|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Moderated by: Saida.M, safetyblitz, Raven, Miss Brighter Days, LadyDay, Kunjufu, Kibibi, Happiness, Dillinger, Breadfruit, Backatya |
|
|
| Author | |
|---|
mike pain
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Saturday March 17th, 2007 14:18 |
|
My friend, who joined the peace core went to do some work with some Nigerian NGO’s helping out in the community etch ….when she came back she told me how shocked she was at how much they ( mostly rural farmers) relied on miracles, just to get through the day….instead of abstaining from sex they’d pray to god, instead of planting sensible crops with affordable pesticides they’d pray to god….instead of teaching their children the basics of science, they’d read the bible to them…and this sort of zealot like behaviour went on…when my friend tried to teach them modern techniques of living a lot of the time she was rebuffed….now I can appreciate the need to have a spiritual dimension to your life. But fundamentalist Christianity in place of common sense was just insanity…. I’m considering joining some kind of peace core and going over seas but if I encounter that sort of fundamentalism, Instead of the bible I will read to them another book in away that will educate them, not because I want to but because it’s within their best interests and their own survival.
....if and only if you can refute these arguments and not used the sad arguments
'well you need faith'
or 'you refer to this section of the bible'
then i will seriously consider not bringing my book 'The God delusion' as summarised below...
[edit] The God hypothesis
Dawkins begins Chapter 2 by describing Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidical, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."[10]
He continues by suggesting that the God Hypothesis ("there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us"[11]) is "a scientific hypothesis like any other"[12], one that should be treated with as much scepticism as any other hypothesis. Dawkins believes that Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria cannot be used to defend theologians from criticism by scientists. Impartial agnosticism would imply that nothing can be said about the probability of God’s existence, a position that Dawkins suggests is incorrect. Dawkins further argues, following Bertrand Russell, that although "you cannot disprove the existence of God"[13] it is also impossible to disprove the existence of an orbiting teapot - and also cites unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and tooth fairies. Hence the inability to disprove the existence of God provides no positive reason to believe. Rather, Dawkins argues that the burden of proof is on the advocates of the existence of God.
edit] Arguments for God's existence
In Chapter 3, Dawkins turns his attention to the main philosophical arguments in favour of God’s existence. He discusses the five proofs of Thomas Aquinas, arguing that the first three are all based on infinite regresses and "it is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses".[14] He suggests that Aquinas's fourth way, the Argument from Degree, is "fatuous" by way of an overload objection of the "pre-eminently peerless stinker".[15] He reserves the fifth proof, the Argument from Design, for later discussion in the next chapter on evolution, which he considers its ultimate refutation.
He reduces Anselm's Ontological Argument to "the language of the playground"[16] and essentially employs the standard objection of Immanuel Kant. He dismisses the Argument from Beauty as "not spelled out by its proponents". On the Argument from Personal Experience he points out that some of these are illusions due to the powerful complexities of the mind as a simulator. On the Argument from Scripture he suggests that "the gospels are ancient fiction" and are historically inaccurate. On the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists he points out that they are a minority. Regarding "Pascal's Wager", he questions the assumptions that one can simply decide to believe and that God rewards belief rather than virtue or truth-seeking, asking "mightn't God respect Russell for his courageous scepticism far more than he would respect Pascal for his cowardly bet-hedging?"[17] He finally discusses the Bayesian Arguments promoted by people such as Stephen Unwin, and argues that these are cases of "Garbage In, Garbage Out"[18]
edit] Why there almost certainly is no God
He states in Chapter 4 that evolution by natural selection can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane�, something equivalent to natural selection, rather than a “skyhook� that merely postpones the problem. He uses an argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to suggest that "God almost certainly does not exist": "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747."[19]
The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement made by Fred Hoyle: the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747".[20] Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. Here, he furthers this argument by presenting examples of apparent design. Dawkins concludes the chapter by arguing that his gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God, and that he has yet to hear "a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so".[21] Dawkins reports that Daniel Dennett calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries.[22]
edit] The roots of religion
Chapter 5 explores the roots of religion and why religion is so ubiquitous across all human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful"[23] and asks[24] whether the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, might work to explain how religion might spread like a "mind" virus across societies.
edit] The roots of morality: why are we good?
