Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" --- John 10:36 " What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? - John 20:27 "Stop doubting and believe.” said Jesus. 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed." Father, SON + HOLY SPIRIT, GOD 1 in Spirit
The Koran teaches that the world is flat. This doctrine is believed by Islamic scholars even today. The Bible revealed that the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".
It isn’t a matter of opinion. Careful! with Religion, Science, or Politics. Do your search. The Bible is the Highest authority. Satan is ruling & misleading the earth 1John5:19; Revelation 12:9. 1John4:1 Don't trust all inspired word, test them to see whether they originate with God, false prophets have gone forth to the world.
I found this helpful, verify for yourself(Ephesians5:10). Go to "Watchtower org" website click "Index" or "Search" your subject, if U click 'Contact Us' you'll get help
talk as much you can this your time , later you can not , follow your insticts and use only the human being sense of arrogancy .These people do their job to remind us that all and you decide , it is your choice nobody force you to believe .
In humanitic era what a beautiful lives on planet earth.A billion can not reach water and two billions can not reach enoughly.Westerners and its complains in eastern countries use the richness of the world.In china,india or other part of worlds thousands work for one dollar and say we live in humanitic era.World never be dumbest as now before.Look at Usa look in Europe look at ghettos.Humanity means I will fuck you but dont reply me and submit my greedness.I am the Lord,King and you are slaves.
@yigitinebolulu If religion, specially Islam, is good and Quran is just then millions of people who beleive in them should have had a much better life by now and all the Islamic countries should have been healthy, wealthy and just lands. Many of humanity problems nowadays have roots in religions like Islam. What you see in the world now is the consequence of its previous history and religions. God and religion are the failed hypothesis because they caused many of today problems.
Simply believing in stories told in medieval time on holy books does not make any of those stories historically correct or logically possible! Creating mythology was easy and believing in it was even easier. By all means observe their morals, but believing in them proves no point, just like believing In a pink elephant in Mars..:) We live in an era of science and therefore our belief system should be reliable and scientific based on freethinking and humanity.
@paradayzia I just wanted to mention, it's one thing that a book would contain information, or make claims about science and discoveries that are being made centuries (more than a millenium) after the Qur'an was shown to people. We are not just talking about "stories" like you mention, which could be fictitious or non-fictitious.
@blueammo I have read Quran many times. I was born in an islamic country. I was shocked to see the violence, hate, inaccuracies, scientific errors, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical solecisms and dubious ethical pronouncements in the book of God. A holy book written by Allah should be impaccable. He is the almighty God after all. There is only one explanation to all these and that is the Quran is written by human beings just like Bible and Torah and veda, etc.
@paradayzia I read the Quran everyday and have gone thru it many times. I was born in an islamic coutry. and i am always amazed at how beautiful it is :) I always get something when you reread a Chapter, alhamdulillah
@azalea411 Because your close-mind does not allow you to read it critically. That is one of the downfalls of being religious. Read 66:1 to 5 and also 33:36 to 37. then go and read the history of these verses. This clearly proves that Quran was a creation of prophet's chimerical imaginations to reach his personal goals if not anything else.
@paradayzia thanks. i do read the history. i hate reading things out of context whether geographical or historical, and btw, you have to read the quran and hadiths as a whole, not just 2-5 verses.
@paradayzia Yea, Troy, the labyrinth and Odysseus were myths too untill discovered. Same with some mythological creatures as for ex: egyptian gods. Do a little research and u will get amazed when u will find out that modern nasa scientists present strong evidence for the existence of some paranormal creatures..And yea if humanity is too accept homosexuality and polygamic relations then i guess romans in 50 AD were much more humans than we are today..
@greken145 Your analogy is wrong. Troy was existed and Homer created a heroic story around it. The same with Sahnameh Ferdosi the great Persian poet. Koran is not the work of God, it is the word of Mohammed and that is why it is so limited to his time, geography and knowledge of the world known by arabs and their closest literate neighbors Jews. That is why it is a replica of jewish and christian stories and laws. Koran and Bible are not holy and are not word of any God but humans. .
Quran and all other holy books were written by humans who lived in medieval and ancient time, and that's why they are full of scientific errors, impossible stories, barbaric and cruel punishments, unjust and unequal rules and regulations, contradictions, and unnecessary repetitions. They are a mere reflect of ancient human life, their culture and their system of believes which should not and can not be prescribed for our era of humanity, science and freethinking.
Quran and all other holy books were written by humans who lived in medieval and ancient time, and that's why they are full of scientific errors, impossible stories, barbaric and cruel punishments, unjust and unequal rules and regulations, contradictions, and unnecessary repetitions. They are a mere reflect of ancient human life, their culture and their system of believes which should not and can not be prescribed for our era of humanity, science and freethinking.
The reason why The Bible is factually inaccurate is because it was written by men with little or no knowledge of science. Taking pot shots at the science of The Bible totally misses the point. It's not a scientific text. The Qu'ran is not a scientific text. Neither are scientific texts. Why are they arguing about science? It makes no sense to me.
Quran and all other holy books were written by humans who lived in medieval and ancient time, and that's why they are full of scientific errors, impossible stories, barbaric and cruel punishments, unjust and unequal rules and regulations, contradictions, and unnecessary repetitions. They are a mere reflect of ancient human life, their culture and their system of believes which should not and can not be prescribed for our era of humanity, science and freethinking.
@paradayzia So basically, he is saying that in 1400s years, and only up until then, these things will be discovered. How could he know? Until you provide strong enough evidence to validate this (not just posting your random thoughts), then what the Qur'an contains on this matter is certainly valid, and more likely to be true.
@blueammo Quran is written 1400 years ago in accordance with their time, history, geography, science, ethics and so on. A clear mind and reasonable intelligence can easily see the notations of the book are mostly archaic. Muslims should bring the book down from the pedestal of holiness and start to see its faults. Being staburn in beleving something so unreal and based on faith proves nothing but doltishness. Openmindness requires questioning! Muslims should open their minds and question it.
@bobb4you Quran also is written by man. Please do not too much flatter yourself. It is also full of scientific errors and made-up stories, unequal and barbaric rules and regulations. Many of those stories are ironically taken from Torah and Bible for your information, which according to you are written by men. Religion is religion is religion, so please do not try to exonerate Islam from any other religion specially monotheistic ones. not trying to defend Bible as they are all the same!
@paradayzia Of course it is written by man. As I said, none of them are scientific texts so arguing about the science of these texts is completely pointless.
I just need to point out 1 mistake that Dr Zakir Naik has made and that should be enough to debunk his whole debate. He claims that no one knew that the moon light was light reflected from the sun. Check Pythagoras 570BC, Parmenides 550BC, Ananagorous 499BC, Aristotle etc etc.
@1960Aussie u r a retard mate! they were only theories n concepts, along with many wrongs one, they didn't have any resource to know for A FACT anything,science established proofs recently, so yes he's is right to say that NO ONE knew as A FACT that moon had reflected light, u r unbeliever like Pharaoh who watched all the miracles thru his eyes n keep denying em, until he DIED!
@halakukhan now now now, no need to call someone a retard, you say they didnt have any resources to know anything for FACT,but thats what every muslim says the Quran is, "a fact from Allah" when ever anyone finds a mistake then you all start bleeting. I suggest you read about the life of Muhammad and ask questions for yourself, thats if if you have a mind of your own and are ALLOWED to question the Quran........
In this debate Dr. Zakir naik has proved that Quran is the word of Allah (The all mighty GOD)
Please see the whole debate, what Dr, William Campbell said and what Dr, zakir Naik said about error in the Quran and the Bible and what where the questions asked by the audience and who answered in what ways. i guess i'm trying say is that , "guess see the whole debate"
In this debate Dr. Zakir naik has proved that Quran is the word of Allah (The all mighty GOD)
Please see the whole debate, what Dr, William Campbell said and what Dr, zakir Naik said about error in the Quran and the Bible and what where the questions asked by the audience and who answered in what ways. i guess i'm trying say is that , "guess see the whole debate"
DR ZAKIR NAIK HUMILIATED THIS HYPOCRIT christians i bet ur scared from Dr.Naik he challenges all of you scientist doctors whatever but when ur a muslim even a little kid can challenge a jew or a christian about knowledge of religion stupid people still try to defeat islam LOL dont they see its getting bigger and bigger every day ISLAM WILL TRIUMPH I GUARANTEE U AS GOD QUARANTEES IN THE HOLLY QURAN
jiltist i am fidaniiiiii he challenges scientist in the way of everything that is called scient every man who calls him self or at least someone calls that man smart he will challenge him God made gave dr Zaik a great gift called KNOWLDGE just watch his lectures you will find a lot of different questions from the science and you will see he defeated all of them but the easiest battle was against religious scholars like christians and jews
@MUSLIM3013 I'm unsure of any other lectures he may've given, but he doesn't challenge any scientific theory within this debate.
If he does do so in other lectures--successfully--would you mind posting a link to said videos along with the general times for his arguments? e.g. 10:11 etc.
@MuhammadDarr That's bullshit. I've tried to believe my entire life, but all scripture has failed to convert me. I've sought out knowledgeable people within religions, but they too have failed to provide any real evidence to persuade me. If anything, fault falls on the Gods for presenting their case such that many logical peoples cannot believe.
@jiltist Okay you obviously havent read the "Quran." I say Quran in quotes because you may have read translations of the Quran and have been mislead. Did u see the entire debate between Dr Zakir Naik and Dr William Campbell? In the end the Quran was compatible with science and the Bible wasnt. The Quran besides being compatible with science also mentions scientific facts stated 1400 years ago that scientists are juss recently discovering. The Quran is perfect, no errors. No other book compares.
3) "[33:72] We have offered the responsibility (freedom of choice) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were afraid of it. But the human being accepted it; he was transgressing, ignorant."
Dear there were and still there are 7 variants of Quran in dialect. We have muslims who can read quran till today in 7 different dialects. and for your information dialects dosent change the text and the meaning.
33:72 is very clear, and how true it is. a better translation more closer to its arabic meaning.
Truly, We did offer AlAmânah (the trust or moral responsibility or honesty and all the duties which Allâh has ordained) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they declined to bear it and were afraid of it (i.e. afraid of Allâh's Torment). But man bore it. Verily, he was unjust (to himself) and ignorant (of its results).
