Open Debate: Evolution.
- Thread starter Muslim
- Start date
invert_nexus said:
That was just recently published? Odd. I thought we knew about it before. I know I'd heard of it before; I was talking to the wife about it last week.
I wonder if an immediate genome upgrade to add oil droplets in order to enhance colour vision would be so hard; maybe even to fix colour blindness. Looks like it would decrease variance in the upper areas of the wavelength distribution, maybe help sort out background radiation in inappropriate areas. Not to mention improvements in sheer peak separation. Then again, no surity that our brains could interpret the signal correctly anyway. Very interesting.
(PS: I hereby copyright my above idea. If any of you human genetics types wants it, you can PM me with a suitable monetary figure.
Not to worry; history proves that I'm cheap.)I don't think the full spectrum of X genes are in fact inactivated. Don't work in humans, though, so I'm not sure. Can't remember; female cells forming Barr bodies and all that.
I saw a documentary at least a year ago that showed certain birds could see the urine trails of voles fluorescing in UV and use them very effectively to hunt them, even under thick brush. Hmmm.GeoffP said:
GeoffP said:
Now you're just constructing straw man arguments. You're taking the verses out of context, to suit your own agenda. You're saying there should be no death penalty for apostate's period regardless of them committing a crime or not. Which is totally silly, you have to have a justification for killing a apostate you can't simply kill him for not being a Muslim. However you can kill him for acts of treason, even in modern society the death penalty is implemented for committing treason.
In your little world you would kill someone without justification thats is what your saying.
And the rest of the verses you've clearly taken them out of contaxt.
Last edited:
What "straw man" arguments? This is precisely how these verses have been interpreted, and for quite a while. How else do you explain the support for the murder of apostates in islamic countries? Al-Buhkari is supported by exactly those suras: 2, 5, 7, 9.
No, you dolt - I'm saying that there should be no death penalty just for apostacy, which is the way it works right now. Pathetic little fascist.
Well guess what - that's what they kill them for: leaving islam.
Oh: so leaving islam is treason now?
That's the most pathetic red herring I've ever seen. I wouldn't kill anyone for leaving islam. That's your position.
Traitors, indeed. Traitors to who?
Is there any doubt that "Muslim" is about done?
No, you dolt - I'm saying that there should be no death penalty just for apostacy, which is the way it works right now. Pathetic little fascist.
Well guess what - that's what they kill them for: leaving islam.
Oh: so leaving islam is treason now?
That's the most pathetic red herring I've ever seen. I wouldn't kill anyone for leaving islam. That's your position.
Traitors, indeed. Traitors to who?
Is there any doubt that "Muslim" is about done?
You're talking them out of context. Anyone can interpret the verses in different ways. Doesn't actually mean its says that in the Qu'ran like I have mentioned earlier many scholars believe that after the date of the apostate Allah will judge him so a human doesn't have a right to take a apostates life unless if there is a justification for it, i.e if he commits treason of blasphemy.
The death penalty is not only for apostates its also for Muslims, who commit treason or withdraw in a war other then for tactical reasons.
If someone kills them that doesn't mean the Qu'ran tells them to do it, these people who do this are uneducated and do not know much about Islam.
Depends, what you mean by "leaving Islam" is this person going to leave Islam and fight against Muslims?
I never said I would kill anyone for leaving Islam, now you're telling lies, you said there isn't a justification for killing an apostate, I could go back and quote you if you want. So basically what you're saying is in your world you can kill someone without justification.
Muslim said:
"Many scholars"? Well, trot them out then. Who are these "many scholars"? Are they living in hiding in Oman? If so, then I would speculate that their liturgical position on "only" killing apostates if they dare blasphemize isn't particularly weighty. And why in hell should a man die for insulting your ridiculous 'prophet' in public? I'll insult him all I like. And your position is I should die for this? Well sod you, and him.
Again, tiny, tiny brain - blasphemy isn't "treason", except to the addle-minded. But your position is EXACTLY my point: islamic nations regard blasphemy and apostacy as treason - their raison d'etre is islam, and only islam. Religious freedom is absent. Q 2: 256 "There is no compulsion in islam, FOR the right hand is henceforth distinct from error." Ergo: there is compulsion in islam.
