Christians and muslims believe the same thing

[kejonn]

Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 18 2010,23:18)

This thread was called Christians and Muslims believe the same thing

Once it was determined that they didn't, we moved on to more interesting topics

[Proclaimer]

Quote

I am not an evolutionary biologist so I cannot explain to you the mechanisms involved on the molecular level. Obviously eyes, fingers, arms, etc. as we see on the various species were not the result of a single mutation. And eyes can function on a primitive level. Check out http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm for more information. Examples: SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS —– e.g. Planaria Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches. Features: 1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina 2.sense cells in contact with retina cells Use: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry. PINHOLE EYES —– e.g. Nautilus Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity. Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus.

The Canon 450D is primitive compared to the human eye too. And my skin can feel light intensity and even direction in a primitive way.

Many of these atheist arguments when you boil down the big words are fanciful imaginations with the mission of convincing oneself and everyone else that there is no God.

Sorry, but truth isn't invented in the mind. It is outside the mind, although a mind can be aligned with it.

You can run, but you can't hide.

Now back to C v M.

[kejonn]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2010,07:50)

Quote I am not an evolutionary biologist so I cannot explain to you the mechanisms involved on the molecular level. Obviously eyes, fingers, arms, etc. as we see on the various species were not the result of a single mutation. And eyes can function on a primitive level. Check out http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm for more information. Examples: SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS —– e.g. Planaria Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches. Features: 1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina 2.sense cells in contact with retina cells Use: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry. PINHOLE EYES —– e.g. Nautilus Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity. Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus. The Canon 450D is primitive compared to the human eye too. And my skin can feel light intensity and even direction in a primitive way. Many of these atheist arguments when you boil down the big words are fanciful imaginations with the mission of convincing oneself and everyone else that there is no God. Sorry, but truth isn't invented in the mind. It is outside the mind, although a mind can be aligned with it. You can run, but you can't hide. Now back to C v M.

t8, you do realize that there are many Christians who also believe in evolution? Equating evolution with atheism is like equating round balls with golf.

“Truth” is such a tricky word when theists use it. It simply loses its power because “truth” is whatever you seem to believe.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,15:34)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,15:02) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,14:48) BD Stu:  and when [the appendix is] removed there are no ill effects Quote Once again an ignorant and irresponsible statement. How in the world could you possibly know what effects everyone has or has not had. Some effects are very noticeable but not attributed the removal of the appendix. One such effect is the lack of energy/lethargy. I guarantee that you do not have the same energy level that you had before you took your appendix out but actually your body was constantly fighting infection so you were already having problems seen or unseen. Who knows what types of infection are now looming inside you. And you can cite the studies that have determined these to be symptoms of appendectomy? I’d lay money you can’t. You do write some bollocks BD, you know.  This is one of your more bollocky ones. Quote The function has always been the same in the appendix so you are still wrong about it being vestigial there is nothing vestigial in the Human Body. Just like Kejonn tried to say about wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are not a problem for everyone and often they are a great benefit.  I have my wisdom teeth and when two other molars went Bad My wisdom teeth helped anchor my teeth to fit perfectly in my mouth. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.  You have out-bollocked yourself already…one paragraph later! Quote Speculation and conjecture, I have already told you what kind of bacteria it holds, it did not change so you are wrong. I will say though that your dedication to memorizing outdated information from old text books is admirable but you should have kept up your studies and actually “learned” your ignorance on some things is downright alarming. Sorry, wrong kind of bacteria.  Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could.  I’m tempted to say you lose again but that is not what discussion is about, except to you.  I guess you being wrong could be alarming for you, but you never show it. Stuart Quote Humans cannot digest cellulose They never could. Why do you think they could? No, that is what I said.  Humans have never been able to digest cellulose. Move ON! Get up to the biology of the caecum and descent with modification from a common ancestor. Then we can discuss it knowledgeably. We're all rooting for you BD, as you say in your country.  The sooner you get up to speed… Stuart

If that is what you said then why would you mention that the appendix was for that preveious purpose when it clearly wasn't?

