found, the older the date. You can think of it like a gradient with the newer deposits closer to the top and the older ones closer to the bottom.

Fossils of early humanoids and even earlier creatures were found... lots of them. You have neanderthals and Australopithecus afarensis like the famous Lucy for example. This is a reconstructed one from a neanderthal fossil in Mettmann, Germany

Here's the very important part, I want you to read this, from all the fossils of early humanoids you will find the ones more distant ones from modern humans exclusively within the lower layers of deposits. You won't for instance find a modern human fossil buried at the same depth as an Australopithecus afarensis fossil, nor will you ever find Australopithecus afarensis bones as high up as modern human fossils. The takeaway from this is that they existed in different times. When you go back in time far enough there stops being modern humans and instead you'll find these guys. What does that say to you? Other types of fossil dating includes radiometric dating and carbon dating. Would you be surprised to find out that they only support the deposit layer dating model? And by the way it's these fossils that make the foundation of the whole out of Africa theory. Since all of the very earliest forms of hominids are found almost exclusively in Africa.

While we're on the topic of bones, the bones between humans and other animals are eerily similar. More specifically between humans and other mammals. And once more between humans and other apes. Not only their bones but their entire biology. A biologist will explain this increasing pattern of similarity using the taxonomic tree with more common lineages going from animals to mammals to apes. As in going down a taxonomic tree to specific branches means more recent common ancestry. More recent common ancestry means more biological similarity. It's the same type of similarity you find between yourself and your siblings and less and less so with your distant and even more distant cousins.

DNA evidence;
The similarity is all because of DNA. A sequenced genome of a person is remarkably similar to that of a chimpanzee. Less similar to other mammals, less to other vertebrates, less to other animals broadly and even less so with non-animal life forms. You can see the same thing on a smaller scale between you and family members. Very similar DNA between you and your siblings, less so between you and your first cousins, even less so between third and fourth cousins. Why is this?

Also you can see more of this between humans and other primates (gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc...). Humans have a different number of chromosomes than these other primates. One less chromosome specifically. You would think this would be evidence countering the theory of evolution. Or at the very least put humans in a different lineage, but it turns out to be exactly the opposite. Humans unlike other primates are missing two relatively small sized chromosomes and instead have an unusually large second chromosome. As it turns out the two smaller proto-primate chromosomes fused in the human lineage. The fusion of these two smaller chromosomes created the large second chromosome you find today in humans.You want to know how you can tell that this happened? By looking at the structural difference of the second chromosome from every other one. A normal chromosome looks something like this: telomeres at its extremities, relevant DNA information follows, then a single centromere, more relevant DNA information and it finishes off with telomeres at the other end. Chromosome number 2 on the other hand has a layer of doubly long telomeres at its centre instead of a centromere. It also strangely enough has two centromeres further away from the centre. These two would be both in the centre if you split chromosome 2 into 2 smaller chromosomes. It looks a bit like this:

The nail on the coffin for this one is when you sequence the DNA of human chromosome number 2. You'll find a DNA match with the two smaller chromosomes you find in other primates. The fact that we see a change in genotype this dramatic between humans and their earlier ancestors just goes to show that evolution happened.

Vestige traits; there are parts of the human body that serve no purpose to us today and yet we still have them. Vestige traits like our wisdom teeth or how some people can move their ears. or humans having tails while they're still embryos (the massive similarity between human embryos and even the embryos of distant relatives like dolphins also serves as evidence). These traits only exist in us today because our ancestors actually made use of them.

You can see evolution today just from looking at HIV and cancer cells. You can think of cancer cells as evolution taking place in a person's own body to their detriment. A cell dividing in a person's body needs to replicate its DNA first. Mistakes can be made (in fact it's these mistakes that are the driving force of evolution in the first place). Sometimes the mistake in DNA replication results in a gene sequence that promotes a cancerous growth. This is what you call a hit. Mistakes like continuing to divide even without the normal enzyme signaling. Since this cell is now dividing much more frequently it has an even greater opportunity to make another mistake during DNA replication allowing another hit to happen. These hits include altered DNA sequences leading to more resistance against the host immune system or allowing for even more mistakes during DNA replication. What you see in a person who has cancer is evolution. It's this evolution that makes the cancer so deadly. The cancer cells after having divided so often end up having multiple different lineages of cancer cells descending from a single cancer cell competing with one another for survival. This leads to a type of natural selection in which the cancer lineages with more hits end up surviving and spreading beyond control. You can take a DNA sample from a cancer cell of a person in the early stages of cancer and see the massive difference between the DNA from that same person's cancer cells at a later stage. The later stage and more proliferating cancer cells have multiple changes in their DNA that show a bunch of hits and are more deadly than their more tame ancestors.[/QUOT

im open minded person bro, but i like to make sure everything is facts.

