^LoL

Arac, So you acknowledge the Cambrian explosion did occur? Why do we not have intermediary fossils? I for one would be interested to see what a half fish half invertebrate looks like. ps isn't there evidence in other fossil records that suggest a great flood did actually occur? Is this being denied/challenged by evolutionists?

Naden, Thanks. I try to have a discussion. After a false start or two I throw some meat into the ring for the all to fight over. This isn't the first time you have stated your reservations on HY and his work. You haven't given any reasons for those reservations. Care to expand? I am also finding it difficult to find anyone refuting the contents of his book. Maybe our nomads can have go???? ps this thread in need of your full participation me thinks. I can't get anything out of Johnny's haphazard debating skills. pps a new thread may be required as this one is leaning more towards the evolution/creation argument.

Raamsade Is that what you call 'evidence'? Have you ever critically evaluated this 'evidence'? I for one would be very interested on how you would refute the following assessment by Harun Yahya in his book Evolution Deceit. THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION THE EVER-MISSING LINKS According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-repti le creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms". If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained: If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23 Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory": …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24 The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist: The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25 Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows: A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26 These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way: The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27 LIVING FOSSILS A few fossilized creatures dating back millions of years, but which are no different to modern specimens. These remains are “living” proof that all living things emerged, not as the result of evolution, but by flawless creation, and that they never underwent evolution at all. The living honeybee is no different than its fossil relative, which is millions of years old. The 135 million year old dragon fly fossil is no different than its modern counterparts. A comparison of a fossilized ant 100 million years old with a modern-day ant clearly indicates that these insects do not have any evolutionary history. LIFE EMERGED ON EARTH SUDDENLY AND IN COMPLEX FORMS When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".28 These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them. The fossil record proves that transitional forms never existed, no evolution took place and all species have been created separately in a perfect form. Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion", which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory: A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.29 Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today".30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible: This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.31 How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending: For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.32 THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex. (*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, s. 31. As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preüexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." 33 Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." 34 The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".35 Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created. MOLECULAR COMPARISONS DEEPEN EVOLUTION'S CAMBRIAN IMPASSE Another fact that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about the Cambrian Explosion is the comparisons between different living taxa. The results of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be "close relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently, are genetically very different, which puts the "intermediate form" hypothesis, that only exists theoretically, into an even greater quandary. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that DNA analyses have displaced taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past: DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary "intermediates" and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity....36 In the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa which were considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores can no longer be considered as such because of new genetic findings, and that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evolutionary family trees: The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria." ...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages. 37 23 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179. 24 Ibid, pp. 172, 280. 25 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol 87, 1976, p. 133. 26 Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56. 27 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45. 28 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol 50, January 1979, p. 24. 29 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, April 1993, p. 40. 30 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?", Science, vol 293, No 5529, 20 July 2001, p. 438-439. 31 Ibid. 32 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229. 33 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197. 34 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302. 35 Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765. 36 The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability And Implications, Proc. of Nat. Aca. of Sci., 25 April 2000, vol 97, No 9, p. 4453-4456. 37 Ibid. The floor is yours ladies and gents.

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: quote:Originally posted by Norfsky: quote: Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: looooooooooooool@ngo nge oo dhabta lagu hayo ,,,, miyuu madax weynaa ??/ ,, Isaga oo nacnac la siinaayo lol hehehehehe ,,,, ma nacnac qori buu ahaa ?? Xadiigadaa loo kaxeeyey aftwards

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: looooooooooooool@ngo nge oo dhabta lagu hayo ,,,, miyuu madax weynaa ??/ ,, Isaga oo nacnac la siinaayo lol

Going to laze on the beach today. Lol@Che. Got an image of Ngonge oo dhabta lagu hayo

Originally posted by NGONGE: quote:Originally posted by Norfsky: This photographer is a joke. Why stand in front of a man praying and take a pic? Not Sh. Sharif's biggest defender but the photograph here might have been taking just as he was about to start the prayer. Hence why most of those in the first row are looking at the camera. As for the ones milling about in the back, maybe they're praying with the second group. Mese Somalia salaat el ciid waa one go? I'm talking about the Amisom soldier duqa.