@computinggit This does not address the point; the point is that an offer was made to abiotic things; the Quran reads that those abiotic things refused the offer. In other words, non-living things are recorded in the Quran as making a decision (which they cannot due as a result of their never having lived).
Although a proper definition of life is still not agreed among the scientist we have divided things into living and non living to understand them. God created all and the Creator knows how to communicate with the creation. He knows how they communicate. Strangely Science is the one who are discovering the truth of religion specially Islam. Plants have their language, they can cry, call for defence, creates network and send alarms before attack. Check on Live science and Nat Geo website
Lets see when science will come to discover that even stones, mountains, stars and planets can communicate. What science dosent know today it will know that maybe in another century. Many things Scientist didnt know 100 years ago are now discovered.
Well everything living and non living has a soul with which creator communicate. And as you know Soul is something Science cannot comment.
We may find that such things can communicate, in fact we already have! But only insofar as particles interact (communicate) with each other. It'd take a complete lack of knowledge of electrical interaction to even consider that a rock should be able to communicate ideas to another rock, even more a lack of knowledge of neurochemistry. But to consider that rocks could make a decision- that mountains can exhibit emotion- that earthly plants can muster a reaction beyond reflex! Silly.
SILLY is what people used to say when it was told that eaarth is not the center. I thought people who believe in science are open to new discoveries. Nothing is impossible untill proven otherwise.
Its science who is telling me these silly things that plants can cry, shout, call for help and inform others of attack which are definately more then a reflex.
To give you more of a shock scientist have now discovered social behaviors of plants where a plant can recognize siblings and strangers. If you plant two plants together who are from the same mother they will accomodate each other in laying roots and water resources to grow together but stranger will get competition. Check it out on University of Delaware website and Live Science.
I THINK THIS IS MORE THEN A REFLEX.
OR IS IT TOO SILLY TO KNOW THAT PLANTS HAVE INTELLIGENCE
@computinggit It doesn't seem that you bothered to read your articles. Consider the abstract from "Evidencde for Degenerate Tetraploidy in Bdelloid Rotifers": "Rotifers of class Bdelloidea have evolved for millions of years apparently without sexual reproduction."
We speculate that they may have, at some point in their evolution, had the ability to reproduce sexually. We recognize that now, in their current stage, are unable to reproduce sexually.
Good so you do speculate that they used to have sexual behaviour before but now they dont. Which i have no problem with. The only point i made was God created things in pair, Male and Female, The male no longer exist is not the argument that the creation was not in pairs. If you believe no male or female you will negate the whole of evolution Theory. If a specie didnt had sex it cannot move to the next better specie to continue the process of evolution to come to human beings.
The first part about them having been created in pairs but evolving out of pairs is a good point, but is likely wrong. (and no, a lack of sex in species is not a counterpoint to evolution--evolution merely addresses the change of DNA through chance changes [inter-species fornication is not required])
What you refer to goes back to Abiogenesis, a theory which proposes that life came about due to a coming together of various organic and inorganic materials through . . .
@jiltist . . . intermolecular magnetism and thermally derived interactions in an aqueous environment. If you want to learn more about the topic, search it on Amazon, buy one of the resulting titles, and read it; I'm not an expert; it'd require many years of learning to attain such depth of knowledge as one would find in an accredited scientific journal or textbook on the topic.
In short, the overwhelming amount of supporting evidence for the theory of Abiogenesis overshadows any modern . . .
Dear Changes in DNA are called MUTATIONS. It may be through chance but how are these changes transferred. If you read mutation you will see that these are the changes in DNA sequence of a cell genome and are caused by many factors. Meosis is essentail for sexual reproduction. If you read meosis even on Wikipedia you will understand my point was that without the Sexual part these changes will not be transferred. It talks about Bdelloids and clearly mention that they lost the ability of Meosis.
Now the articles are in front of you but the problem with science is that it cannot even define the basic funtions properly. like
1. What is Pain
2. What is Intelligence
3. How intelligent is Intelligent
The basic purpose of giving example of plants is to show you the point that 10 years ago everyone can easily deny and disapprove of idea about plants having social behaviors and intelligence. But it is science who is telling us that plants are lot more smsrter then we thnk.
@computinggit Again, the articles are not in front of me; your articles do not support your arguments.
The questions you just proposed are easily answered:
1) Pain is an electrical stimulus which the brain interprets in a negative manner. Not knowing the causal relationship between a cause and effect by far does not equate do not knowing the cause and effect.
2) Intelligence is the result of neurochemical reactions which fire in sequences determined by a mysterious coding.
3) I do believe that you mean "How intelligent is super-intelligent?" And the answer to that is quite insubstantial, as we have no super-intelligent beings to compare ourselves to.
As Muslims we believe that earth, stones, mountains have a soul through which they can easily expres emotions, expressions and decisions. Its you who has to wait for science to discover it to give you assurance to believe in this information. For us statement of Quran is enough proof and we have no doubts as all the other statments of Quran have been found correct.
You cannot even deny it as science has yet to prove it correct or wrong.
@computinggit You believe this, but there is nothing but evidence against your beliefs. It is impossible for an object which can't even move, internally or externally, to think. And again, to deny this requires one of two things: complete ignorance or misinformation.
And this is just the beginning, lets see when can we train plants to be soldiers like we have done with Monkeys and Dolphins. Definately the day will come when we will be able to understand the languages of so called abiotic things.
Till that time its better for you to say that we dont know abiotics can speak or make any decisions.
OR You can deny the statement of Quran we have no problem. Only Time can decide who is correct. The statement of Quran or You.
@computinggit Again, your articles do not support your argument. Plants are capable of very basic thought, but only insofar as reflexive action is concerned, i.e. military plant soldiers are not an option and will not be an option until such a monstrosity has evolved.
As for the "language of the abiotic things" part, I really don't have anything more to say to this. The information is there; accept it or don't.
Plants are capable of very basic things, YES what we till today know of. What is still hidden in plants is still to come. What we know now were unknown 10 years ago. Man my advice stay away from science as a career if you have to be so sure of things. Science always works on hypothesis to figure out new stuff. You dont rule out possibilities. You are always looking forward to new ideas. Whatever we know abt plants is bcoz some one didnt believe that they cannot communicate.
Correction, you don't rule out a possibility unless it isn't a possibility. Consider the following:
An earth dwelling man jumps upward. It is, by a newborn's understanding, possible that he should continue upwards. It is, by a scientific understanding, impossible that he should continue upwards. Your understanding of Neurochemics, electricity and magnetism, science is like that of the newborn; you don't know much of anything about it--or at least you don't express it . . .
@jiltist . . . through coherent, cohesive cases for your claims.
As for the "don't become a scientist" thing, I'm recognized by every professor that I've had as a brilliant mind whom will undoubtedly be valuable to the scientific community--and at a university so great that it is well inside the top 10 universities for Electrical engineering within the US. It is Purdue university that I speak of, the main campus. And while this is an argument of ethos, it is a very convincing one.
My only point is that Bdelloids had the male part originally but when Female Bdelloid became able to reproduce and can evolve as well without its male part it gave up sex. Scientist aslo say the same thing. 80 million years some say 30 million years without sex. as described before, the asexual reproduction can only make females thus the male porpulation became extinct. Cannot reproduce male anymore. as many male were present cannot survive for 30 or 80 million years.
And since when you have started thinking that humans will not be monster enough to use plants as soldiers. If we can be monster enough to use monkeys and dolphins. If we have biological weapons today what will stop us to use plants as soldiers. Just wait till we find out the potential.
Please name one gender less specie. before you answer let me clarify you one thing. Asexual reproduction dosent mean that there is no gender. it only means that One parent is Capable of reproducing by itself. Advantage of asexuality is to keep the numbers, disadvantage is no genetic diversity, dosent allow adaptation to changing environments. Asexuality only in single cell organisms, some types of fungi and many plants. Trees are female and male even though they reproduce asexually.
Dear before you say more can you please go and read Sex Determination on wikipedia. will help you determine how science calssify sex. and Planktons also have males and females, Please check jelly fish which comes under Plankton Group.
Aslo let me remind you Science cannot define the reproduction process clearly in Microorganisms till today. how will you classify them in sexes. And whenever you will be able to classify them Insha Allah you will find them in pairs.
@computinggit I apologize for saying that plankton are sexless, because they aren't. However, there are sexless species. Google Bdelloid rotifers. For further information, read the paper Geographical Parthenogenesis: General Purpose
Genotypes and Frozen Niche Variation.
Sexless in the sense that we're discussing means that it does not have male and female.
To say though that the sexlessness of bacterium is a null point because they hadn't been discovered when the Quran was written is fallacious! The Quran is supposed to be infallible. To even consider that it is not 100% factual- 100% relevant is heretical!
Bacteria is not sexless, we know they are in pairs as they reproduce asexually and sexually. But it is for scientist who have to derive the formula on the sex determionation of bacteria. As in sexual reproduction transfer of genes take place to bring about a better offspring you can easily understand the presence of a pair involved in sexual activity. It is for science to decide how will they classify males and females.
Dear O Dear, Bdelloid Rotifers, do asexual reproduction, which i already described to you. So once again how do you determine that they all are females. if they are gender less how come they are classified as females. So you might ask me this question then where is the male?
2. Since we have been looking at this creature for less time than how do we know the creatures are not in the stage where a number of females turn male like the bamboo Flower does after 100 years.
3. Why does the male have to look similar to a female. Given the life cycle male could be much smaller than female. Perhaps just a protein coated nucleas that floats around in the water or even simpler like a virus. The fungus has had 30 million years to evolve to eat the creature yet can't seem to finish the job.
John Logsdon an evolutionary biologist from the University of Iowa isn't totally convinced that bdelloid never have sex. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
In other words, just because nobody's ever seen a male rotifer is not proof they don't exist. Maybe they show up so rarely researchers just haven't been patient enough. Or maybe they don't like being watched. Logsdon thinks that every creature that has evolved enough to have a cell with a nucleus has evolved enough to have sex. And rotifers definitely have cells with nuclei.
