^You are confused. I didn't give the site on evolution faq to "prove evolution", but simply to show the basic premises of evolution theory on which it is based. The evolutionists should know the evolution theory in detail atleast before they speak and hence my link on evolution faq! Its a simple point, where the person should atleast know the fundamental aspects of evolution before speaking for it. I have earlier gave links to Quran also, will you now call me pro-Quran or confusion with Quran?
Anyways, Congratulations for becoming a father. May you have a blessed life and a bright future for your family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Anorion :
1. I'm quite aware of what we found. The DNA you talk about is the very basis that also debunks evolution in the modern times, let alone the embryos of the animals. But you have still not connected to the central point of the question. How can we say with certainty that the two fossils with similar traits "infer" evolution? Here, the "missing link" is nothing but again an assumption based on "what we want to picture". Figuring out weather the feather evolved before/after will still lead to an assumption, if you ponder deep over the matter and hence my analogy over two similar looking boys where a human mind can make an assumption that they might be brothers.
Having records of the fossils to argue over evolution, hence, is the biggest folly or superstition to assuming that there was evolution.
But since you have brought DNA into the picture you may read the updates :
*www.icr.org/article/evolutions-best-argument-has-become/
James Watkins: Does DNA disprove evolution?
You can find yourself how one of the favourite arguments of evolutionists, i.e DNA, debunks evolution itself!
You singled out over my argument of human pus literally regarding mosquitoes. It could have been human fat, toxins etc.
2. Again, you are singling out my question to selective species i.e whales, where they cannot live fully on the land. I'm talking about the species which have supposedly evolved from the sea to land, have been fully enabled to live on land. Now is it necessary for the evolved species to lose its earlier abilities and habits like living under the water and eating habits? If its survival of the fittest, then we the evolved species and further evolved ones should have retained both the earlier and developed abilities to enable increased chances of survival!
Its not about "breathing" abilities "only" that I'm talking about, but overall abilities like mating, moving, percieving (perception of smell, sight, taste etc in water as compared to that on land), communicating etc.
3. I have not talked about advantages of eye. But what, how and when enabled the species of "develop" the single fragment of eye, the eyelid, the nerves behind and image percieving system from the eye? The very argument that talks of natural selection and survival of the fittest has immense traces of "intellgent design" behind and higher intelligence that evolutionists don't want to talk about.
So in the pursuit/evolution of the eye, what was formed first: The eye, the nerves behind, iris, pupil, the sensors?
Can we for 100% certainty say that this is "observable, measurable, verifible, proven"?
4. Please don't talk on subjects you have not interest in like "Bindu, Hinduism". You may publish verses that talk as such, with there proper verse numbers, pointing towards the sanskrit for me to verify.
Coming back, I agree with what you have stated for the rest in this point and this is where we establish the "limitation" of the modern science. We have basically narrowed our own thinking to what the modern science talks about and hence we cannot percieve what lies beyond! It is at this point where the concept of zero and infinite also come into the picture. here t=0 is not the "concept of zero" I'm talking about.
In a thoughtless state of meditation there is no thought and hence nothing manifesting. There is absolutely nothing. We cannot really find a measure, the depth, a relative framework. It cannot be called as existence as no singular thought can be experienced in that state, or in simple words nothing seems to be existing, nor can it be called as non-existence as the state itself is an experience!
Try to go beyond the realms of modern science, by deconditioning yourself from everything you know otherwise we will be stuck to what we have been taught and not to what we can observe and ponder ourselves.
5. Try to apply the same logic to earth and you'll yourself refute it. Yes, we can go out of earth. Do you really think we cannot go out of finite? If universe is finite, then what stops us from going out of that finite?
Where is the centre of that finite? Since everything is moving away from each other, where is the absolute frame of reference in terms of speed and position? You can measure your speed as to how you walk on earth. But that is relative to earth. Similarly, speed of earth can be found relative to sun, sun with galaxy, galaxy to something higher etc. Where/What is the "absolute" reference which doesn't need any higher reference?
Once you understand that, you'll also observe that speed of light is also in relative terms, something that not many scientists will tell you or you'll find on internet. Where can we find the absolute static, the absolute framework?
The terms "start" and "end" seem to create a communication gap, I guess. I'm not talking of start/end as in a finite shape or a circle where the measurement or analysis is being done by traversing over the circumference. Obviously, there is no start or end in that regard. But a finite shape, circle/ellipse etc does have a diameter, radious, centre etc. You can infer the "start/end" to the diameter then, in the context of my question, and furthering on the center of the universe with absolute framework/static point.
6. I'm glad you didn't say modern science "will" find it.
7. Can you prove that it is "you" who think?
Again, I would like you to re-read my earlier questions a bit more carefully.
mediator said:
1. So we found different varieties of fossils and made an assumption that "evolution happened"? A land species which looked similar in structure to the air one and hey, we found a missing link? When was the first flight from land to air evolution happened? Is that recorded or an assumption connoting a time scale? Is that measurable, verifiable and proven? If thats the case, then perhaps humans should have evolved to be resistant to "mosquito bites" alone or does mutation, adaptation and survival of the fittest are completely silent on the diseases caused by food habits, deficiency of vitamins, minerals, protiens etc, heat, cold, insect bites etc?
Lets assume, the mosquitoes evolved too, why did not their eating habits evolve i.e blood, change to something like human pus or anything else?
2. Suppose, evolution (e.g water to land) does happen, is it necessary for the evolved species to lose its earlier abilities and habits like living under the water and eating habits? If its survival of the fittest, then we the evolved species and further evolved ones should have retained both the earlier and developed abilities to enable increased chances of survival!
3. Regarding half-eye or incremental make-up of limbs, no one has succefully explained as to why it came into being. Yes, I keep hearing an assumption "because the species need to see". But how and when was the first fragment of eye formed, what was its capability, in which species was it formed?
4. And so the big-bang happened. What was before that t=0? Where did that concentrated chunk of matter come from? Why did it concentrate in the first place? Remember, the "mysterious dark energy" which is trying to "explain" the faster expanding universe is contrary to the "contracting universe" side of the theory! This is what I call a research work, analogous to sample testing in marketing and not really a science! You observe and you "assume and make conclusions" and when those conclusions don't fit in the newly revealed play of Shakti, you do your homework again and make new "conclusions and assumptions" telling others "This is how modern science progresses"!
First, it was assumed that there is "contracting and expanding" universe. Now when universe is observed to be expanding, they deduce something called "dark energy" and used scientific words like "mysterious" to explain it. What is the guarantee that this universe will continue to expand even faster? Suppose by any chance a deceleration is observed, are we going to rip off the "dark energy" and go back to "contracting universe" or have a pudding of both?
Do you really think that universe is that predictable that it will continue to abide by your observations and conclusions?
5. If you really think, this Universe is finite, then what is beyond this Universe? What is the shape of this finite. Is this finite rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X1)? What is the shape of that X1? Is that finite also rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X2)? Do you really think this recursive question/series is finite alone?
6. Do you really think that the modern science has understood "gravity" completely? Can you explain why gravity happens? Can you further explain that which enables gravity to be "measurable, provable and verifiable"? Can you further dissect those terminologies to be "measurable, provale and verifiable" and so on?
7. Please prove that you exist!
Damn, he/she is really popular amongst the 'intellectuals'.