 

[tesfey67n]

Why is evolution on your list? You don't think human evolution actually happened? I'm guessing you believe in some sort of conspiracy within all of Academia to keep this lie going right? Either that or you think they're just wrong. Anyway here's some of the evidence for evolution:

The Fossil record;
You can tell age of dug up fossils and other deposits from the depth it was retrieved. The lower layer the deposit was found, the older the date. You can think of it like a gradient with the newer deposits closer to the top and the older ones closer to the bottom.

Fossils of early humanoids and even earlier creatures were found... lots of them. You have neanderthals and Australopithecus afarensis like the famous Lucy for example. This is a reconstructed one from a neanderthal fossil in Mettmann, Germany

Here's the very important part, I want you to read this, from all the fossils of early humanoids you will find the ones more distant ones from modern humans exclusively within the lower layers of deposits. You won't for instance find a modern human fossil buried at the same depth as an Australopithecus afarensis fossil, nor will you ever find Australopithecus afarensis bones as high up as modern human fossils. The takeaway from this is that they existed in different times. When you go back in time far enough there stops being modern humans and instead you'll find these guys. What does that say to you? Other types of fossil dating includes radiometric dating and carbon dating. Would you be surprised to find out that they only support the deposit layer dating model? And by the way it's these fossils that make the foundation of the whole out of Africa theory. Since all of the very earliest forms of hominids are found almost exclusively in Africa.

While we're on the topic of bones, the bones between humans and other animals are eerily similar. More specifically between humans and other mammals. And once more between humans and other apes. Not only their bones but their entire biology. A biologist will explain this increasing pattern of similarity using the taxonomic tree with more common lineages going from animals to mammals to apes. As in going down a taxonomic tree to specific branches means more recent common ancestry. More recent common ancestry means more biological similarity. It's the same type of similarity you find between yourself and your siblings and less and less so with your distant and even more distant cousins.

DNA evidence;
The similarity is all because of DNA. A sequenced genome of a person is remarkably similar to that of a chimpanzee. Less similar to other mammals, less to other vertebrates, less to other animals broadly and even less so with non-animal life forms. You can see the same thing on a smaller scale between you and family members. Very similar DNA between you and your siblings, less so between you and your first cousins, even less so between third and fourth cousins. Why is this?

Also you can see more of this between humans and other primates (gorillas, orangutans, monkeys etc...). Humans have a different number of chromosomes than these other primates. One less chromosome specifically. You would think this would be evidence countering the theory of evolution. Or at the very least put humans in a different lineage, but it turns out to be exactly the opposite. Humans unlike other primates are missing two relatively small sized chromosomes and instead have an unusually large second chromosome. As it turns out the two smaller proto-primate chromosomes fused in the human lineage. The fusion of these two smaller chromosomes created the large second chromosome you find today in humans.You want to know how you can tell that this happened? By looking at the structural difference of the second chromosome from every other one. A normal chromosome looks something like this: telomeres at its extremities, relevant DNA information follows, then a single centromere, more relevant DNA information and it finishes off with telomeres at the other end. Chromosome number 2 on the other hand has a layer of doubly long telomeres at its centre instead of a centromere. It also strangely enough has two centromeres further away from the centre. These two would be both in the centre if you split chromosome 2 into 2 smaller chromosomes. It looks a bit like this:

The nail on the coffin for this one is when you sequence the DNA of human chromosome number 2. You'll find a DNA match with the two smaller chromosomes you find in other primates. The fact that we see a change in genotype this dramatic between humans and their earlier ancestors just goes to show that evolution happened.

