h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hmmmm... good question.

Well, here let me try to explain...
I would guess (correct me if I'm wrong) you would say that the natural laws (that is to say, processes) are self-existent. I think they are created, and therefore can be circumvented, negated, etc. by their Creator.

see my article Ha HA creation is not explained in religion which is another reply to the guy who thinks god crested stuff and let it evolve ha ha haha. Thats so funny ha there is no medial forms in fossil record ha ha reaction that makes proteins is a condensation reaction ha ha can't happen in water but at time of first life would not have been possible out side water. Ha ha second theroy of thermodynamics disputes evolution ha ha HA Oh s**t laughing so much I'm going to die.

Adib.

see my article Ha HA creation is not explained in religion which is another reply to the guy who thinks god crested stuff and let it evolve ha ha haha. Thats so funny ha there is no medial forms in fossil record ha ha reaction that makes proteins is a condensation reaction ha ha can't happen in water but at time of first life would not have been possible out side water. Ha ha second theroy of thermodynamics disputes evolution ha ha HA Oh s**t laughing so much I'm going to die.

Adib.

Hmm, I wonder where you copy and pasted your other post from? By the looks of your spelling, grammar and tone in this post it really doesn't look like yours. Which, if true, would be in breach of copyright law.

Here we go again:

"no medial forms in fossil record"
See "punctuated equilibrium", which arose as science adapted to the lack of observable "transitional species" regularly in the fossil record. Though if archeaoptrix (sp?) isn't such a species then I don't know what is...

"reaction that makes proteins is a condensation reaction ha ha can't happen in water but at time of first life would not have been possible out side water"
Irrelevant.

"second theroy of thermodynamics disputes evolution"
MASSIVE misunderstanding of entropy.

Hahahaha .

Ste

Your posts are in breach of copyright. You have lifted passages from http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/biology_06.html.

Did you write these articles?

Ste

And most stuff from other pages at http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/

Oh dear.
In that last entry I was joking about which is why it had bad grammar and spelling!
As for getting it of that site well no actually not.
I have not denied using other sources and the reason for that is I am part of a group that distributes the knowledge and greatness of Allah.
I have full copyright to distribute the whole book if I like to as the organisation is about teaching people.
Sorry to stop you in your tracks about my breech of copyright!
Oh and secondly you would have found most of this out if you looked at my personal data on here.
As a Muslim and part of the team it is my duty to pass this information on to whom ever I want.
This is because there is no copy right on it.
If you wish you can download all his books of this site for free!
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_books.php
Anyway enjoy the reading.
I do look forward to your reply to what has been put on to this discussion page.
Oh and I do know this stuff I am not just copying.
I read all the material he has written and I understand it all but I am very busy and I cannot be bothered to type it all out in my own words.
I think the way he has written it is far better than any other way of writing unless who ever is reading doe's not have a brain.
In which case they should not be on this page.
I think that’s some thing we can both agree with.
Now that we have got the supposed copyright impeachment I hope we can carry on talking and debating the evolution theory.
Allah hafiz
Adib

2002 Harun Yahya International. All materials in this site may be copied, printed and distributed for free.

Why should I debate with someone who "cannot be bothered"?

I, nor many other people, will respond to copy and pasted voluminous material which the Researcher is not the author of.

Ste

"will respond" = "will not respond", obviously

Well sorry but normally when I put some thing down that I have wrote they say Oh thats wrong and don't say why or anything.
So how about this if you come up with any thing wrong in whats been said so far and back your selfs up with like say "oh what about this" and then if its something like a fossil or something then state a example and then I will write my own material.
How does that sound.
Example:
There is no trace of a intamedial species ever existing in the whole fossil record. Check out these sites:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~azma/Science.htm
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com
http://evolutionfairytale.com
I could go on all day but you get the picture.
If you want a debate lets have one an state your sources so they can be checked on and see if some thing is being over looked.
How does that sound are you up to the challange?
Allah hafiz
Adib

PS the last site is a comical one.
Have fun.
Remember just because its a serious topic does not mean you can have a laugh.
Hope you enjoy the last site as it is a joke.
Adib

"There is no trace of a intamedial species ever existing in the whole fossil record"
You arguing against the theory of evolution as it stood over a century ago. Yes, Darwin thought that the fossil record would be "filled in" over time, and No, that did not happen. What you are saying is "...therefore the theory of evolution is false". Rubbish!

Science has adapted to the observed evidence and modified itself, such is the nature of science. Punctuated Equilibrium describes how organisms adapt in rapid short periods of time in response to a change in the environment. When there is no change in the environment for a period of time then then you have little evolution taking place. Why should populations adapt to something it may well already be adapted to?

So, please, before you criticise evolution, make sure you understand it first. Making statements like the above only shows that you have read creationist propaganda, and not stidied evolution in its own right.

Ste

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Adib:

There's a principle here that you debate using your own words. We can all copy and paste great chunks of other people's text and then go "haha, see, I'm right!". I've got a shelf-ful of books I could copy and paste, and dozens of websites I could do the same from. It wouldn't get us anywhere, mainly because you can't be bothered.

Before this "debate", if that's what it is, goes any further, tell me this:

Do you think that Creationism is a scientific theory? ]

If you DON'T think Creationism is a scientific theory, then there's no point talking to you at all. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese and that fairies live at the bottom of your garden as far as I'm concerned. If you do, don't worry, society will take care of you as it does all the others who are mentally disadvantaged.

If you DO think Creationism is a scientific theory, tell me how it could be disproved.