^Please expand.

^Juje waa kee? Ka dheer'e cornaha taagan oo marada isku duubey miya?

Welcome Engineer. What sort of Engineer?

It was expensive enough and now the CBI recommends students should be paying higher fees and loan interest rates should be in line with 'market rates'. Disgusting! Uni days are brilliant but more people will miss out in the future due to the debts involved becoming greater. University students in the UK should pay more for their loans and accept higher tuition fees as "inevitable", says a report from business leaders. The Confederation of British Industry says the extra money needed to fund universities should come from savings in the student support system. It also calls for more sponsorship and bursaries from businesses. The National Union of Students attacked the report as "gross hypocrisy" from the "fat cats at the CBI". In England, the government is set to launch a major review of the funding of higher education and student fees. Higher education minister for England, David Lammy, said the government was committed to investing in "our world class system" and to the aspiration for 50% of young people to go to university. The CBI is calling for that aim to be abandoned. The report from its higher education task force looks at the options for funding universities. Tough choices The CBI says that higher education is vital to the economic future and it rejects options such as slashing teaching budgets and cutting student numbers. "Instead, we say that savings should come from the student support system," said the CBI's director general, Richard Lambert. This would mean reducing the subsidy on student loans, more means-testing of support and the hiking of tuition fees above the current levels of £3,225 per year in England and Northern Ireland and £1,285 in Wales. In Scotland, there are no tuition fees. The report also says universities should focus more on economically valuable subjects such as science, technology, engineering, maths and languages. And it calls for the dropping of the ambition for 50% of young people to go to university. The blueprint for bridging the gap in funding has outraged student leaders. "At a time of economic crisis, when many hard-working families are struggling to support their offspring through university, I am astonished that the CBI should be making such offensive recommendations," said NUS president, Wes Streeting. Divided opinions The call for students to carry more of the financial burden marks a growing divide in opinions over how universities should be funded. It is also the latest suggestion that attention should be shifted from the headline figure for tuition fees to the wider long-term cost of subsidised student support. The 1994 Group of research universities has strongly welcomed the CBI's suggestions, saying that, without increased funding, higher education faces a "valley of death" of severe cutbacks. These universities also back calls for higher fees and cutting the subsidy on student loans. "The fees cap needs to be high enough to bring in sufficient funding and enhance competition to further drive up quality," said the 1994 Group's executive director, Paul Marshall. "In addition, a sensible interest rate should be introduced on student loans, set at the current government cost of borrowing, to rectify the huge subsidy that the government currently pays." The Russell Group, representing a group of prestigious universities, was also enthusiastic about the proposals. "The CBI is right to call for an exploration of new sources of funding and to say that the priority is to maintain quality rather than expand numbers," said the Russell Group's director general, Wendy Piatt. International survey But the Million+ group of new universities opposes dropping the target of 50% of young people getting university places, saying it was "the wrong approach in a recession which has already caused one million young people to be unemployed". The Association of Teachers and Lecturers attacked the proposals as "arrogant and elitist". "The CBI should be arguing to maintain higher education funding in real terms, just as they argued for huge injections of cash to support failing businesses," said the ATL's Martin Freedman. The need for extra funding for higher education was highlighted by an international report from the OECD last report which called for more university places as a way out of driving economic growth. It showed that public and private spending on higher education in the UK is 1.3% of GDP - below the OECD average of 1.5%. The Conservatives' university spokesman, David Willetts, said the proposals were "a good opportunity to bring this whole issue back to life". The government is set to launch a review of the long-term funding of higher education later this autumn, but the final decision on raising tuition fees is unlikely to be made until after the general election. Higher education minister David Lammy commented on the CBI proposal: "Participation in higher education is an investment both for the individual and for the nation. "We should continue to widen access, not only because it's socially just, but also because our future economy will depend on having more people with higher level skills. NUS president Wes Streeting: "I think these people are living on a different planet http://news.bbc.co.u k/2/hi/uk_news/educa tion/8263672.stm

^True. Lets hope it carries on that way. I sort of miss the multi-cultural Muslim environment that is the UK. The good thing is for the next 15 years or so Eid al Fitr will be in the summer :cool: The early morning Eid prayer (6.30am) is always glorious. Well for us the first day is about the kids and them having fun (and they had plenty). Today they have all left me to go to the beach. I will try and get a game of footy in before sun down though

Caretaker govnt will be formed.