Parthenogenesis is also a type of asexuality. Komodo Dragons do this but does it mean they have no male and female. And we all know they have male and female but in the non presence of male dragon female dragons will repoduce to kepp the species going with the disadvantage of reproducing all females.
Let me tell you there are genderless ants but as we know ants have male and females. so they are created in pairs. but certain working ants are genderless so that they can only work. So such things do exist but not at the level of any specie but within a specie mostly as abnormality.
Why a nuetured dog or bull still be considred male becoz gender determination is done by gametes, chromosomes, number of chromosomes, combination of chromosomes, body temperature.
@computinggit You misunderstand the definition of female. A "female" creature is a creature which is the source of reproduction, i.e. the cell which divides, the animal which births, the fish that lays eggs. This is why there are many species of bacteria which are solely female. We have not seen males of these species because they cannot exist; it isn't in their genetics to exist.
As for your idea "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence," we cannot be called to disprove a negative. You might as well be saying, "You can't disprove the existence of leprechauns, and therefore you can't deny their existence." If there are male Bdelloids, we have not found them in the thousands upon thousands of specimens that we've examined. To acknowledge this and still pander for their existence would halt further study into the matter (and would be silly for stated reasons).
Point 1: "Males have also chosen to reproduce asexually." They cannot make choices (not consciously). If they could reproduce in any other way, we would have seen it (tens of thousands of recorded cases). Because they haven't, they are, by definition, female: all Bdelloid rotifers are female.
Point 2: "2. Since we have been looking at this creature for less time than how do we know the creatures are not in the stage where a number of females turn male like the bamboo Flower does after 100 years."
If there was a stage in which they became males, we would've seen males (because they would've reached that stage). We have not.
a. The whole idea of sex in species is to evolve and create a better specie with genetic diversity. The Female bdelloids can reproduce without the male and surprisingly can evolve also without the male. Reason being total elimination of male from the species as females were producing females only and abondened sex. Other known asexually reproducing species have been extinct and are only in fossils who abondened male copulation.
Bdelloid rotifers DNA appears to contain a series of genes transferred from bacteria, fungi and even plants. The discovery was made by Irina Arkhipova and Matthew Meselson from the MBL's Josephine Bay Paul Center from Harvard University, assisted by graduate student at Harvard, Eugene Gladyshev.
This means Bdelloids female can steal any other DNA dosent require its own male to have sexual activity to evolve. Inter specie sex is strange.
Bdelloids Rotifiers abondaned sex and reproduce through parthenogenesis. We have already discussed that how Komodo Dragon do this kind of asexual reproduction when they cannot find a male in a communinty. Disadvantage is that they can reproduce only females. Same thing is with Bdelloids which is not surprising. What baffled scientist that Bdelloids reproduce asexually to keep the numbers going but how are they evolving without sex. How? different opinion exist.
a. They are much smaller in size as for most of the microbiological species it is true
b. The external morphology of male bdelloids is much different than those of the females, hard to recognize if this is bdelooid or any other micro organism
c. Males are parasitic on or inside the females and are extremely small maybe like a virus
Dear Absence of evidence is not my idea. its a well known scientific notion. Every other biologist refers it. Thats why every Microbiologist u will ask a question about male Bdelloids will not say they dont exist or never existed they will say
1. There is no published record of a male Bdelloids
2. For various reasons they may not have been detected so far
3. Males are Unknown in Bdelloids
4. Males disappeared as were not required for reproduction anymore
@computinggit Yes, yes. It's been around since The Enlightenment, yadda yadda. That still doesn't mean it's a correct notion. Google "the bell inequalities and proving a negative". If you read and comprehend it, you'll better understand the argument you're using (incorrectly).
As for arguments 1,2,3,4, did you read any of what I wrote? If so, did you comprehend what you read? Obviously not.
Dear I i didnt misunderstood the meaning of female, female is what you say Bdelloids bcoz they reproduce by laying eggs. What other definition i refer too. There are different ways to determine sex of the species depending on their specie. For some species number of chrmosomes decide male and female, Reproductiive organs, gametes, sperms, eggs many different ways and in some reptiles body temprature decides male and females. Bdelloids are by gender female coz they lay eggs.
@computinggit The alternative definition of sex does not apply because they don't have the option to have either two X chromosomes or one X and one Y chromosome. This is what I was aiming at before; their sex is determined to be female solely because they lay eggs.
"in some reptiles body temprature" These are ZW chromosome creatures, an entirely different subject.
They steal DNA from other species, What does DNA have man. Why do they steal DNA, to keep them in a safe box. Scientist have described it alternative way of sex. What can i Do this is your Science. I dont know why you negate certain articles bcoz it dosent support your idea of science and only pick one out of eight bcoz he is favoring your ideas. You should be very open minded to be a student of science.
Bdelloids are called female coz they lay egss and are females. What is stopping science to classify it genderless. I gave you the abnormality in working ants. Science classify it genderless. No sperm, No Egg. GENDERLESS. What on earth is stopping Microbiologist to say that Bdelloids are Genderless.SIMPLE coz they are not. They are FEMALE,FEMALE, FEMALE. Why they say, We have not yet have a record of Male Bdelloids coz the the FEMALE is missing the MALE pair. HENCE NO GENDERLESS SPECIE.
@computinggit Genderless, by definition, means androgyny. It does not, as you seem to think it means, mean the absence of male and female. What it does mean, though, is the absence of a male/female dichotomy. That is to say that it does not have to be male; it does not have to be female; it's both. This is and has been my argument: there are creatures which are of no definite gender because they are asexual creatures, hence my telling you to brush up on the definitions of the terms being used.
Looks like you didnt read my first post, and the very first comment. Do not confuse Gender and Asexuality. Asexuality is a way of reproduction. It is totally different from determining if a specie is genderless a specie has male or female. Look at Komodo Dragon. We have male komodo dragon and female komodo dragon, but female komodo dragon reproduces asexually. will it make komodo Dragon as a genderless Specie. NO it will not. There is no such thing as gender less specie.
Dear Androgyny is mostly used in determining Physological Gender Behavior of a person not the sex. We can see people around us who are male but they represent themselves as Female and Females who represents themselves as males. These are two different topics. A gender less Physological Behavior can not be used to determine the Biological Gensder of a person, hence cannnot be argued for a gender less specie.
Next thing you spoke about is Hermaphrodite. Does it mean there is no gender. a hermaphrodite is an animal or plant that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes. Look at earth worm. The male and the female sexual organs are within one body. Are they called Genderless Specie. No they have Male and Female but within one body. Plants, Some fishes and Snails are best example.
When Quran says that God Created everything in pairs you objected that there are alot of Genderless species. Hence Quran has a mistake. I just argued that no Quran is compatible with Science and there are no genderless specie. every specie has male and female. if this is what you were not arguing from the very first day what were you trying to prove. My very first comment was do not confuse asexuality with gender. Asexuality is a form of reproduction nothing to do with determining sex.
Even if an organism is both male and female at the same time scientist can clearly dichotomy the male and female. Sequential hermaphrodites (dichogamy) occur in species in which the individual is born as one sex, but can later change into the alternate sex. This is in contrast with simultaneous hermaphrodites, in which an individual may possess fully functional male and female gonads.
So the whole point is that Science and Quran support each other in scientific facts.
@computinggit At this point, I'm facepalming. Kudos if you figure out why. Double kudos if you resultantly change your behavior.
Back to your point "Bdelloids had he male part originally" argument, you're wrong (and I do hope you're not being disingenuous).
Bdelloid Rotifers cannot have originally been sexual creatures. If they had, then they would have a name different than "Bdelloid Rotifer". Read up if you want to understand why. But, even accepting for the sake of argument that they . . .
@jiltist . . . were sexual creatures, your point is still moot because they evolved from asexual creatures, hence my earlier point of "If you're going to argue creation, we're stopping here".
Dear I am not arguing creation. Read two articles. It is very clear. Microbiologist themselves agree to it that they were sexual and lostt he sexual activity and became asexual only. This article discusses the possibility that it happened in three different occassions.
1. Bdelloid rotifers revisited - on the website of NCBI
The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.
Please read the complete article but under the heading Are Bdelloids Anciently Asexual? the 5 last lines states as follows.
The phylogenetic analyses allow the possibility that sexual reproduction was lost independently on at least three different occasions. It is more parsimonious to suppose that sexuality was lost only once in the bdelloids, but this argument would lose some of its force if their sexual ancestors were preadapted for asexual reproduction.
2. Evidence for the Evolution of Bdelloid Rotifers on Science Mag. Research from Harvard University.
Clearly states that "We find that genomes of individual bdelloid rotifers, representing four different species, appear to lack pairs of closely similar sequences and contain representatives of two ancient lineages that began to diverge before the bdelloid radiation many millions of years ago when sexual reproduction and genetic exchange may have ceased".
Our results exclude the possibility that bdelloid rotifers are ordinary diploids that engage in rare or cryptic sex. It remains possible that, unlike any other metazoan that has been examined, bdelloids are ancient polyploids or diploids with ancient duplications of every gene we studied and that they engage in some elusive form of sexual reproduction but are unusually homozygous.
I dont see any connection here between the name and being sexual.
They are under kingdom animalia, sexuality is well known in the kingdom. They are under Phylum Rotifera who are actually divided into four classes. The other three classes have known males and females and they reproduce asexually as well as sexually. the four classes are. Monogononta, Bdelloidea, Seisonidea, and Digononta.
Please clarify your point as i dont see the connection here witht he name and sexuality.
Nor was i disingenious nor do i change my behavior, its not me its you who have to read some books or atleast the articles i post. I am a student of science.
So my question to you is now?
1. What asexual organism Bdelloid evolve from that it cannot have a male bdelloid. while all the other three family members reproduce sexually and have male bdelloid.
2. What should i read to understand that Bdelloid Rotifer cannot have their name Bdelloid Rotifer if they were sexual creature.
I posted around 16 articles and references from Scientific Sources and you are still not convinced or dont have enough courage to accept the scientific facts, These facts may be unknown to you before this discussion. But may be becoz they go hand in hand with quran which is not easy for you guys to digest.