In chapter 6, Dawkins turns his attention to the subject of morality, arguing that we do not need religion in order to be good. Instead, he maintains that our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes have been selected through the process of our evolution, and we possess a natural empathy.
edit] The 'Good' Book and the changing moral Zeitgeist
The following chapter continues the theme of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, often in opposition to religious morality, which Dawkins feels is often warped and brutish. He uses examples of religious morality from the Bible to illustrate what he sees as the barbarism of much religious morality.
edit] What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?
Dawkins turns to the question of why he feels so hostile towards religion in Chapter 8, arguing with examples that religion subverts science, fosters fanaticism, encourages bigotry towards homosexuals, and influences society in other negative ways. Dawkins states that Southern preachers used the Bible to justify slavery by claiming Africans were descendants of Abraham's sinful son. During the Crusades, "pagans" and "heretics" who would not convert to Christianity were murdered, and there are other similar examples.
edit] Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion
One of these ways is the indoctrination of children, a subject to which Dawkins devotes chapter 9. He equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins wants people to cringe every time somebody speaks of a “Muslim child� or a “Catholic child�, wondering how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child".
edit] A much needed gap?
The final chapter asks whether religion, despite its alleged problems, fills a “much needed gap�, giving consolation and inspiration to people who need it. According to Dawkins, these needs are much better filled by non-religious means such as philosophy and science. He argues that an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying “answers� to life’s mysteries, could never be
____________________
knowledge is power
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Incognito
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday August 31st, 2003 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3479 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Saturday March 17th, 2007 16:05 |
|
There is, his name is Tarzan! Makes you wonder what these people were doing before the missionaries came.
____________________
I live satisfied that my enemies know I am right!
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Sunday March 18th, 2007 07:52 |
|
Richard Dawkins............His arguments are valid if you belong to and follow a dogmatic regime (mainstream religio) to the last letter, then everything he says is correct. However Dawkins is a Dawinian fundamentalist and is as extreme in placing his ideology over anybody elses.
FACT: We have 223 genes with no known evolutionary predecessor, Dawins theory was shot down long ago with modern DNA techniques.
FACT: We have over 3000 genetic disorders which is severely higher than any other animal on this planet, it could be a result of some tampering which has been done to one of our chromosones. non perfection creation.
Not Darwins theory of evolution and the creator was not perfect, DNA says we are hybrids.
I know people don't like to here that.
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
mike pain
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 21st, 2007 12:21 |
|
darwins theories were not shot down, his theories do not explain everthing like freuds theory cannot put everything down to sex.....
____________________
knowledge is power
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
mike pain
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 21st, 2007 15:58 |
|
____________________
knowledge is power
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Peacemaker
Villager
| Joined: | Saturday May 15th, 2004 |
| Location: | ><_>< |
| Posts: | 3892 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 21st, 2007 18:12 |
|
Perhaps, but posting that in the Spiritualiy and Religion forum wasn't the smartest thing to do.
What did you expect meek acceptance?
As for religion and god? well what can I say? I'd rather people out there humble enough to question their own existence rather than those who do not, who merely just get in the way more than anything else with their trivial lives.
I'm personally not buying that the Zebra is the result of evolution. And the Duck Billed Platypus, no chance. They're designs.
Wonder what this planet really is.
____________________
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 21st, 2007 21:48 |
|
mike pain wrote:
LOL.....I dared to reply with a little facts.
Please show evidence of some fossil records of ANY transmutational species, whereby one species has evolved into another...... guess what? there isn't any go figure!!!
Darwins theory is still a theory which is an unproven conjecture and an opinion it is not fact.
ar dd1 = new YAHOO.util.DDProxy('maindiv');dd1.setHandleElId('titlediv');
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
mike pain
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Monday March 26th, 2007 09:40 |
|
Jay Jay wrote: mike pain wrote:
LOL.....I dared to reply with a little facts.
Please show evidence of some fossil records of ANY transmutational species, whereby one species has evolved into another...... guess what? there isn't any go figure!!!
Darwins theory is still a theory which is an unproven conjecture and an opinion it is not fact.
transmutation ; dinosaurs into modern day birds…….fact…
____________________
knowledge is power
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
submission
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday February 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Photo: | [Download] |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Monday March 26th, 2007 14:33 |
|
Those who contemplate their surroundings conscientiously and wisely realize that everything in the universe, both living and non-living,must have been created. So the question becomes, "Who is the Creator of all these things?"