Vestige traits; there are parts of the human body that serve no purpose to us today and yet we still have them. Vestige traits like our wisdom teeth or how some people can move their ears. or humans having tails while they're still embryos (the massive similarity between human embryos and even the embryos of distant relatives like dolphins also serves as evidence). These traits only exist in us today because our ancestors actually made use of them.

You can see evolution today just from looking at HIV and cancer cells. You can think of cancer cells as evolution taking place in a person's own body to their detriment. A cell dividing in a person's body needs to replicate its DNA first. Mistakes can be made (in fact it's these mistakes that are the driving force of evolution in the first place). Sometimes the mistake in DNA replication results in a gene sequence that promotes a cancerous growth. This is what you call a hit. Mistakes like continuing to divide even without the normal enzyme signaling. Since this cell is now dividing much more frequently it has an even greater opportunity to make another mistake during DNA replication allowing another hit to happen. These hits include altered DNA sequences leading to more resistance against the host immune system or allowing for even more mistakes during DNA replication. What you see in a person who has cancer is evolution. It's this evolution that makes the cancer so deadly. The cancer cells after having divided so often end up having multiple different lineages of cancer cells descending from a single cancer cell competing with one another for survival. This leads to a type of natural selection in which the cancer lineages with more hits end up surviving and spreading beyond control. You can take a DNA sample from a cancer cell of a person in the early stages of cancer and see the massive difference between the DNA from that same person's cancer cells at a later stage. The later stage and more proliferating cancer cells have multiple changes in their DNA that show a bunch of hits and are more deadly than their more tame ancestors.

im very open minded bro, but I like to make sure everything is facts before i settle with a conclusion.

give me irrefutable facts without it being "questionable"

 

[Kafir]

the thing is, lucy is very "questionable". why?


i will give you a scientific proof here. since you copied and pasted all that, i will too.

Promulgation[edit]
After gaining some acceptance within the scientific community, the concept of Lemuria began to appear in the works of other scholars. Ernst Haeckel, a Darwinian taxonomist, proposed Lemuria as an explanation for the absence of "missing link" fossil records. According to another source, Haeckel put forward this thesis prior to Sclater (but without using the name "Lemuria").[6] Locating the origins of the human species on this lost continent, he claimed the fossil record could not be found because it sank beneath the sea.

God gathred the waters together and made the sea, separating the land from the water, in the period of the world's formation which we speak of as the Moon Period.

Comparing this different days of creation with the Epochs, the formless, dark first day of creaation corresponds to the Polarian Epoch. The man was yet mineral-like. When God commanded the light to shine and the vegetation to grow, the vegetable kingdom was formed, whichoccurred in the Hyperborean Epoch. God said,"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." This portion of the Bible story of creation refers to the fire-fog of the Lemurian Epoch, when man's body was beginning to harden. We have then the evening and the morning of the fifth day, when God let the earth bring forth creatures after their kind, cattle and creeping things. In the 26th verse, it is recorded thatGod said: "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thhing that creepeth upon the earth. 27th verse: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created Hethem.We have here the sixth day. These verses refer to the Atlantean Epoch.

Afterman became a reasoning being, having a mind with which to think, God gave him/her dominion over the lower kingdoms. After God had turned the lower kingdoms over to man, God rested; not as the literal religionists would have Him do, namely, sit down and refuse to work, with a man servant and a maid servant to serve Him. God was in the same position then as a mother is who has brought her boys and girls to the stage of puberty, watching over and caring for them until they are old enough to be responsible for their own acts. So did God turn man out of the child garden of play, the Garden of Eden, and made him responsible. God was then released from the task of directing all his activities. However, if He really ceased His work for but one instant, all the world would fall topieces.


im just quoting this, its 4 am, I'm just too tired to write an essay again. hopefully, we can continue this tomorrow.

I didn't copy and paste anything. I spent about 25 minutes writing it out myself. I used my notes from a couple of classes I took in undergrad. Search the internet for what I wrote you aren't going to find it anywhere other than here. I like that you chose to use "scientific" proof to try and dismiss the theory of evolution. That tells me that you actually give the scientific method some credit and you're willing to listen to the findings from Academia.

You do realize just how fundamental the theory of evolution is to the entire field of biology right? Some people like to even say that studying biology and not buying the theory of evolution is like trying to study geology and not believing in plate tectonics. You're more likely to find a climate scientist who doesn't believe in climate change than you are a biologist who doesn't evolution. Why do you think this is? Why do you think that the scientific community has embraced this theory to this level? Do you think it might have something to do with all the evidence presented by the theory?