Whatever your arguments were you didnt support them by any scientific reference and at the end you are again telling me to go read a book.
coming to 33:72 again. it is very clear that humans being unjust to themselves means taking a burden more then what you are capable of. Ignorant here means the ignorance to the fact that this unjustice will cause harm to him in the form of the Torment of Allah. Read 33:70 to 33:73 which will give you a very clear meaning.
this is a reply to TheRationalizer .... we do not need to bring a particle physicist becaz campbell himself couldnt answer the simplest science, even if u bring ur particle physicist... zakir will bring an answer!!!! he doesnt need to learn about it to know.,..... its all in da quran!!!! DONT U GUYS SEE...... ppl like you will never stop u can get a million excuses and objections but islam has all da solutions simply becaz everything is ALLAH's .... bring a sensible reply or dont!!!
In Islam if someone is ignorant and does not accept the truth or searches the truth Allah blinds them, If you are seaking the truth then Allah will guide you. Allah does not misguide anyone. We all have free will, Allah only guides those who seek guidance and those who dont he leaves astray.
I am not trying to convert you to Islam in the first place because its not my job, its the job of my God. Because He Himself said : "As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them Whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur)."
@TheRationalizer I am not trying to convert you, I have said no intentions of doing so. I can be your friend, we can chill, hang out. Its not about you, its about ignorants. Those who ignore facts and comes up with their own revelations that there is nothing to live for because we will end one day. You are asking why are we still believing Quran as God's revelation, because your theories are not enough to prove that Quran is not the word of God. You want to debate without copy/paste I can do it.
6:111 "And even if We had sent down to them the angels and the dead had spoken to them and We had brought together all things before them, they would not believe unless Allah pleases, but most of them are ignorant."
So if an angel came to me with my dead nan and told me God was real apparently I won't believe because God doesn't want me to.
@TheRationalizer but why would God send Angel to you ? God has sent Angle to His messengers like Jesus, Noah, Moses, Abarah and Muhammad (pbut). If you become ignorant then you heart will be sealed, if you free your mind from lies of the world only then you will achieve the truth. Why would God send you an angel if you do not want to believe in it. Achieving the truth is not an easy task. And whats wrong with Chapter 5:32 ?
In 6:111 it means that even if God send angels or dead ones to the unbelievers, they are so blind that they couldn't look beyond the lies and ignore God's message. It shows the limit of their blindness.
But that is clearly wrong. *I* am an unbeliever. An angel would be enough to convince me, and an angel accompanied by my long dead grandmother would be FAR MORE than the minimum level of proof I require to believe in God.
Now, more importantly. Can you explain 5:32 to me?
The Queen of England refers to herself as We instead of I. This is known as the royal plural. God use 'we' to refer himself in the Quran for royality.
"Whoever destroys a soul from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he saved an entire world."
(B)
"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
Are you happy that they express the meaning of the verse accurately enough?
@TheRationalizer the first man who translated Quran from Arabic to English said that Quran is the most difficult book to translate. If there are conflicts between these translations then it is obvious that the word of God is not easy to understand but if you put some effort and learn Arabic then it will be easy. Muslims are advised by many scholars to learn Arabic instead of reading translations.
@TheRationalizer Well I have heard these verses many times from many people and the accurate meaning is that killing an innocent human beings is as though as killing the whole of humanity and saving life of a human being is as though as saving the life of the whole of humanity. Well whats your point here ? its simple...
@TheRationalizer excuse me I just thought to myself do you aknowledge the fact the pagan christian tried to humilate and expose my muslim brother but in doing so he got refuted infront of thousands in the audience.
WILLIAM CAMPBELL got RAPED in this debate....towards the end he hardly answered any questions...and in the short time Naik was given ...LESS THEN THE 5 MINS he should have got..he not only answered the questions he also answered campbells questions...
At NO POINT do bones exist BEFORE muscles in human embryonic development, it is a fact. The Quran says that bones come first and are later clothed with muscles.
Therefore the Quran is clearly wrong, AND according to Dr Keith Moore, the very person that Muslims like to refer to when trying to convince people that this is a miracle.
Don't you think irrefutable evidence is better than how well the person speaks?
Sorry but what you have said is TOTALLY WRONG...This is a prime example of misinterpreting a verse or word from a language you have no idea about and then making a meaning for yourself....
NOWHERE DOES the QURAN use 'MUSCLE'
It says '...the we clothed the bones with flesh '
FLESH constitutes of a number of things...it could be interpreted as muscle...BUT also SKIN, FAT
If you take the verse LITERALLY it is Correct...study the human embryonic stages....
I will write to you answering this nonsense of countless propagating from anti islamic sources since the first chrsitian crusades.I will send a indepth response,that the so called western scholars of islam and the science contained in it are 100% backed by hundreds of scientists the world over.Also if you check on wikipedia the numerous scientists that have embraced islam after discovering facts
Erm you can delete it if you want but it shows your bias, you believe your copy job and anti islamist are right and you blind follow their perversions, I sent you clear copy and paste refuting the allegations against the qur'an from this debate,which came from anti islam and a muslim response.all fair in love and war.we cant have double standards.
Salam to you and family. I greet you with peace.that is what salam means.this video exposes the infidels who claim the qur'an is scientifically inaccurate.that liar christian tried to decieve the audience but Allah humilated him and exposed him for all to see.Can you see where he gets exposed.he gets exposed throughout it all,but it is at a certain place where he gets the final uppercut of truth.
Comment removed
sususoos 1 month ago
god bless dr zaik and all muslims.
ebmwo1 2 months ago
Brainwashing!
sardanapolis 5 months ago
Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" --- John 10:36 " What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? - John 20:27 "Stop doubting and believe.” said Jesus. 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed." Father, SON + HOLY SPIRIT, GOD 1 in Spirit
JesusgavemeHolySpiri 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Koran teaches that the world is flat. This doctrine is believed by Islamic scholars even today. The Bible revealed that the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".
muhammedquran 10 months ago
It isn’t a matter of opinion. Careful! with Religion, Science, or Politics. Do your search. The Bible is the Highest authority. Satan is ruling & misleading the earth 1John5:19; Revelation 12:9. 1John4:1 Don't trust all inspired word, test them to see whether they originate with God, false prophets have gone forth to the world.
I found this helpful, verify for yourself(Ephesians5:10). Go to "Watchtower org" website click "Index" or "Search" your subject, if U click 'Contact Us' you'll get help
plptous 10 months ago
@paradayzia
talk as much you can this your time , later you can not , follow your insticts and use only the human being sense of arrogancy .These people do their job to remind us that all and you decide , it is your choice nobody force you to believe .
Savechildrens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First of all Christians must have to know that"Son of God " means"Servant of God" in Hebrew.Most of Christians do not know
See the difference editions
King James Version
Acts3:26.Unto you first God,having raised up his Son Jesus,sent him to bless you,in turning away every one of you from his iniquities
NEW KJV
Acts3:26.To you first,God,having raised up HIS Servent JESUS,sent Him to bless you,in turning away every one of you from your iniquities”
SO JESUS IS A MESSENGER OF ALLAH
rafibh28 1 year ago
In humanitic era what a beautiful lives on planet earth.A billion can not reach water and two billions can not reach enoughly.Westerners and its complains in eastern countries use the richness of the world.In china,india or other part of worlds thousands work for one dollar and say we live in humanitic era.World never be dumbest as now before.Look at Usa look in Europe look at ghettos.Humanity means I will fuck you but dont reply me and submit my greedness.I am the Lord,King and you are slaves.
yigitinebolulu 1 year ago
@yigitinebolulu If religion, specially Islam, is good and Quran is just then millions of people who beleive in them should have had a much better life by now and all the Islamic countries should have been healthy, wealthy and just lands. Many of humanity problems nowadays have roots in religions like Islam. What you see in the world now is the consequence of its previous history and religions. God and religion are the failed hypothesis because they caused many of today problems.
paradayzia 1 year ago
Simply believing in stories told in medieval time on holy books does not make any of those stories historically correct or logically possible! Creating mythology was easy and believing in it was even easier. By all means observe their morals, but believing in them proves no point, just like believing In a pink elephant in Mars..:) We live in an era of science and therefore our belief system should be reliable and scientific based on freethinking and humanity.
paradayzia 1 year ago
@paradayzia I just wanted to mention, it's one thing that a book would contain information, or make claims about science and discoveries that are being made centuries (more than a millenium) after the Qur'an was shown to people. We are not just talking about "stories" like you mention, which could be fictitious or non-fictitious.
blueammo 1 year ago
@blueammo I have read Quran many times. I was born in an islamic country. I was shocked to see the violence, hate, inaccuracies, scientific errors, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical solecisms and dubious ethical pronouncements in the book of God. A holy book written by Allah should be impaccable. He is the almighty God after all. There is only one explanation to all these and that is the Quran is written by human beings just like Bible and Torah and veda, etc.
paradayzia 1 year ago
@paradayzia I read the Quran everyday and have gone thru it many times. I was born in an islamic coutry. and i am always amazed at how beautiful it is :) I always get something when you reread a Chapter, alhamdulillah
azalea411 1 year ago
@azalea411 Because your close-mind does not allow you to read it critically. That is one of the downfalls of being religious. Read 66:1 to 5 and also 33:36 to 37. then go and read the history of these verses. This clearly proves that Quran was a creation of prophet's chimerical imaginations to reach his personal goals if not anything else.
paradayzia 1 year ago
@paradayzia thanks. i do read the history. i hate reading things out of context whether geographical or historical, and btw, you have to read the quran and hadiths as a whole, not just 2-5 verses.
azalea411 1 year ago
@paradayzia Are muslim?
rafibh28 1 year ago
@paradayzia Yea, Troy, the labyrinth and Odysseus were myths too untill discovered. Same with some mythological creatures as for ex: egyptian gods. Do a little research and u will get amazed when u will find out that modern nasa scientists present strong evidence for the existence of some paranormal creatures..And yea if humanity is too accept homosexuality and polygamic relations then i guess romans in 50 AD were much more humans than we are today..
greken145 6 months ago
@greken145 Your analogy is wrong. Troy was existed and Homer created a heroic story around it. The same with Sahnameh Ferdosi the great Persian poet. Koran is not the work of God, it is the word of Mohammed and that is why it is so limited to his time, geography and knowledge of the world known by arabs and their closest literate neighbors Jews. That is why it is a replica of jewish and christian stories and laws. Koran and Bible are not holy and are not word of any God but humans. .