You really ought to think first and then post.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,15:28)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,04:02) I can't discuss evolution with you if you keep misusing the information regarding evolution. I want you to get it through your head that evolution is a non goal oriented process there is no process of selecting advantages there is no Unity of Function whereas one thing is the cause of another. The actual theory is based not upon benefits or advancement in anyway it is merely about BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY and that is why no evolutionist can discuss evolution without skewing the information or distorting the theory itself. Remove all the anthrmorphism out of your discussion of evolution with me an you will have to simply fall silent. In the theory of evolution there is no reason/ no cause. You can't say taste buds evolved “because” or fruit taste good “because” and the reason is the actual theory of evolution is that organisms that had random mutations over millions or billions of years and all that remained viable with these mutations are what you see today The theory of evolution cannot explain the predator/prey relationship or the plant/animal relationship Evolution cannot explain why Plants create oxygen and animals produce carbon creating a life giving exchange. So can you or STU present the actual theory of evolution dropping the anthromophic descriptions? I can see that your way of learning is to tell everyone what idiots they are for not knowing what you have just discovered (even when they DID know, actually!) but I guess the principle must be to avoid harshly criticising those who are improving… …maybe you could read the evolution websites a bit faster. Stuart

I already have told you I have studied evolution for years. I am not calling anyone an idiot I said ignorant which I'm sure you know the difference.

I don't have to read evolution websites to know that as afr as anyone knows man has never digested cellulose fiber and yet you did claim that was the former use of the appendix.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,15:31)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,13:56) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,10:36) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc? The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc? Can you give me a single example? Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years… Your serious? So was say a sinle mutation capable of anything more than a very minute change? Are you saying that an eye can function on a very primitive level? Can you give me an example? C'mon BD turn the page!  The answer could be there in the very next paragraph.  You will get there soon. Isn't it great not relying on the numbskulls at AiG any more! Stuart

So you can't give me an example?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,15:34)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,15:02) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,14:48) BD Stu:  and when [the appendix is] removed there are no ill effects Quote Once again an ignorant and irresponsible statement. How in the world could you possibly know what effects everyone has or has not had. Some effects are very noticeable but not attributed the removal of the appendix. One such effect is the lack of energy/lethargy. I guarantee that you do not have the same energy level that you had before you took your appendix out but actually your body was constantly fighting infection so you were already having problems seen or unseen. Who knows what types of infection are now looming inside you. And you can cite the studies that have determined these to be symptoms of appendectomy? I’d lay money you can’t. You do write some bollocks BD, you know.  This is one of your more bollocky ones. Quote The function has always been the same in the appendix so you are still wrong about it being vestigial there is nothing vestigial in the Human Body. Just like Kejonn tried to say about wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are not a problem for everyone and often they are a great benefit.  I have my wisdom teeth and when two other molars went Bad My wisdom teeth helped anchor my teeth to fit perfectly in my mouth. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.  You have out-bollocked yourself already…one paragraph later! Quote Speculation and conjecture, I have already told you what kind of bacteria it holds, it did not change so you are wrong. I will say though that your dedication to memorizing outdated information from old text books is admirable but you should have kept up your studies and actually “learned” your ignorance on some things is downright alarming. Sorry, wrong kind of bacteria.  Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could.  I’m tempted to say you lose again but that is not what discussion is about, except to you.  I guess you being wrong could be alarming for you, but you never show it. Stuart Quote Humans cannot digest cellulose They never could. Why do you think they could? No, that is what I said.  Humans have never been able to digest cellulose. Move ON! Get up to the biology of the caecum and descent with modification from a common ancestor. Then we can discuss it knowledgeably. We're all rooting for you BD, as you say in your country.  The sooner you get up to speed… Stuart

No this is what you said

Quote

Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could

Now I'm assuming you must know that any such ancestor that had an appendix that would be what we have now would function the same way unless you can show me an example of why it wouldn't.