I can tell you why you don't believe it though. I know exactly why. Despite the credit you're willing to give the findings of modern science this one isn't one of them. Your beliefs as a Muslim get in the way of you believing this. How does the story of Adam fit in with the theory of evolution? Was he the first DNA replicating organism to exist on Earth? Well that would make him every living thing's ancestor now wouldn't it? This doesn't sit well with the Islamic narrative of human history, so you reject it. You know what normal Muslims do when they find something that contradicts the Islamic narrative? They change the narrative. You can pretend that Adam was metaphorical and not an actual person. Christians who believe in evolution do this. And from our previous talks you've already shown that you have no problem reinterpreting the Quran to make things allegorical that were never meant to be. Like believing heaven and hell are only metaphors.

I've never heard of Ernst Haeckel but I'll investigate more thoroughly tomorrow. The idea you're proposing is that humans originated on a long lost continent but since it's gone we aren't going to find any extremely old human bones on that land to show it. Even if I were to grant you that, it doesn't make the other hominid fossils go away. It doesn't make these earlier proto-human bones that were actually found disappear. Nor does it make their connection to modern humans go away either. Nor does it make the similarity between humans and other living creatures go away.

 

[tesfey67n]

Vestige traits; there are parts of the human body that serve no purpose to us today and yet we still have them. Vestige traits like our wisdom teeth or how some people can move their ears. or humans having tails while they're still embryos (the massive similarity between human embryos and even the embryos of distant relatives like dolphins also serves as evidence). These traits only exist in us today because our ancestors actually made use of them.

During the fifth week the embryo begins to grow a tail, which becomes one- sixth as long as its body during this period. It then takes on a decidedly reptilian appearance, similar to that of the lizard, also having gill clefts. This fetal form is also surrounded by water. Between the seventh and eighth weeks the reptile has changed its form. The tail has atrophied and the head has taken on a pugdog-like appearance, with short arms and legs. The hands and feet are paws, with fingers and toes developing. From the tenth week the fetus begins to take on a human form. The nose begins to develop. The man-in- the-making at this period develops beyond the animal and becomes all human, reaching its perfection in the seventh month. Here we again find the perfection of God's work. At the end of the sixth cosmic day man was a self- conscious being. He was required to take up his own work in the seventh and free God from the exclusive care of him.

@MuslimManMe magical number seven again

 

[tesfey67n]

I didn't copy and paste anything. I spent about 25 minutes writing it out myself. I used my notes from a couple of classes I took in undergrad. Search the internet for what I wrote you aren't going to find it anywhere other than here. I like that you chose to use "scientific" proof to try and dismiss the theory of evolution. That tells me that you actually give the scientific method some credit and you're willing to listen to the findings from Academia.

You do realize just how fundamental the theory of evolution is to the entire field of biology right? Some people like to even say that studying biology and not buying the theory of evolution is like trying to study geology and not believing in plate tectonics. You're more likely to find a climate scientist who doesn't believe in climate change than you are a biologist who doesn't evolution. Why do you think this is? Why do you think that the scientific community has embraced this theory to this level? Do you think it might have something to do with all the evidence presented by the theory?

I can tell you why you don't believe it though. I know exactly why. Despite the credit you're willing to give the findings of modern science this one isn't one of them. Your beliefs as a Muslim get in the way of you believing this. How does the story of Adam fit in with the theory of evolution? Was he the first DNA replicating organism to exist on Earth? Well that would make him every living thing's ancestor now wouldn't it? This doesn't sit well with the Islamic narrative of human history, so you reject it. You know what normal Muslims do when they find something that contradicts the Islamic narrative? They change the narrative. You can pretend that Adam was metaphorical and not an actual person. Christians who believe in evolution do this. And from our previous talks you've already shown that you have no problem reinterpreting the Quran to make things allegorical that were never meant to be. Like believing heaven and hell are only metaphors.

