SomaliNet Forums

union wrote:

melo wrote:Union, postkeygii iga jawaab.

Wamal xayaatu-dunyaa illa mataacul Quruur

And this world is nothing but a material deception

I'd rather believe that Allah SWT is testing people's imaan, rather than following what some Kaafir says

It doesn't matter what you believe. The evidence is clearly in favor of evolution. You either accept it or you join the ranks of the ignorant, mostly filled by evangelical American Christians.

No wonder then that the theory is opposed by some religious elements, especially those that are ignorant of science. Snazzy websites, videos and books produced by fundamentalist Muslim "creationists" such as those at http://www.harunyahya.com, are obscuring clear scientific thinking.

melo wrote: You just pointed to an alternative that you dismissed because it seems "ungodly"- That is Allah SWT is deceiving people. And i quote you to the ayaah which says that the world is a deception itself.

I'd rather believe that Allah SWT is testing people's imaan than deny the verses of the Quran.

abdisamad3 wrote:btw union how did the birds evolve to the way they are today..did they evolve to birds then start laying eggs or did they first evolve to eggs and then hatch to birds.
and how can you prove this do you have any clear evidence to back this up with or is it the usual bullshit theory with no real proves to back you up.now lets if you gonna avoid me this time as usual when ever I ask you some hard questions you cant answer.

kadarre wrote:Another on bites the dust. Union is making his own shit. Union is hardheaded and westernised. The first thing teachers at University started dicrediting at Uni was Creationism. . I was there to learn Science . Not some f-king theories about how life came into existence.

Union's article discredited Harun Yahya work

No wonder then that the theory is opposed by some religious elements, especially those that are ignorant of science. Snazzy websites, videos and books produced by fundamentalist Muslim "creationists" such as those at http://www.harunyahya.com, are obscuring clear scientific thinking.

You are done my friend. What are exactly your views? Are you trying to keep Science and religion seperate?

union wrote:

abdisamad3 wrote:btw union how did the birds evolve to the way they are today..did they evolve to birds then start laying eggs or did they first evolve to eggs and then hatch to birds.
and how can you prove this do you have any clear evidence to back this up with or is it the usual bullshit theory with no real proves to back you up.now lets if you gonna avoid me this time as usual when ever I ask you some hard questions you cant answer.

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-26/tech ... _s=PM:TECH

Now, it's my turn to ask you some questions. Can you provide any "clear evidence" that man was created from potters clay. Preferably scientific.

It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."

The debate, which may come as a relief to those with argumentative relatives, was organized by Disney to promote the release of the film "Chicken Little" on DVD

union wrote:

melo wrote: You just pointed to an alternative that you dismissed because it seems "ungodly"- That is Allah SWT is deceiving people. And i quote you to the ayaah which says that the world is a deception itself.

I'd rather believe that Allah SWT is testing people's imaan than deny the verses of the Quran.

You're entering dangerous territory when you claim that God has fabricated scientific evidence to create a "material deception". But material deception or not, evolution explains our origins and actually makes sense.

But anyway, again you cling onto a simple minded approach to the qu'ran that defies all logic.