All creations of God have some commonality, weren't they all made from the earth? Even a potato has a 70% water composition. that's why all you think you know is just that “All you think you know”

[bodhitharta]

Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,22:09)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,20:56) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,10:36) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc? The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc? Can you give me a single example? Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years… Your serious? So was say a sinle mutation capable of anything more than a very minute change? Are you saying that an eye can function on a very primitive level? Can you give me an example? I am not an evolutionary biologist so I cannot explain to you the mechanisms involved on the molecular level. Obviously eyes, fingers, arms, etc. as we see on the various species were not the result of a single mutation. And eyes can function on a primitive level. Check out http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm for more information. Examples: SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS —– e.g. Planaria Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches. Features: 1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina 2.sense cells in contact with retina cells Use: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry. PINHOLE EYES —– e.g. Nautilus Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity. Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus.

Those don't seem like example of primitive eyes at all, actually it seems rather complex

Quote

I am not an evolutionary biologist so I cannot explain to you the mechanisms involved on the molecular level.

Can you explain it on a biological level?

What you and the link you provided demonstrated was that an amazingly complex function operating from a very simple design.

The problem you are going to have defending your position is how do you explain the fact that the organism “Sees”

You see there are two different things going on, the function of the eye and the function of the brain or nervous system that works in synch with any eye so how did the brain/body connection occur did it evolve?

The reason why we see is not because of our eyes if that were true a dead person with their eyes open could see, so what we have is the form and the function of an eye in alignment with awareness of what comes through the eye and its interpretation by the brain.

If someone touches you on your arm when you were not paying attention, you will turn in that direction with your eyes focusing immediately and then if someone calls your name in the other direction your eyes will automatically refocus and search. There is a Mind/Body connection that goes beyond the form where the function is more associated with the brain or nervous system than it is the mechanism.

So at some point you will have to either accept that

The ability to see evolved before sight was possible
or the ability to have sight evolved after the eye was functional.

Either way you will find it a parodox and nonsensical.

That's because God made his creatures prepared for their environment and they all have their allotted time.

If bats developed sonar through evolution how did they survive before then?

If spiders trap their prey with their webs how did they survive before then?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 19 2010,16:18)

This thread was called Christians and Muslims believe the same thing

Yes, I know but although the invitation for us to discuss was made to everyone only very few came to discuss the topic and the atheists derailed the thread but it doesn't matter because wherever they come with foolishness it will be thwarted. They are in several layers of darkness.

Their biggest mistake was assuming that all religious people had no knowledge of science but they had no idea about Islam and its view on knowledge.

Islam is a religion based upon knowledge for it is ultimately knowledge of the Oneness of God combined with faith and total commitment to Him that saves man

Islam urges people to read and learn on every occasion. The verses of the Qur'an command, advise, warn, and encourage people to observe the phenomena of nature, the succession of day and night, the movements of stars, the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies.
Muslims are urged to look into everything in the universe, to travel, investigate, explore and understand them, the better to appreciate and be thankful for all the wonders and beauty of God's creations. The first revelation to Muhammad showed how much Islam cares about knowledge.

“Read, in the name of your Lord, Who created…” [96:1]

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,03:47)

If that is what you said then why would you mention that the appendix was for that preveious purpose when it clearly wasn't? You really ought to think first and then post.

I have never retracted that the appendix used to be for a different purpose. You have not shown that it wasn't, and real science has shown that it was.

Is lying about natural history a tenet of the Asana cult?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,04:15)

I already have told you I have studied evolution for years. I am not calling anyone an idiot I said ignorant which I'm sure you know the difference. I don't have to read evolution websites to know that as afr as anyone knows man has never digested cellulose fiber and yet you did claim that was the former use of the appendix.

Who is claiming that humans have ever had the ability to digest cellulose?

They haven't!

As thay said to you at RD.net:

Your ignorance is grossly apparent Bodhi.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,04:18)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,15:31) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,13:56) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,10:36) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc? The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc? Can you give me a single example? Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years… Your serious? So was say a sinle mutation capable of anything more than a very minute change? Are you saying that an eye can function on a very primitive level? Can you give me an example? C'mon BD turn the page!  The answer could be there in the very next paragraph.  You will get there soon. Isn't it great not relying on the numbskulls at AiG any more! Stuart So you can't give me an example?