It is evident that the creation that reveals itself in every aspect of the universe cannot be an outgrowth of the universe itself. For example, n o insect could have created itself, nor could the solar system have created or organized itself. Neither could plants, humans, bacteria, red-blood cells, nor butterflies have created themselves. As this book explains throughout, any possibility that all these could have originated "by chance" is unimaginable.
Therefore, we arrive at the following conclusion: Everything that we see has been created, but nothing we see can itself be a "creator." The Creator is different from, and superior to all that we see, a Superior Power Who is invisible to our eyes, but Whose existence and attributes are revealed in everything that He creates.
This is where those who deny God's existence are led astray. They are conditioned not to believe in God's existence unless they see Him with their own eyes, forced to conceal the actuality of creation manifested all throughout the universe, and to claim that the universe and all the living things it contains have not been created. In order to do so, they resort to falsehoods. As explained earlier, evolutionary theory is one key example of their lies and vain endeavors to this end.
This is where those who deny God's existence are led astray. They are conditioned not to believe in God's existence unless they see Him with their own eyes, forced to conceal the actuality of creation manifested all throughout the universe, and to claim that the universe and all the living things it contains have not been created. In order to do so, they resort to falsehoods. As explained earlier, evolutionary theory is one key example of their lies and vain endeavors to this end.
The basic mistake of those who deny God is shared by many others who don't actually deny His existence, but have wrong perceptions of Him. These people, constituting the majority of society, do not deny creation, but have superstitious beliefs about God, most believing that God is "up in the sky." They tacitly imagine that God is off behind some very distant planet and only occasionally interferes with worldly affairs. Or perhaps He doesn't intervene at all: He created the universe, and then left it to itself, leaving us humans to determine our fates for ourselves.
Still others have heard that God is "everywhere," but cannot understand exactly what this means. Superstitiously, they think that God surrounds all matter like radio waves or like an invisible, intangible gas.
However, this and other notions that cannot clarify "where" God is (and perhaps deny Him accordingly) are all based on a common mistake: They hold a groundless prejudice that moves them to wrong opinions about God.
What is this prejudice? It concerns the existence and nature of matter. People have been conditioned to assume that the material universe we see is itself the true reality. Modern science demolishes this position and discloses a very important and imposing truth
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
Miyu
Villager
| Joined: | Friday October 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 141 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday March 27th, 2007 04:14 |
|
submission wrote: Those who contemplate their surroundings conscientiously and wisely realize that everything in the universe, both living and non-living,must have been created. So the question becomes, "Who is the Creator of all these things?"
It is evident that the creation that reveals itself in every aspect of the universe cannot be an outgrowth of the universe itself. For example, n o insect could have created itself, nor could the solar system have created or organized itself. Neither could plants, humans, bacteria, red-blood cells, nor butterflies have created themselves. As this book explains throughout, any possibility that all these could have originated "by chance" is unimaginable.
Therefore, we arrive at the following conclusion: Everything that we see has been created, but nothing we see can itself be a "creator." The Creator is different from, and superior to all that we see, a Superior Power Who is invisible to our eyes, but Whose existence and attributes are revealed in everything that He creates.
This is where those who deny God's existence are led astray. They are conditioned not to believe in God's existence unless they see Him with their own eyes, forced to conceal the actuality of creation manifested all throughout the universe, and to claim that the universe and all the living things it contains have not been created. In order to do so, they resort to falsehoods. As explained earlier, evolutionary theory is one key example of their lies and vain endeavors to this end.
This is where those who deny God's existence are led astray. They are conditioned not to believe in God's existence unless they see Him with their own eyes, forced to conceal the actuality of creation manifested all throughout the universe, and to claim that the universe and all the living things it contains have not been created. In order to do so, they resort to falsehoods. As explained earlier, evolutionary theory is one key example of their lies and vain endeavors to this end.
The basic mistake of those who deny God is shared by many others who don't actually deny His existence, but have wrong perceptions of Him. These people, constituting the majority of society, do not deny creation, but have superstitious beliefs about God, most believing that God is "up in the sky." They tacitly imagine that God is off behind some very distant planet and only occasionally interferes with worldly affairs. Or perhaps He doesn't intervene at all: He created the universe, and then left it to itself, leaving us humans to determine our fates for ourselves.