SAMCDKEY - what will you do, then, with this gentle creature, "Muslim", who lives in a Western nation, has had the civilizing influence of free and open education, and still believes in putting apostates to death? Will you oppose him, or tacitly support him in your silence? (I know what DH would have done.)
Wrong - you yourself admitted precisely how it occurs, and how you think it ought to.
Well, are muslims going to fight against this person? Because frankly that seems to be what happens. Should those who leave other religions for islam similarly be put to death?
You just did - above.
That's slander.
Please do - but allow me to qualify so you might possibly understand. There is no justification for killing an apostate - but islam demands it anyway, and exercises this 'right'. This would imply then that islam is an evil practice. Do you understand a little better now?
No - I'm saying in your world you can kill someone without justification. Leaving islam and even preaching against it is not "treason" as a civilized person would understand the concept.
That was undoubtedly the second most pathetic argument-turn-around attempt I've ever heard.
Hey, I just noticed the dolt posted to me. How sweet.
Know? They don't "know", you dolt. Those that can evade predation by escaping to the land do so. Then, those predators that can temporarily occupy the land environment gain an advantage by doing so.
Or have you never heard of amphibians? Pathetic.
Yes, but more will return. You're not the predator; you're a mindless environment. Without medicine and preventative care, you'd never be able to get rid of them. Like you, the crabs do not have any genetic resources that allow them to cope with that. So you'll get more, or perhaps syphilis. They will continue to exploit a rather grotesque area for their own advantage.
Mutation permits evolution, or else all genetic variability would eventually disappear. Epistasis, maternal/paternal imprinting and transience to assimilation might slow this process, but it would be ongoing. Mutation creates variability. Evolution is change in gene frequencies. If change in gene frequencies favoured those animals that could live on both land and in the water, then evolution via selection would occur. (Of course, selectively neutral evolution is also possible.) Thus mutation precedes the evolution of land-phase animals, and of bimodal ones.
I find it shocking that someone who claims to have gone to school thinks humans evolved directly from fish.
Fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammal-like reptiles -> early quadraped mammals -> lemur-like things -> simple primates -> chimps -> you -> early hominids -> Homo -> Homo sapiens.
That is utterly ludicrous. Even today there are hunter-gatherer societies. How do you explain them? Did God want them to be primitive? Was he asleep that day? Seems so.
Heavens, no. I refuted them all. Which explanation did you not understand?
LOL - more red herrings. What exactly was your argument? That there are no transitional forms? Good lord, there are plenty of them. Or was it something else. Explain your argument, if any; I shall be most amused to see if you can.
Muslim said:
Know? They don't "know", you dolt. Those that can evade predation by escaping to the land do so. Then, those predators that can temporarily occupy the land environment gain an advantage by doing so.
Or have you never heard of amphibians? Pathetic.
Yes, but more will return. You're not the predator; you're a mindless environment. Without medicine and preventative care, you'd never be able to get rid of them. Like you, the crabs do not have any genetic resources that allow them to cope with that. So you'll get more, or perhaps syphilis. They will continue to exploit a rather grotesque area for their own advantage.
Mutation permits evolution, or else all genetic variability would eventually disappear. Epistasis, maternal/paternal imprinting and transience to assimilation might slow this process, but it would be ongoing. Mutation creates variability. Evolution is change in gene frequencies. If change in gene frequencies favoured those animals that could live on both land and in the water, then evolution via selection would occur. (Of course, selectively neutral evolution is also possible.) Thus mutation precedes the evolution of land-phase animals, and of bimodal ones.
I find it shocking that someone who claims to have gone to school thinks humans evolved directly from fish.
Fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammal-like reptiles -> early quadraped mammals -> lemur-like things -> simple primates -> chimps -> you -> early hominids -> Homo -> Homo sapiens.
That is utterly ludicrous. Even today there are hunter-gatherer societies. How do you explain them? Did God want them to be primitive? Was he asleep that day? Seems so.
Heavens, no. I refuted them all. Which explanation did you not understand?
LOL - more red herrings. What exactly was your argument? That there are no transitional forms? Good lord, there are plenty of them. Or was it something else. Explain your argument, if any; I shall be most amused to see if you can.