Yes I can, but you asked kejonn, who gave you a perfectly good response.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,04:30)

Quote Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could Now I'm assuming you must know that any such ancestor that had an appendix that would be what we have now would function the same way unless you can show me an example of why it wouldn't. All creations of God have some commonality, weren't they all made from the earth? Even a potato has a 70% water composition. that's why all you think you know is just that “All you think you know”

BD I've already told you what the change in function of the appendix is. Either you are thick or in denial. I would like to think it was the latter. Which is it?

Regarding creationist mythology, I'll ask you this straight question again, one you dodged last time:

With a common creator, would you predict that the same job would be done in the same way in different species, or not?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,05:03)

Their biggest mistake was assuming that all religious people had no knowledge of science but they had no idea about Islam and its view on knowledge.

So when you (and that idiot Naik on YouTube, one of most popular liars on the planet) tried to claim that the koran has special knowledge that humans couldn't possibly have had, were you actually saying that religious people did have scientific knowledge after all?

Stuart

[princess of the king]

Quote

With a common creator, would you predict that the same job would be done in the same way in different species, or not?

stuart, may I ?

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2010,06:49)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,03:47) If that is what you said then why would you mention that the appendix was for that preveious purpose when it clearly wasn't? You really ought to think first and then post. I have never retracted that the appendix used to be for a different purpose.  You have not shown that it wasn't, and real science has shown that it was. Is lying about natural history a tenet of the Asana cult? Stuart

When did “real” science show that?

You did Definitively say that the Human use of the appendix has remained virtually unchanged.

Did you or did you not?

[karmarie]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 20 2010,00:50)

Quote I am not an evolutionary biologist so I cannot explain to you the mechanisms involved on the molecular level. Obviously eyes, fingers, arms, etc. as we see on the various species were not the result of a single mutation. And eyes can function on a primitive level. Check out http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm for more information. Examples: SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS —– e.g. Planaria Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches. Features: 1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina 2.sense cells in contact with retina cells Use: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry. PINHOLE EYES —– e.g. Nautilus Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity. Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus. The Canon 450D is primitive compared to the human eye too. And my skin can feel light intensity and even direction in a primitive way. Many of these atheist arguments when you boil down the big words are fanciful imaginations with the mission of convincing oneself and everyone else that there is no God. Sorry, but truth isn't invented in the mind. It is outside the mind, although a mind can be aligned with it. You can run, but you can't hide. Now back to C v M.

I agree and like t8 says- now back to cvm or christains and muslims believe the same thing

[bodhitharta]

False Fact Friday: Your Appendix is UselessAugust 16, 2008 @ 1:06 am · Filed under Biology, Human Body

By: Wendy O.

Believe it or not, the appendix does play an important role in the body. While it is not as essential as the heart, this small organ is important for the survival of a human fetus, and up until early childhood. The appendix makes the endocrine cells (cells that make glands that secrete hormones), without endocrine cells the fetus would not develop. After birth, the primary use of the appendix is to produce white blood cells and antibodies to fight off diseases. The appendix works as a sort of teacher to white blood cells by exposing them to bacteria, viruses, drugs, and decayed food. The white blood cells gain knowledge of what is bad for the body, and learns how to fight these contaminants. The appendix is able to do this due to its location, which is by the intestines. The organ is always collecting and expelling food that come from the intestines. The appendix becomes less useful when one reaches adulthood, usually around the age of 30.

The appendix also provides some insight into our past. Primates have an appendix too, and its use is to digest fiber and raw meat. Humans, back a long time ago did not know to cook their meat to kill bacteria, so it is a possibility that we used our appendix more when raw meat was a staple of our diet.

Source: Diefendorf, David. Amazing…But False!. New York, New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2007

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2010,07:01)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 20 2010,05:03) Their biggest mistake was assuming that all religious people had no knowledge of science but they had no idea about Islam and its view on knowledge. So when you (and that idiot Naik on YouTube, one of most popular liars on the planet) tried to claim that the koran has special knowledge that humans couldn't possibly have had, were you actually saying that religious people did have scientific knowledge after all? Stuart

Religious people were the original scientists. Why do you pretend not to know that and as far as Naik

Code Sample

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uAhKdL_1fYQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uAhKdL_1fYQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[bodhitharta]

[Author]

Posts