Still others have heard that God is "everywhere," but cannot understand exactly what this means. Superstitiously, they think that God surrounds all matter like radio waves or like an invisible, intangible gas.
However, this and other notions that cannot clarify "where" God is (and perhaps deny Him accordingly) are all based on a common mistake: They hold a groundless prejudice that moves them to wrong opinions about God.
What is this prejudice? It concerns the existence and nature of matter. People have been conditioned to assume that the material universe we see is itself the true reality. Modern science demolishes this position and discloses a very important and imposing truth
The problem with the above argument is that it cannot explain why dinosaurs had to die, or why we never lived during those eras. If the assumption is that everything is created, then it also holds true that nothing is destructible untill willed by the creater himself. If that is the case, then God is an experimental God, no different from any creature. The question then that begs, is where is this omnipotency in him?
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday March 27th, 2007 10:19 |
|
^^^ Very Good Point Miyu^^^
Jay Jay wrote: mike pain wrote:
LOL.....I dared to reply with a little facts.
Please show evidence of some fossil records of ANY transmutational species, whereby one species has evolved into another...... guess what? there isn't any go figure!!!
Darwins theory is still a theory which is an unproven conjecture and an opinion it is not fact.
transmutation ; dinosaurs into modern day birds…….fact…
And this is what you base human evolution on? I've asked you to show the transmutation....the in between, not the begining and the end. When it comes to man did you know they included neanderthal man as our link to the ape in the evolutionary process in the time of Darwin?
Three years after the Neander Valley discovery, Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in which he proposed that all life descended from a common ancestor. This includes humans who were thought to have evolved from some sort of ape-like ancestor. The Neanderthal man was subsequently reinterpreted by the scientists of the 19th century who came to see him as a sort of ape-man, an evolutionary link between man and ape. This view persisted into the 20th century.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/neanderthal-man-faq.htm
Did you know this is backed by the big players like the Smithsonian institute to maintain the status quo on Darwins theory?
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
It's nonsense!!! as yet we have not discovered any evolutionary predecessor for us, if we did then according to the laws of natural selection there should be no monkeys or apes because they would be extinct and in their place should be our immediate predecessor walking about today, where are they?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040127085316.htm
http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html
I ask you again to explain why the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree?
I put all the facts on the table and look at them, It is not Darwins theory but there is another form of evolution this much I'm sure of, what it is I don't know. There is no shame in saying "I don't know"
Classical science has been proved wrong 100% of the time in order to get where we are today, in the future.. todays so called knowledge in classical science will also be proved wrong. In a 100yrs they will look back at us and say "Did they really think that?" just like we can look back 100yrs ago and see they never used to wash their hands before operations and other sort of nonsense.and say "Did they really think that?"
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn905
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55873
Last edited on Tuesday March 27th, 2007 10:46 by Jay Jay
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
submission
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday February 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Photo: | [Download] |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday March 27th, 2007 12:15 |
|
Miyu wrote:
The problem with the above argument is that it cannot explain why dinosaurs had to die, or why we never lived during those eras. If the assumption is that everything is created, then it also holds true that nothing is destructible untill willed by the creater himself. If that is the case, then God is an experimental God, no different from any creature. The question then that begs, is where is this omnipotency in him?
The Qur’an is not a book of history, biology, astronomy, or science of any specialty. It is a book of faith, devoted to explaining this faith and putting in place a code of law for human life. It certainly refers to certain aspects of the universe, but does not attempt to give a full picture of what exists, or what lived in the past. When it refers to scientific facts, it does so in as much as these serve its purpose of making the divine faith clear to people. What we can say on the basis of the Qur’an is that life could be present in other parts of the universe. Whether it is the same type of life as ours, or a totally different type, we cannot tell. But it is to be expected that there are numerous other types of life in different parts of the universe. It would not serve any purpose for us to learn about these. Indeed even if we were told of them, we may not be able to understand what they are like, because our thoughts and imagination are limited to what we experience in our own world. Take for example the jinn whom God tells us about. They are created out of fire while we originate from the earth clay. We cannot imagine the substance they are made of, or their nature, because it is beyond what we know. As for dinosaurs, the Qur’an does not mention them. They apparently existed according to the scientific evidence we have.
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
submission
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday February 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Photo: | [Download] |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Tuesday March 27th, 2007 12:21 |
|
according to harun yayah
The theory of evolution holds that birds evolved from carnivorous theropods. However, a comparison between birds and reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other.