paradayzia 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quran and all other holy books were written by humans who lived in medieval and ancient time, and that's why they are full of scientific errors, impossible stories, barbaric and cruel punishments, unjust and unequal rules and regulations, contradictions, and unnecessary repetitions. They are a mere reflect of ancient human life, their culture and their system of believes which should not and can not be prescribed for our era of humanity, science and freethinking.
paradayzia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quran and all other holy books were written by humans who lived in medieval and ancient time, and that's why they are full of scientific errors, impossible stories, barbaric and cruel punishments, unjust and unequal rules and regulations, contradictions, and unnecessary repetitions. They are a mere reflect of ancient human life, their culture and their system of believes which should not and can not be prescribed for our era of humanity, science and freethinking.
paradayzia 1 year ago
The reason why The Bible is factually inaccurate is because it was written by men with little or no knowledge of science. Taking pot shots at the science of The Bible totally misses the point. It's not a scientific text. The Qu'ran is not a scientific text. Neither are scientific texts. Why are they arguing about science? It makes no sense to me.
bobb4you 1 year ago
Quran and all other holy books were written by humans who lived in medieval and ancient time, and that's why they are full of scientific errors, impossible stories, barbaric and cruel punishments, unjust and unequal rules and regulations, contradictions, and unnecessary repetitions. They are a mere reflect of ancient human life, their culture and their system of believes which should not and can not be prescribed for our era of humanity, science and freethinking.
paradayzia 1 year ago
@paradayzia So basically, he is saying that in 1400s years, and only up until then, these things will be discovered. How could he know? Until you provide strong enough evidence to validate this (not just posting your random thoughts), then what the Qur'an contains on this matter is certainly valid, and more likely to be true.
blueammo 1 year ago
@blueammo Quran is written 1400 years ago in accordance with their time, history, geography, science, ethics and so on. A clear mind and reasonable intelligence can easily see the notations of the book are mostly archaic. Muslims should bring the book down from the pedestal of holiness and start to see its faults. Being staburn in beleving something so unreal and based on faith proves nothing but doltishness. Openmindness requires questioning! Muslims should open their minds and question it.
paradayzia 1 year ago
@bobb4you Quran also is written by man. Please do not too much flatter yourself. It is also full of scientific errors and made-up stories, unequal and barbaric rules and regulations. Many of those stories are ironically taken from Torah and Bible for your information, which according to you are written by men. Religion is religion is religion, so please do not try to exonerate Islam from any other religion specially monotheistic ones. not trying to defend Bible as they are all the same!
paradayzia 1 year ago
@paradayzia Of course it is written by man. As I said, none of them are scientific texts so arguing about the science of these texts is completely pointless.
bobb4you 1 year ago
Where's the science? Damn, y'all, if you make a scientific claim you ought to back it up.
TaterGumfries 1 year ago
This video should be watched and also one on Embryology
watch?v=AHyLuEmkafE&feature=channel
Title = Miracle of Reflected Light of the Moon in the Koran
1960Aussie 1 year ago
I just need to point out 1 mistake that Dr Zakir Naik has made and that should be enough to debunk his whole debate. He claims that no one knew that the moon light was light reflected from the sun. Check Pythagoras 570BC, Parmenides 550BC, Ananagorous 499BC, Aristotle etc etc.
1960Aussie 1 year ago
@1960Aussie I hope as many people as possible thumbs up this comment of yours so that it stays near the top of this video.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@1960Aussie u r a retard mate! they were only theories n concepts, along with many wrongs one, they didn't have any resource to know for A FACT anything,science established proofs recently, so yes he's is right to say that NO ONE knew as A FACT that moon had reflected light, u r unbeliever like Pharaoh who watched all the miracles thru his eyes n keep denying em, until he DIED!
halakukhan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@halakukhan now now now, no need to call someone a retard, you say they didnt have any resources to know anything for FACT,but thats what every muslim says the Quran is, "a fact from Allah" when ever anyone finds a mistake then you all start bleeting. I suggest you read about the life of Muhammad and ask questions for yourself, thats if if you have a mind of your own and are ALLOWED to question the Quran........
1960Aussie 1 year ago
Campbell, here is as hypocrite as a raciste can be. (It does not look like a alaka looked trough microscope).
Hypocrite as can be an old man like him, By the way what was he doing in Morocco during 20 years?
massidiot1 1 year ago
masha Allah
Jazaka Allah kheiran for sharing
WeBorn2DieAnyTime 1 year ago
In this debate Dr. Zakir naik has proved that Quran is the word of Allah (The all mighty GOD)
Please see the whole debate, what Dr, William Campbell said and what Dr, zakir Naik said about error in the Quran and the Bible and what where the questions asked by the audience and who answered in what ways. i guess i'm trying say is that , "guess see the whole debate"
Partytime60 1 year ago
In this debate Dr. Zakir naik has proved that Quran is the word of Allah (The all mighty GOD)
Please see the whole debate, what Dr, William Campbell said and what Dr, zakir Naik said about error in the Quran and the Bible and what where the questions asked by the audience and who answered in what ways. i guess i'm trying say is that , "guess see the whole debate"
Partytime60 1 year ago
DR ZAKIR NAIK HUMILIATED THIS HYPOCRIT christians i bet ur scared from Dr.Naik he challenges all of you scientist doctors whatever but when ur a muslim even a little kid can challenge a jew or a christian about knowledge of religion stupid people still try to defeat islam LOL dont they see its getting bigger and bigger every day ISLAM WILL TRIUMPH I GUARANTEE U AS GOD QUARANTEES IN THE HOLLY QURAN
fidaniiiiii 1 year ago
@fidaniiiiii In what way and at what point does he challenge the scientific community?
jiltist 1 year ago
jiltist i am fidaniiiiii he challenges scientist in the way of everything that is called scient every man who calls him self or at least someone calls that man smart he will challenge him God made gave dr Zaik a great gift called KNOWLDGE just watch his lectures you will find a lot of different questions from the science and you will see he defeated all of them but the easiest battle was against religious scholars like christians and jews
MUSLIM3013 1 year ago
@MUSLIM3013 I'm unsure of any other lectures he may've given, but he doesn't challenge any scientific theory within this debate.
If he does do so in other lectures--successfully--would you mind posting a link to said videos along with the general times for his arguments? e.g. 10:11 etc.
jiltist 1 year ago
what a big liar!!that christian is a big liar!!he try to lie by projecting different angle!!! 21:30
khairuleven 1 year ago
God doesnt prevent you from believing, you are preventing yourself.
MuhammadDarr 1 year ago
@MuhammadDarr That's bullshit. I've tried to believe my entire life, but all scripture has failed to convert me. I've sought out knowledgeable people within religions, but they too have failed to provide any real evidence to persuade me. If anything, fault falls on the Gods for presenting their case such that many logical peoples cannot believe.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist Okay you obviously havent read the "Quran." I say Quran in quotes because you may have read translations of the Quran and have been mislead. Did u see the entire debate between Dr Zakir Naik and Dr William Campbell? In the end the Quran was compatible with science and the Bible wasnt. The Quran besides being compatible with science also mentions scientific facts stated 1400 years ago that scientists are juss recently discovering. The Quran is perfect, no errors. No other book compares.
MuhammadDarr 1 year ago
@MuhammadDarr
1) Under Muhammad, there were seven variant forms of the Quran. Who's to say which is the "true" Quran?
2) "And of every thing We have created pairs:
That ye may receive instruction.
-- Sura 51:49"
*There exist many genderless species.
3) "[33:72] We have offered the responsibility (freedom of choice) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were afraid of it. But the human being accepted it; he was transgressing, ignorant."
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Dear there were and still there are 7 variants of Quran in dialect. We have muslims who can read quran till today in 7 different dialects. and for your information dialects dosent change the text and the meaning.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
33:72 is very clear, and how true it is. a better translation more closer to its arabic meaning.
Truly, We did offer AlAmânah (the trust or moral responsibility or honesty and all the duties which Allâh has ordained) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they declined to bear it and were afraid of it (i.e. afraid of Allâh's Torment). But man bore it. Verily, he was unjust (to himself) and ignorant (of its results).
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit This does not address the point; the point is that an offer was made to abiotic things; the Quran reads that those abiotic things refused the offer. In other words, non-living things are recorded in the Quran as making a decision (which they cannot due as a result of their never having lived).
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Although a proper definition of life is still not agreed among the scientist we have divided things into living and non living to understand them. God created all and the Creator knows how to communicate with the creation. He knows how they communicate. Strangely Science is the one who are discovering the truth of religion specially Islam. Plants have their language, they can cry, call for defence, creates network and send alarms before attack. Check on Live science and Nat Geo website
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Lets see when science will come to discover that even stones, mountains, stars and planets can communicate. What science dosent know today it will know that maybe in another century. Many things Scientist didnt know 100 years ago are now discovered.
Well everything living and non living has a soul with which creator communicate. And as you know Soul is something Science cannot comment.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit
We may find that such things can communicate, in fact we already have! But only insofar as particles interact (communicate) with each other. It'd take a complete lack of knowledge of electrical interaction to even consider that a rock should be able to communicate ideas to another rock, even more a lack of knowledge of neurochemistry. But to consider that rocks could make a decision- that mountains can exhibit emotion- that earthly plants can muster a reaction beyond reflex! Silly.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
SILLY is what people used to say when it was told that eaarth is not the center. I thought people who believe in science are open to new discoveries. Nothing is impossible untill proven otherwise.
Its science who is telling me these silly things that plants can cry, shout, call for help and inform others of attack which are definately more then a reflex.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit
One cannot draw an honest comparison to scientific theory now and the "scientific theory" of when there was no "science" but only "theories".
And if you want to claim that plants can cry, shout, call for help CONSCIOUSLY, post an article.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Ref
1. Mystery Of The Bdelloid Dry Spell Solved on NPR
2. Howlikely it is to find a male Bdelloid Rotifier on snailstales
3.An evolutionary Scandal, harvardmagazine
4. Who Needs Sex Anyway? on plosbiology
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
To give you more of a shock scientist have now discovered social behaviors of plants where a plant can recognize siblings and strangers. If you plant two plants together who are from the same mother they will accomodate each other in laying roots and water resources to grow together but stranger will get competition. Check it out on University of Delaware website and Live Science.
