Why do men have nipples?

[Gunfingers]

I don't know why many evolutionists try 2 visualize the idea of creation as abandoning to science. Yet, you find that many great scientists were advocating the principle of creation as Newton, Einstein, Max plank, Mendel, Pasteur and others. I think this a kind of weaseling.

Those great scientists all believed in god, yes, and even believe in some manner of divine creation, but evolution denial? With the exception of Newton, who vastly predated evolutionary theory, it's unlikely any denied evolution. It's hard to say for sure, as I can't find anything on google about their feelings on the subject, with a few exceptions.

Here's a brief article on why this is probably wrong, and definitely irrelevant.

[FONT=&quot]In addition, religions carry everything good to the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Keeping in mind the importance of religion and the truth of religion are two completely different things, with either one being able to be true without the other, religion is important because it provides us with rules for living on which we advance our society. It is possible for non-religious people to act by religious morals, but in general they don't, and the ones that do are usually trying to prove that they don't need religion, rather than striving to make the world better. Religion is the hope which motivates the human race to advance itself beyond its current limitations.[/FONT]

No one is attacking religion. We don't care about your religious beliefs. If you feel religion is good, great. Bully for you. It doesn't change the reality, that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Those great scientists all believed in god, yes, and even believe in some manner of divine creation, but evolution denial? With the exception of Newton, who vastly predated evolutionary theory, it's unlikely any denied evolution. It's hard to say for sure, as I can't find anything on google about their feelings on the subject, with a few exceptions.

I didn't say these names to battle evolution, I meant that the creation model is a respectable one. I know that their own opinion doesn't change facts, I didn't use it this way.

 

[tarekabdo12]

1. Evolution is entirely consistent with a belief in God, including even "special creation." Special creation need not refer to the creation of every animal; it can refer simply to creation of the universe, of the first life, or of the human soul, for example. Many of the above scientists were not creationists in the sense that Henry Morris uses the term.

That's something I tried 2 say before, evolution can never explain the creation of the whole universe as it even doesn't follow the alleged laws of mutations and natural selection which is applied only in biology. Moreover, there is no rational or scientific explanation 4 the creation of life from dead "abiogenesis". First life can't be created in water, on land, in a volcano or come from space by chance; there must be a designer.

If u agree on the latter, so we've reached a common path. We can then still argue about evolution itself as a theory keeping in mind there must be a creator.

 

[tarekabdo12]

No one is attacking religion. We don't care about your religious beliefs. If you feel religion is good, great. Bully for you. It doesn't change the reality, that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

I meant that religion is not harmful nor leads to backwardness, I didn't use religion itself 2 argue against evolution. What I understood from ur words is that u think that the creation model is not scientific and that's something I refuse.

 

[Gunfingers]

a) I'll keep in mind no such thing. Feel free to believe there's a creator, but don't try to force it on me.

b) Evolution was never supposed to explain the origin of the universe (best current explanation for that is the big bang), or even the origin of life (best current explanation for that is abiogenesis), but to explain the diversity in life as we see it.

c) The creation model absolutely is unscientific. For the most part this isn't an issue. It's not supposed to be scientific, it's supposed to be ecumenical. Accusing belief in god of being unscientific is like accusing beef of not being chicken. Of course it isn't, and who would want it to be?
Science and religion fulfill very different roles for society. Science is the method by which we learn about the natural world, and the role of religion varies greatly from person to person. A problem arises when one attempts to perform the role of the other. Religion is not a method to learn about the natural world. You don't open your holy books to prepare for your medical examinations, because medicine (a science) is not explained by scripture, just as you would not apply the scientific method to your spiritual journies.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Science and religion fulfill very different roles for society. Science is the method by which we learn about the natural world, and the role of religion varies greatly from person to person. A problem arises when one attempts to perform the role of the other. Religion is not a method to learn about the natural world. You don't open your holy books to prepare for your medical examinations, because medicine (a science) is not explained by scripture, just as you would not apply the scientific method to your spiritual journies.

That's totally true, religion only guides the use of science so that it's used 4 the sake of humans not 4 their destruction. I totally agree and i didn't say something else. Even the prophet Muhammad said this,as well. Religion marks the rigth path that science should take.