How was Eid day? Nice sunshine in the UK

Originally posted by -Serenity-: Folks, the onus is on the organisers to approach the right Somali candidates to participate in these events. Otherwise, everyone can see that its just a bunch of non-Somalis debating Somali issues. Who are these 'right Somali candidates'? Where can they be found?

This photographer is a joke. Why stand in front of a man praying and take a pic?

^But it is right.

Wow. Great pics JB. Wish i was there!! Qofkii Taayirka ka dhexsaara ayaa lacag dheeraada helaya kii la waayaana lacagtiisa wuu ka tagayaa In kasta oo aan laad qura ka dhexsaari lahaa tayarka sidii Zinedine Zidane. Waxay wadaan waa gambling. ps I see the vice president xagi buu ka wadaa

What a game today!!!!!CLASSIC!!! !!!!!!!!! That's why the Prem is numero uno (disregard the shocking defending lol)!!!!!

^Nothing wrong with sending it home saxib. People there DO need it.

Originally posted by G G: RAMSAADE WROTE: "Sorry to burst your bubble but science relies on objective and verifiable facts not on cartoons and drawings. The fossil record is REAL and deadly for Creationism." I guess you just didn't read my post well. What "objective and verifiable facts" have you got on the skin colour of dinosaurs? Or the shape of the iris? That's what I meant. Oh and by the way, about cartoons and drawings: I applaud evolutionary theorists for their excellent and groundbreaking scientific visualization abilities, as they managed to sketch a whole pre-human and his family (complete with skin and hair - in colour) from 2 teeth. Which then unfortunately had to belong to a stopid pig. This wasn't of course forgery, this was a serious misunderstanding (I'm seriously not being sarcastic). If the teeth had been human, it would have made all the difference. "Creationists are fond of employing red herrings and straw man arguments. I guess when you can't handle the evidence and powerful arguments for Evolution you try your luck at anything." I know, the evidence is just overwhelming . Wait, what evidence? (Btw I really don't like being called a creationist) "For the same reason Theists fabricate bogus evidences for their believes." I agree, evoscientists are as reliable as the writers of the Bible. Are they related?? That's the new hot question, my friend! "Again, why would I? You know I reject the whole notion of prophet-hood. Mohammed was just 7th century arab leader albeit extraordinary one. His conduct can only be judged by the moral standards of his time not ours. Since I'm not a person calling for people to emulate Mohammed in the 21st century, I don't need to find faults with his actions and believes; it's actually you who has to defend him. " Fair enough. "Muslims of his time were busy dealing in slavery, specially black Negros like yourself. " Muslims can't be slaves, soz bruv. "Since that is NOT what Evolution theory postulates, let me know when you're interested in discussing the facts" I think I already asked you; please explain/clarify to me what evolutionary theory is. See, I even asked you nicely "I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons." Thanks! I agree with you, that is pretty cartoonish! Thank you for agreeing with me. Unfortunately that was actually what De Vries suggested in early 20th century. And he was the developer of mutation theory of evolution. :'( That's why my knowledge of genetics is so cartoonish and naive. I blame him, it was the swieetie man. Fooking Dutch and his prawnmen! Nonsense. Whales have vestigial hind limbs that are leftovers from when they walked on land. That's what evolutionists think. I just read today in the Guardian that T-rex has a tiny older brother, and it has just been found: "The discovery overturns scientists' thinking about how Tyrannosaurus rex evolved. Many of the most striking features of the beast, such as its puny forearms, were thought to be a trade-off during the evolution of its enormous size, but Raptorex shows these features had already evolved more than 60m years earlier." Scientists sure seem to think a lot. "Here is non-exclusive list: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis (my favorite), Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba." You know what, I actually googled that list in that exact order and guess what came up? A thread called "Finally, tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION". Let me guess your search words: "TANGIBLE PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION, HELP!" Now what did you say about copy&paste, you old hypocrite? Shame on you. I doubted you knew anything, because even in spite of your