I THINK THIS IS MORE THEN A REFLEX.
OR IS IT TOO SILLY TO KNOW THAT PLANTS HAVE INTELLIGENCE
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit
Plants release gaseous chemicals when endangered; humans release liquid chemicals when in danger: your point?
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
5. Organisms Gave up Sexual Reproduction for DNA Theft. softpedia
6. The benefits of 80 million years without sex on university of cambridge
7. Genome Structure of Bdelloid Rotifers, Journal of Heredity,Oxford journals
8. Evidence for degenerate tetraploidy in bdelloid rotifers, PNAS website
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit It doesn't seem that you bothered to read your articles. Consider the abstract from "Evidencde for Degenerate Tetraploidy in Bdelloid Rotifers": "Rotifers of class Bdelloidea have evolved for millions of years apparently without sexual reproduction."
We speculate that they may have, at some point in their evolution, had the ability to reproduce sexually. We recognize that now, in their current stage, are unable to reproduce sexually.
Misrepresenting your citations do you no good.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Good so you do speculate that they used to have sexual behaviour before but now they dont. Which i have no problem with. The only point i made was God created things in pair, Male and Female, The male no longer exist is not the argument that the creation was not in pairs. If you believe no male or female you will negate the whole of evolution Theory. If a specie didnt had sex it cannot move to the next better specie to continue the process of evolution to come to human beings.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit
The first part about them having been created in pairs but evolving out of pairs is a good point, but is likely wrong. (and no, a lack of sex in species is not a counterpoint to evolution--evolution merely addresses the change of DNA through chance changes [inter-species fornication is not required])
What you refer to goes back to Abiogenesis, a theory which proposes that life came about due to a coming together of various organic and inorganic materials through . . .
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist . . . intermolecular magnetism and thermally derived interactions in an aqueous environment. If you want to learn more about the topic, search it on Amazon, buy one of the resulting titles, and read it; I'm not an expert; it'd require many years of learning to attain such depth of knowledge as one would find in an accredited scientific journal or textbook on the topic.
In short, the overwhelming amount of supporting evidence for the theory of Abiogenesis overshadows any modern . . .
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist . . . day claim for creation.
If you are going to argue creation, then I will not hear your argument because it is irrational and scientifically ignorant.
jiltist 1 year ago
Dear Changes in DNA are called MUTATIONS. It may be through chance but how are these changes transferred. If you read mutation you will see that these are the changes in DNA sequence of a cell genome and are caused by many factors. Meosis is essentail for sexual reproduction. If you read meosis even on Wikipedia you will understand my point was that without the Sexual part these changes will not be transferred. It talks about Bdelloids and clearly mention that they lost the ability of Meosis.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Now the articles are in front of you but the problem with science is that it cannot even define the basic funtions properly. like
1. What is Pain
2. What is Intelligence
3. How intelligent is Intelligent
The basic purpose of giving example of plants is to show you the point that 10 years ago everyone can easily deny and disapprove of idea about plants having social behaviors and intelligence. But it is science who is telling us that plants are lot more smsrter then we thnk.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit Again, the articles are not in front of me; your articles do not support your arguments.
The questions you just proposed are easily answered:
1) Pain is an electrical stimulus which the brain interprets in a negative manner. Not knowing the causal relationship between a cause and effect by far does not equate do not knowing the cause and effect.
2) Intelligence is the result of neurochemical reactions which fire in sequences determined by a mysterious coding.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
3) I do believe that you mean "How intelligent is super-intelligent?" And the answer to that is quite insubstantial, as we have no super-intelligent beings to compare ourselves to.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
As Muslims we believe that earth, stones, mountains have a soul through which they can easily expres emotions, expressions and decisions. Its you who has to wait for science to discover it to give you assurance to believe in this information. For us statement of Quran is enough proof and we have no doubts as all the other statments of Quran have been found correct.
You cannot even deny it as science has yet to prove it correct or wrong.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit You believe this, but there is nothing but evidence against your beliefs. It is impossible for an object which can't even move, internally or externally, to think. And again, to deny this requires one of two things: complete ignorance or misinformation.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Now for plants. Ref.
1. The first Symposium on Plant Neurobiology
2. Stressed plants cry for help on NewScientist
3. Plants Recognize Siblings on Science Daily
4. Plants Recognize Siblings on Live Science
5. Plants can tell who's who - NatureNews
6. Impatiens plants are more patient with siblings on ScienceNews
7. Plants Can Recognize, Communicate With Relatives National Geographic
8. Plants Share Light If Neighbor Is Related - Scientific American
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
And this is just the beginning, lets see when can we train plants to be soldiers like we have done with Monkeys and Dolphins. Definately the day will come when we will be able to understand the languages of so called abiotic things.
Till that time its better for you to say that we dont know abiotics can speak or make any decisions.
OR You can deny the statement of Quran we have no problem. Only Time can decide who is correct. The statement of Quran or You.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit Again, your articles do not support your argument. Plants are capable of very basic thought, but only insofar as reflexive action is concerned, i.e. military plant soldiers are not an option and will not be an option until such a monstrosity has evolved.
As for the "language of the abiotic things" part, I really don't have anything more to say to this. The information is there; accept it or don't.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Plants are capable of very basic things, YES what we till today know of. What is still hidden in plants is still to come. What we know now were unknown 10 years ago. Man my advice stay away from science as a career if you have to be so sure of things. Science always works on hypothesis to figure out new stuff. You dont rule out possibilities. You are always looking forward to new ideas. Whatever we know abt plants is bcoz some one didnt believe that they cannot communicate.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit
Correction, you don't rule out a possibility unless it isn't a possibility. Consider the following:
An earth dwelling man jumps upward. It is, by a newborn's understanding, possible that he should continue upwards. It is, by a scientific understanding, impossible that he should continue upwards. Your understanding of Neurochemics, electricity and magnetism, science is like that of the newborn; you don't know much of anything about it--or at least you don't express it . . .
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist . . . through coherent, cohesive cases for your claims.
As for the "don't become a scientist" thing, I'm recognized by every professor that I've had as a brilliant mind whom will undoubtedly be valuable to the scientific community--and at a university so great that it is well inside the top 10 universities for Electrical engineering within the US. It is Purdue university that I speak of, the main campus. And while this is an argument of ethos, it is a very convincing one.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
My only point is that Bdelloids had the male part originally but when Female Bdelloid became able to reproduce and can evolve as well without its male part it gave up sex. Scientist aslo say the same thing. 80 million years some say 30 million years without sex. as described before, the asexual reproduction can only make females thus the male porpulation became extinct. Cannot reproduce male anymore. as many male were present cannot survive for 30 or 80 million years.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
And since when you have started thinking that humans will not be monster enough to use plants as soldiers. If we can be monster enough to use monkeys and dolphins. If we have biological weapons today what will stop us to use plants as soldiers. Just wait till we find out the potential.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Please name one gender less specie. before you answer let me clarify you one thing. Asexual reproduction dosent mean that there is no gender. it only means that One parent is Capable of reproducing by itself. Advantage of asexuality is to keep the numbers, disadvantage is no genetic diversity, dosent allow adaptation to changing environments. Asexuality only in single cell organisms, some types of fungi and many plants. Trees are female and male even though they reproduce asexually.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit Any species of bacteria. Plankton. You name it?
jiltist 1 year ago
@computinggit Also, would you consider a species wherein all animals of that species have a working penis and a working vagina?
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
@jiltist
Dear before you say more can you please go and read Sex Determination on wikipedia. will help you determine how science calssify sex. and Planktons also have males and females, Please check jelly fish which comes under Plankton Group.
Aslo let me remind you Science cannot define the reproduction process clearly in Microorganisms till today. how will you classify them in sexes. And whenever you will be able to classify them Insha Allah you will find them in pairs.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit I apologize for saying that plankton are sexless, because they aren't. However, there are sexless species. Google Bdelloid rotifers. For further information, read the paper Geographical Parthenogenesis: General Purpose
Genotypes and Frozen Niche Variation.
Sexless in the sense that we're discussing means that it does not have male and female.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
To say though that the sexlessness of bacterium is a null point because they hadn't been discovered when the Quran was written is fallacious! The Quran is supposed to be infallible. To even consider that it is not 100% factual- 100% relevant is heretical!
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Bacteria is not sexless, we know they are in pairs as they reproduce asexually and sexually. But it is for scientist who have to derive the formula on the sex determionation of bacteria. As in sexual reproduction transfer of genes take place to bring about a better offspring you can easily understand the presence of a pair involved in sexual activity. It is for science to decide how will they classify males and females.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Dear O Dear, Bdelloid Rotifers, do asexual reproduction, which i already described to you. So once again how do you determine that they all are females. if they are gender less how come they are classified as females. So you might ask me this question then where is the male?
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
1. Male has also chosen to reproduce asexually
2. Since we have been looking at this creature for less time than how do we know the creatures are not in the stage where a number of females turn male like the bamboo Flower does after 100 years.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
3. Why does the male have to look similar to a female. Given the life cycle male could be much smaller than female. Perhaps just a protein coated nucleas that floats around in the water or even simpler like a virus. The fungus has had 30 million years to evolve to eat the creature yet can't seem to finish the job.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
John Logsdon an evolutionary biologist from the University of Iowa isn't totally convinced that bdelloid never have sex. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
In other words, just because nobody's ever seen a male rotifer is not proof they don't exist. Maybe they show up so rarely researchers just haven't been patient enough. Or maybe they don't like being watched. Logsdon thinks that every creature that has evolved enough to have a cell with a nucleus has evolved enough to have sex. And rotifers definitely have cells with nuclei.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Parthenogenesis is also a type of asexuality. Komodo Dragons do this but does it mean they have no male and female. And we all know they have male and female but in the non presence of male dragon female dragons will repoduce to kepp the species going with the disadvantage of reproducing all females.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Let me tell you there are genderless ants but as we know ants have male and females. so they are created in pairs. but certain working ants are genderless so that they can only work. So such things do exist but not at the level of any specie but within a specie mostly as abnormality.