I've never heard of Ernst Haeckel but I'll investigate more thoroughly tomorrow. The idea you're proposing is that humans originated on a long lost continent but since it's gone we aren't going to find any extremely old human bones on that land to show it. Even if I were to grant you that, it doesn't make the other hominid fossils go away. It doesn't make these earlier proto-human bones that were actually found disappear. Nor does it make their connection to modern humans go away either. Nor does it make the similarity between humans and other living creatures go away.

no bro, like i said if you can give me undeniable evidence then I will acknowledge evolution.

quantum physics and other fields of science are nowadays saying weird mystical shit lol, atheists might not agree with it.

Anyways i will fully get into this debate after my sleep.

 

[Kafir]

During the fifth week the embryo begins to grow a tail, which becomes one- sixth as long as its body during this period. It then takes on a decidedly reptilian appearance, similar to that of the lizard, also having gill clefts. This fetal form is also surrounded by water. Between the seventh and eighth weeks the reptile has changed its form. The tail has atrophied and the head has taken on a pugdog-like appearance, with short arms and legs. The hands and feet are paws, with fingers and toes developing. From the tenth week the fetus begins to take on a human form. The nose begins to develop. The man-in- the-making at this period develops beyond the animal and becomes all human, reaching its perfection in the seventh month. Here we again find the perfection of God's work. At the end of the sixth cosmic day man was a self- conscious being. He was required to take up his own work in the seventh and free God from the exclusive care of him.

@MuslimManMe magical number seven again

Calling in for reinforcements are you? He could benefit from reading this stuff too. From reading everything you've posted so far I've actually learned a lot about you. I learned just how generally uneducated you really are about many topics. You're very prone to superstition. It's why I asked you in the other thread if you also believed in things like the moon landing being faked or Freemasons controlling the world or thinking Deepak Chopra was a deep and thought provoking speaker. I wasn't trying to make fun of you as a tinfoil hat wearer. I sincerely believed you could've been one. Someone who believes in outlandish nonsense like the sunken continent Lemuria (and humans originating from there), mysticism, and a person's "vibration" level determining their personality is what you call a scientifically illiterate person. You are the perfect candidate to be a tinfoil hat wearer.

I've never learned anything beyond introductory level for quantum mechanics so I'm not going to be able to get into detail about that. But if your understanding of that topic is anything like your understanding of biology/genetics/evolution or even Islamic theology I'm definitely not trusting what you think about the topic.

 

[tesfey67n]

Calling in for reinforcements are you? He could benefit from reading this stuff too. From reading everything you've posted so far I've actually learned a lot about you. I learned just how generally uneducated you really are about many topics. You're very prone to superstition. It's why I asked you in the other thread if you also believed in things like the moon landing being faked or Freemasons controlling the world or thinking Deepak Chopra was a deep and thought provoking speaker. I wasn't trying to make fun of you as a tinfoil hat wearer. I sincerely believed you could've been one. Someone who believes in outlandish nonsense like the sunken continent Lemuria (and humans originating from there), mysticism, and a person's "vibration" level determining their personality is what you call a scientifically illiterate person. You are the perfect candidate to be a tinfoil hat wearer.

it really makes sense that you replied with that, you are an ATHEIST. I just keep forgetting that.

also, something I learned about you is, that you a denialist, you repulse on everything I say, you are a sycophant person, you dont try to question anything scientists say(cuz you believe scientists are always right)


So quantum physics are now proving the parallel worlds, spiritual worlds, different conscious of minds, and basically, everything that you would consider "metaphysical". But you call me a "conspiracy theorist"? lol, the irony.


2017:According to geologists, the Lemurian continent had been divided somewhere towards the end of the Mesozoic era because of the rising waters. India’s National Institute if Oceanography revealed in a study that water level was one hundred meters lower, or so, 14,500 years ago, and it gradually went up as a result of the Earth heating up until periodic floods coated a substantial portion of the landmass. In turn, this led to the disappearance of many coastal civilizations, in our case Lemuria, or Kumari Kandam.


deny everything and every new evidence that is being found.


unlike you im not a yes man, I'm not sycophant person.


i tagged Muslim man cuz of other reason, i dont need no help from him to have a dialogue with you.

 

[Subeer]

Why is evolution on your list? You don't think human evolution actually happened? I'm guessing you believe in some sort of conspiracy within all of Academia to keep this lie going right? Either that or you think they're just wrong. Anyway here's some of the evidence for evolution:

The Fossil record;
You can tell age of dug up fossils and other deposits from the depth it was retrieved. The lower layer the deposit was found, the older the date. You can think of it like a gradient with the newer deposits closer to the top and the older ones closer to the bottom.