eloquent use of fancy words, you dangerously confuse things and are not even familiar with the basics. "There were different kind of species of Australopithecus, which one are you referring. Lets take, for arguments sake, Australopithecus Afarensis. This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes." This is exactly what I mean with "confusing things". Australopithecus (both aferensis and africanus) is (supposedly) the forefather of modern chimpanzees. The fact that you say they resemble more humans than apes just sealed it for me. "And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans" And this is your explanation? Because they came earlier, they must be their ancestors? Let me ask you something in that case: who came first the floresiensis or the neanderthal? And now: which resembles more the modern human? And by the way, how does one get the date of fossils? Yes, they did not have bones since most animals are insects. This is why most fossils consist of hard stuff like bones, teeth, claws. We rarely find skin or tissue. The species that leave best and most fossils are those that: lived for long time, had hard body parts, were numerous and lived over large geographical area. Plant fossils are discovered, far less than animals, precisely because they're more ubiquitous and live in many different ecosystems Please read what you wrote. "They didn't have bones since most animals were insects"? That is utter nonesense. The reason fossils are discovered rarely is because their remains decompose. It has nothing to do "bodies made of hard stuff" but everything to do with the body being covered with sediment in order to preserve. "This is what I meant when earlier I said GG's conception of Genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish." Yay! I know, right?! "Mutations are merely mistakes from copying the genetic material during cell division (reproductive cells). These mutations add to the genetic diversity by adding new mutations on top of inherited mutations." Dear God. Delete this post before you start regretting it. It's really embarrassing. You haven't got the faintest of idea of what you're talking about. it's not even funny. We don't all carry mutant genes, if we did we'd be facking retards. (No offense to those who have inherited diseases) "Perhaps GG should stop watching X-Men and start reading High School biology textbook. " Perhaps you should cut the pseudo-intellectual crap, and have a look at that biology book. Mutations add to the genetic diversity... on top of inherited mutations... Lol. "Second, Archeopteryx were their own species (as are all species) but they had features that were not completely dinosaur or completely bird, hence their status as intermediate species." So a group of guys had a look at this bird that looked funny, and in their all-powerful wisdom, they declared it an intermediate? Yeah, sure, sounds good by me. "They're not? Please, enlighten us. For example, tell us where we look for those mutations?" Why genetic make up and mutation are not the same thing: Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations. This is from Wikipedia. You could have just typed 'mutation' and saved me the trouble and yourself the embarrassment. You're clueless, aren't you" I am. "There are still single celled organisms." And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers? "Yes, like in the X-Men cartoons. " Totally. I like the films better though. "Because omniscient, omnipotent creator knows the outcome before the test on earth. Before God creates you, He already knows your destiny otherwise he's not omniscient. He chose, out of His free will, to create you knowing ahead of time where you will end up." Of course He does. It's no secret, you know? "Thus, the test on earth is meaningless and free will is an illusion." Life on Earth (material pursuits etc) is meaningless and ultimately an illusion. The test however is real. The realness of free will can be seen in our discussion: you don't believe in God, I do. Because God has created you so that you will never be able to predict tomorrow; knowing your future is impossible for you. Therefore free will is real for you and not for Him. Just like this world is the reality for you and not for Him. A comprehensive rebuttle tinged with humour and sarcasm

^ and the loxoox with a spread of honey washed down with a strong cup of earl grey tea

Originally posted by Sayid*Somal: :rolleyes: @ somalis this and that It's true. Somalidu way is eegtaan uun. These events formulate government policy and Somalis should be involving themselves.

LoooooooL A&T I will now vote against you.