Why a nuetured dog or bull still be considred male becoz gender determination is done by gametes, chromosomes, number of chromosomes, combination of chromosomes, body temperature.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit You misunderstand the definition of female. A "female" creature is a creature which is the source of reproduction, i.e. the cell which divides, the animal which births, the fish that lays eggs. This is why there are many species of bacteria which are solely female. We have not seen males of these species because they cannot exist; it isn't in their genetics to exist.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
As for your idea "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence," we cannot be called to disprove a negative. You might as well be saying, "You can't disprove the existence of leprechauns, and therefore you can't deny their existence." If there are male Bdelloids, we have not found them in the thousands upon thousands of specimens that we've examined. To acknowledge this and still pander for their existence would halt further study into the matter (and would be silly for stated reasons).
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Point 1: "Males have also chosen to reproduce asexually." They cannot make choices (not consciously). If they could reproduce in any other way, we would have seen it (tens of thousands of recorded cases). Because they haven't, they are, by definition, female: all Bdelloid rotifers are female.
jiltist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jiltist
Point 2: "2. Since we have been looking at this creature for less time than how do we know the creatures are not in the stage where a number of females turn male like the bamboo Flower does after 100 years."
If there was a stage in which they became males, we would've seen males (because they would've reached that stage). We have not.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Point 3. "Why does the male have to look similar to a female. "
I never did. This is a red herring argument; it has nothing to do with anything; you're trying to distract from the tenants of this discussion.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
@jiltist
2. Male dosent exist anymore
a. The whole idea of sex in species is to evolve and create a better specie with genetic diversity. The Female bdelloids can reproduce without the male and surprisingly can evolve also without the male. Reason being total elimination of male from the species as females were producing females only and abondened sex. Other known asexually reproducing species have been extinct and are only in fossils who abondened male copulation.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
3. Bdelloids steal DNA from other organisms
Bdelloid rotifers DNA appears to contain a series of genes transferred from bacteria, fungi and even plants. The discovery was made by Irina Arkhipova and Matthew Meselson from the MBL's Josephine Bay Paul Center from Harvard University, assisted by graduate student at Harvard, Eugene Gladyshev.
This means Bdelloids female can steal any other DNA dosent require its own male to have sexual activity to evolve. Inter specie sex is strange.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Bdelloids Rotifiers abondaned sex and reproduce through parthenogenesis. We have already discussed that how Komodo Dragon do this kind of asexual reproduction when they cannot find a male in a communinty. Disadvantage is that they can reproduce only females. Same thing is with Bdelloids which is not surprising. What baffled scientist that Bdelloids reproduce asexually to keep the numbers going but how are they evolving without sex. How? different opinion exist.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Microbiologist have concluded that
1. Males are not found yet
a. They are much smaller in size as for most of the microbiological species it is true
b. The external morphology of male bdelloids is much different than those of the females, hard to recognize if this is bdelooid or any other micro organism
c. Males are parasitic on or inside the females and are extremely small maybe like a virus
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Dear Absence of evidence is not my idea. its a well known scientific notion. Every other biologist refers it. Thats why every Microbiologist u will ask a question about male Bdelloids will not say they dont exist or never existed they will say
1. There is no published record of a male Bdelloids
2. For various reasons they may not have been detected so far
3. Males are Unknown in Bdelloids
4. Males disappeared as were not required for reproduction anymore
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit Yes, yes. It's been around since The Enlightenment, yadda yadda. That still doesn't mean it's a correct notion. Google "the bell inequalities and proving a negative". If you read and comprehend it, you'll better understand the argument you're using (incorrectly).
As for arguments 1,2,3,4, did you read any of what I wrote? If so, did you comprehend what you read? Obviously not.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
5. There are no known male Bdelloids Rotifiers
6. if there are male bdelloids they are very different morphologically from the females
7. they may appear during only certain times of the year and may have very short lifespans
8. Males have not been found yet
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Dear I i didnt misunderstood the meaning of female, female is what you say Bdelloids bcoz they reproduce by laying eggs. What other definition i refer too. There are different ways to determine sex of the species depending on their specie. For some species number of chrmosomes decide male and female, Reproductiive organs, gametes, sperms, eggs many different ways and in some reptiles body temprature decides male and females. Bdelloids are by gender female coz they lay eggs.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit The alternative definition of sex does not apply because they don't have the option to have either two X chromosomes or one X and one Y chromosome. This is what I was aiming at before; their sex is determined to be female solely because they lay eggs.
"in some reptiles body temprature" These are ZW chromosome creatures, an entirely different subject.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
They steal DNA from other species, What does DNA have man. Why do they steal DNA, to keep them in a safe box. Scientist have described it alternative way of sex. What can i Do this is your Science. I dont know why you negate certain articles bcoz it dosent support your idea of science and only pick one out of eight bcoz he is favoring your ideas. You should be very open minded to be a student of science.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Bdelloids are called female coz they lay egss and are females. What is stopping science to classify it genderless. I gave you the abnormality in working ants. Science classify it genderless. No sperm, No Egg. GENDERLESS. What on earth is stopping Microbiologist to say that Bdelloids are Genderless.SIMPLE coz they are not. They are FEMALE,FEMALE, FEMALE. Why they say, We have not yet have a record of Male Bdelloids coz the the FEMALE is missing the MALE pair. HENCE NO GENDERLESS SPECIE.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit Genderless, by definition, means androgyny. It does not, as you seem to think it means, mean the absence of male and female. What it does mean, though, is the absence of a male/female dichotomy. That is to say that it does not have to be male; it does not have to be female; it's both. This is and has been my argument: there are creatures which are of no definite gender because they are asexual creatures, hence my telling you to brush up on the definitions of the terms being used.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Looks like you didnt read my first post, and the very first comment. Do not confuse Gender and Asexuality. Asexuality is a way of reproduction. It is totally different from determining if a specie is genderless a specie has male or female. Look at Komodo Dragon. We have male komodo dragon and female komodo dragon, but female komodo dragon reproduces asexually. will it make komodo Dragon as a genderless Specie. NO it will not. There is no such thing as gender less specie.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit "Do not confuse Gender and Asexuality. Asexuality is a way of reproduction." Oh my god, I can't do this anymore.
Do yourself a favor; do me a favor; go read a book. Seriously, go read a book.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Dear Androgyny is mostly used in determining Physological Gender Behavior of a person not the sex. We can see people around us who are male but they represent themselves as Female and Females who represents themselves as males. These are two different topics. A gender less Physological Behavior can not be used to determine the Biological Gensder of a person, hence cannnot be argued for a gender less specie.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Next thing you spoke about is Hermaphrodite. Does it mean there is no gender. a hermaphrodite is an animal or plant that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes. Look at earth worm. The male and the female sexual organs are within one body. Are they called Genderless Specie. No they have Male and Female but within one body. Plants, Some fishes and Snails are best example.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
When Quran says that God Created everything in pairs you objected that there are alot of Genderless species. Hence Quran has a mistake. I just argued that no Quran is compatible with Science and there are no genderless specie. every specie has male and female. if this is what you were not arguing from the very first day what were you trying to prove. My very first comment was do not confuse asexuality with gender. Asexuality is a form of reproduction nothing to do with determining sex.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Even if an organism is both male and female at the same time scientist can clearly dichotomy the male and female. Sequential hermaphrodites (dichogamy) occur in species in which the individual is born as one sex, but can later change into the alternate sex. This is in contrast with simultaneous hermaphrodites, in which an individual may possess fully functional male and female gonads.
So the whole point is that Science and Quran support each other in scientific facts.
computinggit 1 year ago
Comment removed
jiltist 1 year ago
@computinggit At this point, I'm facepalming. Kudos if you figure out why. Double kudos if you resultantly change your behavior.
Back to your point "Bdelloids had he male part originally" argument, you're wrong (and I do hope you're not being disingenuous).
Bdelloid Rotifers cannot have originally been sexual creatures. If they had, then they would have a name different than "Bdelloid Rotifer". Read up if you want to understand why. But, even accepting for the sake of argument that they . . .
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist . . . were sexual creatures, your point is still moot because they evolved from asexual creatures, hence my earlier point of "If you're going to argue creation, we're stopping here".
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
Dear I am not arguing creation. Read two articles. It is very clear. Microbiologist themselves agree to it that they were sexual and lostt he sexual activity and became asexual only. This article discusses the possibility that it happened in three different occassions.
1. Bdelloid rotifers revisited - on the website of NCBI
The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Please read the complete article but under the heading Are Bdelloids Anciently Asexual? the 5 last lines states as follows.
The phylogenetic analyses allow the possibility that sexual reproduction was lost independently on at least three different occasions. It is more parsimonious to suppose that sexuality was lost only once in the bdelloids, but this argument would lose some of its force if their sexual ancestors were preadapted for asexual reproduction.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
@jiltist
2. Evidence for the Evolution of Bdelloid Rotifers on Science Mag. Research from Harvard University.
Clearly states that "We find that genomes of individual bdelloid rotifers, representing four different species, appear to lack pairs of closely similar sequences and contain representatives of two ancient lineages that began to diverge before the bdelloid radiation many millions of years ago when sexual reproduction and genetic exchange may have ceased".
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
The same article continues and concludes.
Our results exclude the possibility that bdelloid rotifers are ordinary diploids that engage in rare or cryptic sex. It remains possible that, unlike any other metazoan that has been examined, bdelloids are ancient polyploids or diploids with ancient duplications of every gene we studied and that they engage in some elusive form of sexual reproduction but are unusually homozygous.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
I dont call my self a geneous, i m a student of science
So what isin the name of Bdelloids Rotifers. I dont see anything
1. Bdelloids belong to - Kingdom Animalia - Phylum Rotifera - Class Bdelloidea Order - Bdelloida - Divided in four families.
2. Bdelloid derived from old greek - which means leech. hence Bdelloid means Leech like.
3. Rotifer is derived from a Latin Word and it means Wheel Bearer. reference to the crown of cilia around the mouth of the rotifer
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
I dont see any connection here between the name and being sexual.
They are under kingdom animalia, sexuality is well known in the kingdom. They are under Phylum Rotifera who are actually divided into four classes. The other three classes have known males and females and they reproduce asexually as well as sexually. the four classes are. Monogononta, Bdelloidea, Seisonidea, and Digononta.
