I believe in Only One God and Muhammed (PBUH) as his messanger, his prophet. I invite you to the religion of Peace Islam.
Why do all of you keep saying that & then behead and stone people for (in many cases) not believing what you do?
I invite you to the religion of Peace and Tolerance Islam... I am just a servant of Islam, I would advice you to atleast for once study about Islam and foget what the contemporary Muslim is upto.
Religion of peace: Husband rips wife's eyes out after she refuses sex - http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21421664-401,00.html Gang-rape victim faces lashes - http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21332543-2,00.html Daniel Pearl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl#His_death Religion of peace. Ha.
I would advice you to atleast for once study about Islam and foget what the contemporary Muslim is upto
You've disappointed me on two fronts. 1) Let's act adult and not resort to insults. Ad hominem attacks have no place here. 2) That URL is the best you can do? I was really hoping for something better (yes, I've read it before). That article does a lot of postulating, but not a lot of proving. (I.e. It says over and over "this is a fact", "biologists accept this" which itself is an ad populum fallacy). Come on, you can do better than that. Something else that you probably overlooked is the simple fact that it is all accepted by the writers of the article, ergo it makes sense to them. It all comes back yet again to what is your starting point. What do you believe? What is your axiom? Naturalistic views are no more valid than theistic views when judging the starting assumptions against themselves. This is the key point. Once you have your starting point, you will then find all the data you need to support your view and discount the conflicting data. Theists do it too. We all do it, because we are by nature finite and can't see and know all things.
So you deny scientific fact, completely disregard the theory of how evolution occurs, all to accept something that isn't even remotely on the same level as a theory? Wow you're so intelligent.
Insulting my intelligence? That's an ad hominem. You're drawing attention away from the argument to the one making the argument. That's a fallacious form of reasoning. You are biased. (So am I.) However, you (and those who think like you) refuse to admit it. You refuse to admit it because you do not want to see creationism and evolution evaluated on the same level. For some reason, that really bothers your type. I will give you another chance to prove evolution (although we both know you can't). Don't go referencing some article that has a lot of "we know we're right" kind of rhetoric. Find some real hard proof. Then when you can't, come back here and admit that the naturalistic, humanistic viewpoint is just that. You're logic does not prove your logic (as that would be circular reasoning). "Respected" individuals do not prove anything. Just because the majority of biologists hold to something, does not make it irrefutable. This is a question of axioms (unprovable assumptions). You believe in evolution. I believe in God creating everything in six days. This is a question of belief, not science.
Animals evolve, and that is fact. It can, and has been observed. The theory part of evolution is why animals evolve. The accepted theory is Darwin's natural selection. If you which to believe otherwise, than fine. As for creationism being analyzed on the same level as evolution...well that isn't possible. Evolution is proven, can be observed, tested, and implemented. Creationism was just made up. There are no facts to support it, and nothing to even suggest it.
That doesn’t prove the origin of the species was evolutionary at all. It takes an assumption to get to that point. You've been indoctrinated well. Evolution explaining the origin of the species was “just made up†too. The “evolution†you are referring to isn’t the same thing. Oh, and about the fact that there are no facts to support, and nothing to even suggest Creationism . . . um, hmm . . . There are lots of facts to support it, and mountains of things that suggest it. It depends how you look at the data. You will see what your bias allows you to see. What you’ve chosen as your axiom defines how you perceive what you see.
Just for fun, I wanted to post a “logical proof†that a god or supreme being exists by necessity. For this I’m going to be using the square of opposition (harkening back to my days in logic class at grammar school). For those unfamiliar with it, here is a good explanation (and a good visual too). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/ Okay. Let’s start with a basic question. Is there such a thing as absolute (universal) truth? I would answer yes, but let’s take the contrary point of view and say no. No absolute truth is a true reality. It doesn’t exist. Notice what’s happened. The statement “No absolute truth is a true reality†is an absolute (universal) statement. (It’s an E Proposition if you’re following on the square of opposition.) This is a problem, as we just created an absolute statement saying that there is no absolute truth. We created an absolute disallowing absolutes! This is a nonsense argument, and has to be false. Now, if a statement is false, you can use the square of opposition to find the statement that must be true. In this case, the I proposition must be true if the E proposition is false. The I statement is Some A is B (the affirmative particular). In our case, that becomes Some absolute truth is a true reality. So, whether you agreed that absolute truth exists or not originally, we have now shown that at least there are some absolute truths. Moving on . . . Are humans finite creatures or infinite? Are humans particular or universal? They are finite (limited, having a beginning and an end). If I created a logical argument that ran like this; Some A is B Therefore, All A is B Would that be true? No. The truth of a particular proposition does not imply the truth of the corresponding universal proposition. You cannot argue from the particular to the universal. That being the case, where did universal truth come from? It couldn’t have come from man. Man is finite. You can only get a universal from another universal in syllogistic logic. Q.E.D. There is a universal, absolute, supreme being. Have fun . . .