Fossils of early humanoids and even earlier creatures were found... lots of them. You have neanderthals and Australopithecus afarensis like the famous Lucy for example. This is a reconstructed one from a neanderthal fossil in Mettmann, Germany

.

Your claim that man evolved from some kind of ape-creature is false,
ALL of the Australopithecus species are unique apes that look and resemble the apes of today.The capacity of their cranium is absolut the same or even smaller than the chimpanzee we know today. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Just like today the male chimpanzee-male is larger than the female, so was the Australopithecus male. they're short, not taller than 130 cm, just like the modern day chimpanzee. And there are many other characteristics such as the detail of their skull, the close set eyes, the sharp teeth, the structure of their lower and upper jaw, the long arms, and their short legs, are all evidence that this Australopithecus creature you claim is the ancestor of the modern day human is reaching.

The skull of a modern day chimpanzee

The skull of the Australopithecus

The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that Australopithecus is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics.

The fallacious claim that lucy could walk upright is a view that a lot of evolutionists hold dear, such as Richard leakey, and donad C.Johnson .But many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research, on the skeletal structure of lucy, have proved the invalidity of that argument.
Broad research and discovery have been done on lucy, and the other of the australopithecus family, by anatomists Solly Zuckerman and prof. Charles Oxnard, and it was showed that Lucy, and the other creatures did not and have never in fact never walked upright in any way that could resemble the human manner .After a lot of studying of their skeletal structure of these fossils, and their bones, Zuckermann and his team reached the final conclusion that Lucy were only an ordinary species of ape, and were not bipedal ( walking on two limbs), and this was carried out by zuckermann whos a evolutionists himself too. (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94).


Besides another evolutionary anatomist Charles E.Oxnard , who was famous for his works, and research on the subject, actually said that the skeltal structure of lucy, is similar to the modern day orangutans in the famous "The place of australopithecines in human evolution."
(Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389).

Lucy cannot and have never been the ancestor of man, which is defended with fierce delusion. A famous french scientific magazine which goes under the name of "science et vie" actually in 1999, made a article under the name of "Adieu Lucy", the scientific magazine reported that the apes of the species Australopithecus should have to be removed from the human family tree, because of the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known as St W573, and the following was said:

"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered"
(Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62. )

So as said before the claim that the modern day human are in any way related to the ape Lucy is false, based on imaginary tales, recent finding actually also discovered that the Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in two far different parts of the world AT THE SAME TIME!!
(Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia")

Vestige traits; there are parts of the human body that serve no purpose to us today and yet we still have them. Vestige traits like our wisdom teeth or how some people can move their ears. or humans having tails while they're still embryos (the massive similarity between human embryos and even the embryos of distant relatives like dolphins also serves as evidence). These traits only exist in us today because our ancestors actually made use of them.

 

[Subeer]

Vestige traits; there are parts of the human body that serve no purpose to us today and yet we still have them. Vestige traits like our wisdom teeth or how some people can move their ears. or humans having tails while they're still embryos (the massive similarity between human embryos and even the embryos of distant relatives like dolphins also serves as evidence). These traits only exist in us today because our ancestors actually made use of them.

​

This whole assumption is quite idiotic and unscientific, and the claim is pretty much based on insufficient research and knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose functions had not yet been discovered. The best proof of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist you alongside with the racist Charles Darwin worship , concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution"

But another problems with this statement is that it is not possible, theoretically, for us to prove the uselessness of a given organ

Evolutionary zoologist S. R. Scadding himself again stated the following:

"The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn’t identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

And yes sxb functions have been found on the elements you and your fellowminded evolutionists claim, and even by Darwin himself knew the riskiness of this claim. As Charles Darwin famously said in his discoveries :

"With respect to the assumed inutility of various parts and organs, it is hardly necessary to observe that even in the higher and best-known animals many structures exist, which are so highly developed that no one doubts that they are of importance, yet their use has not been, or has only recently been, ascertained"

And actually through further research it was discovered that the so called " non-functional organs" actually had functions, the wisdom teeth, the coccyx, and the appendix.