Please clarify your point as i dont see the connection here witht he name and sexuality.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
Nor was i disingenious nor do i change my behavior, its not me its you who have to read some books or atleast the articles i post. I am a student of science.
So my question to you is now?
1. What asexual organism Bdelloid evolve from that it cannot have a male bdelloid. while all the other three family members reproduce sexually and have male bdelloid.
2. What should i read to understand that Bdelloid Rotifer cannot have their name Bdelloid Rotifer if they were sexual creature.
computinggit 1 year ago
@computinggit This is pointless. In other words, iQuit!
Go read a book.
jiltist 1 year ago
@jiltist
What book? I would really like to understand your points if there is any.
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
I posted around 16 articles and references from Scientific Sources and you are still not convinced or dont have enough courage to accept the scientific facts, These facts may be unknown to you before this discussion. But may be becoz they go hand in hand with quran which is not easy for you guys to digest.
Whatever your arguments were you didnt support them by any scientific reference and at the end you are again telling me to go read a book.
WHICH BOOK?
computinggit 1 year ago
@jiltist
coming to 33:72 again. it is very clear that humans being unjust to themselves means taking a burden more then what you are capable of. Ignorant here means the ignorance to the fact that this unjustice will cause harm to him in the form of the Torment of Allah. Read 33:70 to 33:73 which will give you a very clear meaning.
computinggit 1 year ago
this is a reply to TheRationalizer .... we do not need to bring a particle physicist becaz campbell himself couldnt answer the simplest science, even if u bring ur particle physicist... zakir will bring an answer!!!! he doesnt need to learn about it to know.,..... its all in da quran!!!! DONT U GUYS SEE...... ppl like you will never stop u can get a million excuses and objections but islam has all da solutions simply becaz everything is ALLAH's .... bring a sensible reply or dont!!!
loloniconam 1 year ago
In Islam if someone is ignorant and does not accept the truth or searches the truth Allah blinds them, If you are seaking the truth then Allah will guide you. Allah does not misguide anyone. We all have free will, Allah only guides those who seek guidance and those who dont he leaves astray.
MuhammadDarr 1 year ago
Dr Zakir Naik Huge surprise for sincere Christians Part 2:
mysticgatekeeper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch my video
It's about earth shift. Earth shift: One huge continent became 2 continents, then 5 (or 6) and then?
watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64
fridaysabtu 1 year ago
Dr Moore himself says that there is NO point when bones exist BEFORE muscles, they appear several weeks later.
So, why are you guys still Muslims?
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
I am not trying to convert you to Islam in the first place because its not my job, its the job of my God. Because He Himself said : "As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them Whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur)."
[Al-Quran 2:6-7]
shahir4u 1 year ago
The Quran says that even if he sent me an angel and rose the dead to speak to me I would not believe because it is not his plan.
1: That is bollocks, my dead nan WOULD convince me.
2: If God prevents me from believing, no matter what and then burns me in hell for eternity for not believing then God is a shit head. Simple!
It's like saying "Don't breath or you will go to hell" - why give me lungs
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer I am not trying to convert you, I have said no intentions of doing so. I can be your friend, we can chill, hang out. Its not about you, its about ignorants. Those who ignore facts and comes up with their own revelations that there is nothing to live for because we will end one day. You are asking why are we still believing Quran as God's revelation, because your theories are not enough to prove that Quran is not the word of God. You want to debate without copy/paste I can do it.
shahir4u 1 year ago
I will talk to anyone who is willing to offer their OWN answers and not copy/paste ones.
So...
Please look at verse 5:32, can you explain to me
1: Who's words are those, Muhammad's, God's?
2: What do they mean?
We'll go from there...
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Answer my 5:32 question please
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer God has given you free will, its your choice. God is not responsible for the choice you made.
shahir4u 1 year ago
6:111 "And even if We had sent down to them the angels and the dead had spoken to them and We had brought together all things before them, they would not believe unless Allah pleases, but most of them are ignorant."
So if an angel came to me with my dead nan and told me God was real apparently I won't believe because God doesn't want me to.
So how is that MY fault?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer but why would God send Angel to you ? God has sent Angle to His messengers like Jesus, Noah, Moses, Abarah and Muhammad (pbut). If you become ignorant then you heart will be sealed, if you free your mind from lies of the world only then you will achieve the truth. Why would God send you an angel if you do not want to believe in it. Achieving the truth is not an easy task. And whats wrong with Chapter 5:32 ?
shahir4u 1 year ago
In 6:111 it means that even if God send angels or dead ones to the unbelievers, they are so blind that they couldn't look beyond the lies and ignore God's message. It shows the limit of their blindness.
shahir4u 1 year ago
But that is clearly wrong. *I* am an unbeliever. An angel would be enough to convince me, and an angel accompanied by my long dead grandmother would be FAR MORE than the minimum level of proof I require to believe in God.
Now, more importantly. Can you explain 5:32 to me?
Who is the "We" that ordained this verse?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
The Queen of England refers to herself as We instead of I. This is known as the royal plural. God use 'we' to refer himself in the Quran for royality.
shahir4u 1 year ago
So 5:32 is God saying that God ordained if kill 1 person etc?
There are many different translations of the Quran, each varying slightly. Are you happy that these are valid translations of the meaning of 5:32?
(cont)
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
(A)
"Whoever destroys a soul from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he saved an entire world."
(B)
"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
Are you happy that they express the meaning of the verse accurately enough?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer the first man who translated Quran from Arabic to English said that Quran is the most difficult book to translate. If there are conflicts between these translations then it is obvious that the word of God is not easy to understand but if you put some effort and learn Arabic then it will be easy. Muslims are advised by many scholars to learn Arabic instead of reading translations.
shahir4u 1 year ago
I am not going to ask why they are not identical. I just want to know if you think they both express the meaning of verse 5:32.
In essence, are they the same as the Quran 5:32?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer Well I have heard these verses many times from many people and the accurate meaning is that killing an innocent human beings is as though as killing the whole of humanity and saving life of a human being is as though as saving the life of the whole of humanity. Well whats your point here ? its simple...
shahir4u 1 year ago
@TheRationalizer excuse me I just thought to myself do you aknowledge the fact the pagan christian tried to humilate and expose my muslim brother but in doing so he got refuted infront of thousands in the audience.
ryukenb2k 1 year ago
So he was challenged by someone not up to the job? So what? That makes Muhammad a messenger of god? That's a bit of a leap!
If you stand up on a platform with the mic and complete control over proceedings it is not difficult to destroy an incompetent challenger.
It has no relevance. Can you imagine putting Naik against a particle physicist?
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
WILLIAM CAMPBELL got RAPED in this debate....towards the end he hardly answered any questions...and in the short time Naik was given ...LESS THEN THE 5 MINS he should have got..he not only answered the questions he also answered campbells questions...
as a non -muslim, CAMPBELL got DESTROYED
Darkraz 2 years ago 6
yeaaa.. i would say so in this debate
Sagr1987 2 years ago
However, he made one killer point.
At NO POINT do bones exist BEFORE muscles in human embryonic development, it is a fact. The Quran says that bones come first and are later clothed with muscles.
Therefore the Quran is clearly wrong, AND according to Dr Keith Moore, the very person that Muslims like to refer to when trying to convince people that this is a miracle.
Don't you think irrefutable evidence is better than how well the person speaks?
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
Sorry but what you have said is TOTALLY WRONG...This is a prime example of misinterpreting a verse or word from a language you have no idea about and then making a meaning for yourself....
NOWHERE DOES the QURAN use 'MUSCLE'
It says '...the we clothed the bones with flesh '
FLESH constitutes of a number of things...it could be interpreted as muscle...BUT also SKIN, FAT
If you take the verse LITERALLY it is Correct...study the human embryonic stages....
Darkraz 2 years ago
Sorry, I meant flesh, I had just been reading about the baby moving its muscles elsewhere.
The literal translation is "We dressed/clothed the bones (with) flesh/meat".
However, muscle IS flesh/meat.
Flesh: noun 1 the soft substance in the body consisting of muscle tissue and fat.
Quran 0 - Science 1
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
If your definition of flesh is muscle...the quran is wrong, from what humans know thus far
if your definition of flesh is fat/skin the Quran is right
Darkraz 2 years ago
It's not MY definition, it's THE definition. Muscle *IS* flesh. I even quoted text from the dictionary where it lists muscle as flesh.
Therefore you have admitted the Quran is wrong, congratulations!
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
AGAIN you are wrong...you have quoted from a MODERN DICTIONARY definitions of 'FLESH' differ from generations and languages
You need to accept you are misinterpreting a verse from the Quran
Darkraz 1 year ago
How do you know I am misinterpreting it? How do you know what the correct interpretation was 1400 years ago?
The reason the Quran is wrong is because it copied the incorrect stages described by Aristotle.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
I will write to you answering this nonsense of countless propagating from anti islamic sources since the first chrsitian crusades.I will send a indepth response,that the so called western scholars of islam and the science contained in it are 100% backed by hundreds of scientists the world over.Also if you check on wikipedia the numerous scientists that have embraced islam after discovering facts
ryukenb2k 1 year ago
I am going to delete your private messages, I do not read copy/pasted messages.
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Erm you can delete it if you want but it shows your bias, you believe your copy job and anti islamist are right and you blind follow their perversions, I sent you clear copy and paste refuting the allegations against the qur'an from this debate,which came from anti islam and a muslim response.all fair in love and war.we cant have double standards.
ryukenb2k 1 year ago
It doesn't show bias at all.
If you want to discuss something with me then DISCUSS something with me.
Do you know how many Muslims go to their favourite website and copy/paste a whole page to me?
1: I don't have time to read a whole page.
2: I don't have time to reread the same page every time someone new pastes it to me.
Finally there is no point in responding to such messages, because as I TRY to discuss them what is the response? Copy/Paste another page!
It's a waste of time. DISCUSS!
TheRationalizer 1 year ago
Salam to you and family. I greet you with peace.that is what salam means.this video exposes the infidels who claim the qur'an is scientifically inaccurate.that liar christian tried to decieve the audience but Allah humilated him and exposed him for all to see.Can you see where he gets exposed.he gets exposed throughout it all,but it is at a certain place where he gets the final uppercut of truth.
ryukenb2k 1 year ago