Evolution is a scientific theory. ONE, single, solitary real fossil of, say, a rabbit, in a 100 million year old rock would blow evolution completely out of the water. It can be disproved by a SINGLE example.

Can you say the same for Creationism? If not, you're one of the hordes of parasites who chooses to accept the advantages of a modern technological society while rejecting the education which has allowed you to live in the conditions you do. Like I say - don't worry. There are plenty of people like me who reject ignorance and superstition and work to make your life comfortable enough that you can sit in front a computer and perpetuate your primitive superstition.

H.

Oh, and another question:

Where did you study chemistry? You've stated condensation reactions can't happen in water.

Please give me ONE example of a condensation reaction. Just one, stoichiometrically balanced equation of a condensation reaction. (you do know what "stoichiometrically balanced" means, don't you?)

I ask only so that I can make sure you're actually talking about something you know something about and not just spouting stuff you've been told by somebody else without bothering to check whether it's nonsense...

H.

Quantitative Information from Balanced Equations
Greek – The measurement of elements. The study of the quantities of substances used (the Reactants) and produced (the Products) in chemical reactions.

PROCEDURE

A. Write a balanced equation

Cu + AgNO3(aq) ® Cu(NO3)2(aq) + Ag

Cu + 2AgNO3(aq) ® Cu(NO3)2(aq) + 2Ag


B. Read the Question: How much Silver is produced in the above reaction from 5.00 g. of Silver Nitrate?


C. Calculate the Formula Weight for the substances asked about in the question. The other substances in the chemical reaction may be ignored. In this question you are being asked about Silver (A.W. = 108) and Silver Nitrate.

D. Calculate the Formula Weight for Silver Nitrate
AgNO3
1 Ag = 1 x 108 = 108
1 N = 1 x 14 = 14
3 O = 3 x 16 = 48
170
E. Set up a Ratio using the number of moles indicated in the BALANCED EQUATION
The ratio of the Formula Weights in the balanced equation is equal to the ratio of the actual laboratory weights.

Silver Nitrate 2 moles x 170 g/mole = 5.00 grams
Silver 2 moles x 108 g/mole X grams

F. Cross Multiply to solve for X:

(2 moles x 170g/mole)(X grams) = (2 moles x 108 g/mole)(5.00 grams)

(340 grams)(X grams) = (216 grams)(5.00 grams)

(340 grams)(X grams) = (1080 grams)

X grams = 1080 grams ¸ 340 grams = 3.18 grams of Silver metal will be produced in this reaction when we use 5.00 grams of Silver Nitrate!
STOICHIOMETRY 2

Know I did not sat can’t I said least likely to occur let me quote my self:
When combining to form proteins, amino acids form a special bond among themselves called the "peptide bond". One water molecule is released during this peptide bond formation.
This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primordial life originated in water, because according to the "Le Châtelier Principle" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrate environment. The realisation of this kind of a reaction in a hydrate environment is said to "have the least probability to occur" among all chemical reactions.

1. To make monocarbonyl compounds, use the aldol condensation.
Note: crossed or mixed aldol condensations (2 different aldehydes or ketones), work much better if one of the reagents has no alpha-hydrogens.
a. beta-hydroxyaldehydes and ketones

The product can also be transformed by:
elimination (see b),
addition to the carbonyl by all the normal reagents, e.g. Grignard, LiAlH4, alchols, amines.
b. alpha,beta - unsaturated (conjugated) aldehydes and ketones

The product can also be transformed by:
i. reduction to a saturated alcohol by H2, Pt, heat and pressure;
ii. addition by a nucleophile (Nuc-) to the unsaturated carbonyl compound either at the carbonyl carbon or the beta-carbon, both of which are somewhat positive.

The common nucleophilic reagents react as follows:
beta only, mostly reversible reactions either C=O or beta, depending on steric factors, irreversible carbonyl only, irreversible reactions
OH-, CH3O- RMgX LiAlH4
NH2R, NC- RLi Wittig, Ph3P=CHR
enolates
R2CuLi (irrev)

Sorry if its all a bit squashed up I did it microsoft pub and got it from there. Hmmm is that all right for you.

Adib

I really can't believe you just copy and pasted huge chunks of someone esles work again. Forget it, I feel dumb for making the effeort to write three small paragraphs to try to explain to you the science behind evolution. It's pointless. All you are doing is waiting for an opportunity to paste your (frankly INCORRECT and embarassingly STUPID) garbage again.

Hoovooloo is right, I could go to the journal "Trends in Evology and Evolution" and just paste every single paper since 1960 over and over again. Would I have won the argument? NO. Would I have made a raging fool of myself? YES.

USE YOUR OWN WORK. You will get zero respect unless you do.

Ste

In replt to Tempest.
To prove gods existense can not be done with the Bible as it has beeb changed and added to over the years. If you read the Quran then you will see that every thing is explained in there.
The Quran is written in poetic arabic and is numerically perfect.
This makes it impossible to change one word or it will lose complete meaning.
The only problem is it is impossible to get a exact copy in other languages as there are not words that can translate most of the Quran.
It is it is proven in science that the Quran is in its exact form.

Adib

Adib:

"Hmmm is that all right for you."

No, it is not alright. I'm surprised you have to ask. All that proves is that you can use the copy and paste button on your computer.

I could train a CHIMP to do that in a matter of minutes.

You have given me no indication that you even understood my QUESTION, let alone have any idea what the answer is.

Care to try again?

H.