However, I don't agree that religion is not scientific as you can see science has proven that the world must have a creator for the universe ad a creator who starts life. This gives a clue that the presence of creator is scientific and rational. I said before if u've a camera or a TV, u know that such a complicated device must have had a creator.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm confused, when did science prove that there must be a creator? Science never investigates the supernatural, which a creator is, so It seems odd that such a thing could have been scientifically proven.

 

[tarekabdo12]

A study showing that the australopithecine inner ear was consistent with that of facultative bipedalism, knuckle-walking, and arboreal climbing of apes. It also contrasted them to the obligatory bipedalism of the humans called Homo erectus.

Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion

 

[tarekabdo12]

Oxnard’s multivariate analysis showed that Lucy could not possibly be an intermediate ‘missing link’ between humans and knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors. He found that the australopithecine fossils ‘clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those great scientists all believed in god, yes, and even believe in some manner of divine creation, but evolution denial? With the exception of Newton, who vastly predated evolutionary theory, it's unlikely any denied evolution. It's hard to say for sure, as I can't find anything on google about their feelings on the subject, with a few exceptions.

Actually, I'd say that while Newton never commented on the evolution/creationism debate specifically, he did make general comments about the nature of God that don't work with creationism.

Newton's God was very orderly: his view was that because God was perfect, He would have put things in motion once and then not intervened afterward. Just as a clock that has to be adjusted all the time is an imperfect clock, Newton felt that a universe that has God adjusting things with special miracles would be an imperfect universe... and Newton's God, being perfect, would not have created an imperfect universe.

 

[Jose Fly]

A study showing that the australopithecine inner ear was consistent with that of facultative bipedalism, knuckle-walking, and arboreal climbing of apes. It also contrasted them to the obligatory bipedalism of the humans called Homo erectus

Right. Australopithecines were bipedal, but not fully bipedal, which is intermediate between ancient primates and modern humans, exactly what you agreed we should see if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.

Oxnard’s multivariate analysis showed that Lucy could not possibly be an intermediate ‘missing link’ between humans and knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors. He found that the australopithecine fossils ‘clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.

Right. Oxnard argued that Australopithecines were in the human evolutionary tree, but not a direct ancestor. IOW, he felt they were our cousins, not our grandfathers. Of course Oxnard's work in the 1970's predated some of the more important fossil discoveries and for the most part his conclusions have been rejected by the scientific community.

But you're not directly addressing the issues I raised with Harun Yahya's material that you copied. He left out very vital information, e.g. that Zuckerman's analyses were from the 1950's when very, very little was known about the Australopithecines, and that Oxnard actually argued that Australopithecines were bipedal (just not obligatory).

Why do you think Harun Yahya left that information out?

 

[FDRC2014]

I'm even an ordinary medical student-thanks God-but one of the 10 best students in relation to my pears of the same age. The problem is that u don't want to confess that the evolution theory lacks evidence supporting it.U've been occupied and overpowered by ur media.

Whether you believe evolution has evidence or not. It is not an excuse to have the completely irrational view of believing God put all the species on this planet.

As a matter of fact, evolution does have plenty of supporting evidence.
Evolution is made up of lots of little points, all of which have individual research for them. Yes, some small hypothesis may be disproven here and there, thats science. Nothing though, contradicts the whole theory. It's like saying you don't believe in any of Quantum physics, just because they cant find the Higgs Boson (as of yet, as far as i am aware).

Can you not see how this is irrational.
And also, lets say you were born to a different family, in a different tradition, wouldn't you believe something else. Not all religion can be true.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Why do some men have boobs?

Because they are fat, have liver cell failure, take Spironolactone diuretic or have genetic abnormality.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Right. Australopithecines were bipedal, but not fully bipedal, which is intermediate between ancient primates and modern humans, exactly what you agreed we should see if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.

In fact, chimps and Orangutans show facultative bipedalism, as well. So what's new?

 

[Jose Fly]

In fact, chimps and Orangutans show facultative bipedalism, as well. So what's new?