There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place.
Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most.
One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:
108
Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:
109
Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for "dinosaur-bird evolution."
110
In short, the structure of the hip girdle is no evidence for an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. The claim that dinosaurs resemble birds because their hip girdles are similar ignores other significant anatomical differences between the two species which make any evolutionary link between them untenable from the evolutionist viewpoint.
Dinosaur bones are thick and solid because of their massive structure, whereas the bones of living and extinct birds are hollow, and thus very light.
BIRDS' UNIQUE SKELETAL SYSTEM
Unlike dinosaur and reptile bones, bird bones are hollow. This gives the body stability and lightness. Birds' skeletal structure is employed in designing airplanes, bridges and modern structures.
The Unique Structure of Avian Lungs
Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.
In land-dwelling creatures, air flow is bidirectional. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.
In birds however, air is unidirectional. New air comes in one end, and the used air goes at the other end. Thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. This highly specialized respiratory system is explained by Michael Denton in his book A Theory in Crisis:
112
In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.
Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:
113
Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the position:
114
Parabronchial tubes, which enable air to circulate in the right direction in birds' lungs. Each of these tubes is just 0.5 mm. in diameter.
In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures.
If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.
Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most sensitive equilibrium, cannot have come about with unconscious mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. This is how Denton describes this structure of the avian lung, which again invalidates Darwinism:
115
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
mike pain
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 28th, 2007 10:05 |
|
| the transformation of birds into dinsaurs took millions, millions of years, it's called evolution baby, it's the same principle that says a single celled organism can spawn hundreds of generataions within a matter of days or why the aids virus cannot be cured becuase each succesive genration has gained new traits and variations and is almost as distingusiable as as the last......or do you believe that aids can be cured with holy water and the power of faith, hmm? .....in fact i'm going to to write a post about that.... Last edited on Wednesday March 28th, 2007 10:07 by mike pain
____________________
knowledge is power
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
Jay Jay
Villager
| Joined: | Sunday January 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Belly Bustin' Britain |
| Posts: | 752 |
| Photo: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 28th, 2007 12:27 |
|
@mike pain
Jay Jay wrote:
I ask you again to explain why the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree?
I put all the facts on the table and look at them, It is not Darwins theory but there is another form of evolution this much I'm sure of, what it is I don't know.
There is no shame in saying "I don't know"
Explain and show ANY IMMEDIATE predecessor or successor of ANY species according to natural selection, not big jumps like dinosaurs and birds, show the in between dinobird which changed its solid bones into hollow bones as mentioned above.
What has AIDS got to do with evolution? you're talking about a rapidly decaying human immune system.
@submission, very good points
Last edited on Wednesday March 28th, 2007 12:29 by Jay Jay
____________________
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
____________________
Click here for your Black Profile
|
mike pain
Villager
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 28th, 2007 16:48 |
|
First off the genome is still so complex that after decades of studying it, scientists still haven’t quite mapped all of it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur-bird_connection for dinosaurs and birds read here
and I was talking about aids because if you know anything about the problems to finding a cure for this illness that is blighting many parts of the world, you will know that it is a virus, the traditional approach to building up a cure for any virus would be analysing it’s genetic structure and finding antibodies to kill it on the microscopic level, a bit like finding the right key to insert in a doors lock , but the aids virus evolves so much that instead of having identical doors to put keys in ( antiviruses) each generation of aids virus has a slightly different lock ( evolution ).
Now see if you can answer my question if ( and I hope this doesn’t happen to you) if some one you know contracts the virus would you prefer a faith healer or a doctor….
____________________
knowledge is power
____________________
www.blacksearch.co.uk - Helping to promote Black African and Caribbean Websites
|
submission
Villager
| Joined: | Wednesday February 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Photo: | [Download] |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
Click here for your Black Profile
Search for Black Sites
|
Posted: Wednesday March 28th, 2007 17:14 |
|
mike pain.. wrote
First off the genome is still so complex that after decades of studying it, scientists still haven’t quite mapped all of it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur-bird_connection for dinosaurs and birds ............... never trust information from wikipedia... any body can edit the information on there its not always right
and I was talking about aids because if you know anything about the problems to finding a cure for this illness that is blighting many parts of the world, you will know that it is a virus, the traditional approach to building up a cure for any virus would be analysing it’s genetic structure and findin | | | |