Just because you have limited knowledge on the subject and have not heard of these scholars doesn’t equate that they are hading or do not exist. There is Harun Yahya, Dr. Zakir, the owner of answering Christianity to mention a few. These are well established and respected Islamic scholars. Also, I don’t know how you can come to the rationale that someone shouldn’t be killed for blasphemy if that is the law. Back then you could get killed for insulting the king today in England if you slander the queen you can be prosecuted. If you slander the Pope in Vatican you can be locked up. If you blasphemous against Christianity in the Philippines it’s a death penalty. Anyway under Sharia law the death penalty if passed often but carried out very seldomley, I mean when was the last time you saw a public handing or a beheading for blasphemy in an Islamic country. Also I would just like to mention something I am trying to have a civilised debate here with you, so I request that you show some civility when talking about historical figures (Mohammed) Islam also not to use ad hominems when addressing these issues.
We were talking about, does the death penalty apply to Muslims for committing crimes and yes it does. Such as for murder, so I don’t know why you’re trying to make it out as if the death penalty is only applied to apostates. It’s applied to anyone living under Sharia law. Just like if you went to Spain then you’re bound by the countries laws, you can’t expect to go to Spain and murder someone and then not expect the ramifications of that. These laws are to protect the law abiding citizens. In Saudi Arabia, the penalty for thieving chopping off of the hands, and works in Arabia you can leave a pot of gold in a busy street and you can bet your life it will still be there when you come back.
No that is not true which Islamic nation regards it as treason? Sure if this apostate commits blasphemy then the death penalty should be applied. Majority of the apostates do exactly that they commit blasphemy after they leave Islam. Why should the law be any different for them? Even if a Muslim committed blasphemy then the same law would apply to him. The law is the same for everyone, there is not special treatment for any person. It’s a consistent law.
You have misconstrued, that verse to suit your own agenda and taken it totally out of context the actual verse says this: “2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.”
I can’t believe this I am against the killing of apostates; you’re the one that is in favour of it. If I was in favour of it I wouldn’t be debating against it. I am actually glad you said that, now everyone will realize that you make false statements about people. I am the one debating against the killing of apostates and you’re trying you’re hard to prove that Islam says “apostates should be killed” which is far from the truth, so its ironic that you’re claming I am the one who supports “putting apostates to death” I don’t know whether or not I can take your seriously anyone.
Prove it.
I asked you a question, you didn’t answer that and have come back with your own question, and you did not even bother to address my point. So now you’re advocating that people who leave other religions should also be “put to death” you already know my position I have throughout this debate maintained that apostates should not be killed period for leaving their religion However they should not be exempt from local laws such as if there is a death penalty for murder then the law should be applied to that person to the full effect. My position is law should be the same for everyone, for non Muslims and Muslims alike there should not be special treatment for anyone.
Prove it where I said that. Its clear that you don’t know what to say other then using ad homenim attacks.
No its not that was a factual statement I made about you, were lying and are still lying. Anyone can read through the posts and see, it’s a public forum people are not stupid.
Why isn’t there? Is an apostate exempt from laws which govern the country? And then you say that “Islam demands it” duh yeah that’s because Islam is a just religion so it demands “justification” before the death penalty is applied for anyone regardless it being for an apposite or a Muslim. You’re saying in your world there wouldn’t be a justification for it, you’d just kill someone regardless I am glad you’re not a judge or a dictator. You’d be the modern day Starling.
Wow do you even know what you’re taking about? You yourself said there should be no justification and you said and let me quote: “There is no justification for killing an apostate - but islam demands it anyway “ and now you’re Islam saying you can kill someone without justification. You know what mate? Have you thought about suing your brain for non-support?
Sure it’s not treason, but if you commit murder and the death penalty applies what are you saying that the apostate should be exempt from all laws? And it’s pretty ironic you’re calling my points pathetic when you’re struggling to even stay on topic. I think I may have to end this debate here as you can not intellectually defend yourself.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I require no authority to threaten and slander anyone.Muslim said:
It is my pram and they are my toys.
The pope and the queen are not necessarily and automatically greater than I. By continuing the opposition to birth control on a planet whose greatest problem is overpopulation the pope is arguably guilty of far greater evil than any muslim suicide bomber.
Calling an asshole an asshole my be uncivil, but it is hardly barbaric.
Intolerance of ignorance, prejudice and ethnocentricity is hardly a bad thing.