Australopithecine leg bones are more similar to modern humans than to chimps or orangutans, as evidenced by specimens KP 271, KP 29285, AL 129-1, AL-288-1, and others.

Again, as you agreed this (a mixture of human-like and more primitive traits) is precisely what we would expect to see if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates.

I suggest you work your way through the Smithsonian's website to get a better understanding of the hominid fossil record. Also, you are still avoiding the key issues with Harun Yahya's material you copied, i.e. that he left out very vital information, e.g. that Zuckerman's analyses were from the 1950's when very, very little was known about the Australopithecines, and that Oxnard actually argued that Australopithecines were bipedal (just not obligatory).

Why do you think Harun Yahya left that information out?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Why do you think Harun Yahya left that information out?

I didn't ignore , I only didn't have time to complete because I 'm working now and stealing time 2 write on the forum. Of course, talking about Oxnard's results that way was wrong and he shouldn't have done so. I am not fanatic and I'll never defend something wrong but thanks 4 telling me. However, we will still continue our conversation about Australopethicines and I'll read your link and try to answer either tonight or later on as it's 12am here now so I may go 2 sleep.

 

[tarekabdo12]

As if all this evidence were not enough to show that Australopethicines had no role in being a human ancestor, more confirmation came in 2007.
Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's.
The article's abstract admits that “This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.”
The scientists concluded that this pretty much discounts these australopithecines as having any role in being a modern human ancestor.

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]The Australopethicines rib cage is rounded in cross section unlike humans' rib cage which is conical. This makes the rib cage ape-like. The whole trunk, the lumbar region, the waist, and the shoulders were not what we should see in fully erect, habitually-bipedal creatures. The abdomen was pot-bellied and there was no real waist. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The shoulders were high and, combined with the funnel-shaped chest, would have made arm swinging, in the human sense, improbable. So it wouldn't be able to lift the thorax for the kind of deep breathing that humans do when they run. The morphology of the trunk would have severely restricted the flexibility that is essential to human-type locomotion. The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]afarensis [/FONT][FONT=&quot]features are exactly what we see in the two[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]African apes and the orang-utan of Asia. [/FONT]

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't ignore , I only didn't have time to complete because I 'm working now and stealing time 2 write on the forum.

That's fine. I'm in no hurry.

Of course, talking about Oxnard's results that way was wrong and he shouldn't have done so. I am not fanatic and I'll never defend something wrong but thanks 4 telling me.

No problem. I'm encouraged that you acknowledged the problems with H. Yahya's material.

As if all this evidence were not enough to show that Australopethicines had no role in being a human ancestor, more confirmation came in 2007.
Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's.
The article's abstract admits that “This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.”
The scientists concluded that this pretty much discounts these australopithecines as having any role in being a modern human ancestor.

First, again if you're going to simply copy directly from some website, at least have the courtesy to say so and provide a reference to the source. I'm not sure which one of these websites you copied from, but it's obvious you did.

Next, I suggest you read the actual paper your source cited.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Note the discussion and conclusions sections. They do indeed argue that A. afarensis is not a direct ancestor to modern humans, but as I said earlier, that doesn't mean they're arguing it should not be included in our family tree. The authors argue that A. afarensis is an evolutionary side branch in our tree, and that Ardipithecus ramidus is an ancestor of modern humans.

Keep in mind that evolutionary theory does not predict a straight line, ladder-like evolutionary history. Rather, our history is like a bush with many branches.

The Australopethicines rib cage is rounded in cross section unlike humans' rib cage which is conical. This makes the rib cage ape-like. The whole trunk, the lumbar region, the waist, and the shoulders were not what we should see in fully erect, habitually-bipedal creatures.

Right, because no one is arguing that Australopithecines were fully erect, fully bipedal, and fully modern. As you and I agreed, we are expecting to see a mixture of primitive and human-like characteristics in these specimens.

The afarensis features are exactly what we see in the twoAfrican apes and the orang-utan of Asia.

Again, read through the link I provided. The above statement is not at all true.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Please explain 2 me. What exactly makes you think it's intermediate? Please specify. Thanks.