And it was found that The appendix actually functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply.
The coccyx (“tailbone”) “serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus Maximus.

The wisdom teeth are actually useful, if other molars should decay or wear down. Although we in our culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is “too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potential”, another evidence that they in the past actually was useful, and they served a meaning, again refuting the claim that we have vestigal organs which serves no meaning,

ANOTHER and the most recent blow the claim of "vestigal organs" is The latest blow to the myth of vestigial organs comes from a recent study on the leg of the horses: In an article in the 20th of december 2001 the journal of nature, titled as "Biomechanics: Damper for bad vibrations, damper for bad vibrations" it was actually noted that the muscle fibres of the legs of the horses were deemed to be a evolutionary leftovers with absolut no function, but they may have in fact have a function which is to damp the damaging vibrations which are created in the of the horse, and the article states :



"Horses and camels have muscles in their legs with tendons more than 600 millimetres long connected to muscle fibres less than 6 millimetres long. Such short muscles can change length only by a few millimetres as the animal moves, and seem unlikely to be of much use to large mammals. The tendons function as passive springs, and it has been assumed that the short muscle fibres are redundant, the remnants of longer fibres that have lost their function over the course of evolution. But Wilson and colleagues argue… that these fibres might protect bones and tendons from potentially damaging vibrations….


Their experiments show that short muscle fibers can damp the damaging vibrations following the impact of a foot on the ground. When the foot of a running animal hits the ground, the impact sets the leg vibrating; the frequency of the vibrations is relatively high-for example, 30-40 Hz in horses-so many cycles of vibration would occur while the foot was on the ground if there were no damping.


The vibrations might cause damage, because bone and tendon are susceptible to fatigue failure. Fatigue in bones and tendons is the accumulation of damage resulting from repeated application of stresses. Bone fatigue is responsible for the stress fractures suffered by both human athletes and racehorses, and tendon fatigue may explain at least some cases of tendonitis. Wilson et al. suggest that the very short muscle fibres protect both bones and tendons from fatigue damage by damping out vibrations" (Mcneill Alexander, "Biomechanics: Damper For Bad Vibrations," Nature, 20-27 December 2001.)


This is not surprising, the more we learn about nature the more evident it becomes that there is in fact a creator. And Darwinism turns out to be an argument from ignorance.

Now i dont know what the time is in your ends, but im going to sleep, we"ll continue this discussion tomorrow if interested.
​

 

[Subeer]

@Kafir and dont even get me started on the whole "transition from sea dwelling creature to a land-dwelling creature" theory, you actually believe that a fish as a result of drought billion years ago developed lungs from gills, and arms from finns, all thhrough mutation AT THE SAME TIME BY CHANCE?????????

Even a 4-year old can tell you that a fish cannot survive more than several minutes on land, but evolutionists seem to believe in such maddness

 

[Halimo-2018]

Atheism seems cool until you age realzing the end is near..Not saying i am old but i have worked in a elderly home with people with severe dementia for one day i had to quit at same time was best job i have ever had in the sense of what it taught me.May Allah protect us. I am not a perfect muslim but I cant imagine not being able to look forward to meeting Allah....I pray that he guides me my off aprings from this lost world. May God guide yall too.

 

[Sakandari]

Darwinist Scientists themselves, unlike brainwashed atheists, don't have solid faith in the current theory. Take this one as an example:

Gerd B. Müller1,2
1Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Klosterneuburg, Austria

"A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike."

"Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence."


"Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [32], but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33]. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them."

"A subtler version of the this-has-been-said-before argument used to deflect any challenges to the received view is to pull the issue into the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate. Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory."


"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

 

[Sakandari]

This whole assumption is quite idiotic and unscientific, and the claim is pretty much based on insufficient research and knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose functions had not yet been discovered. The best proof of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist you alongside with the racist Charles Darwin worship , concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution"​

True. Watch this amazing clip and realize how those people only show their ignorance.
N.B. It's in Arabic. Press c.c for English subtitles.

 

[Sakandari]

Fossil records only shows that animals were created in the most suitable time. The cambrian explosion has no agreed-on explanation yet.

Alleged DNA evidence:
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/04/human-chimp-dna-similarities.html
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/chromosome-2-fusion-model.html