Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Creationists often publish lists of a few dozen scientists who doubt Darwin. So in 2003 the National Center for Science Education put together a list of 200 scientists who accept evolution.
“Except that all of ours were named Steve.” That was the NCSE’s Eugenie Scott at last week’s AAAS meeting. “And now we have one thousand scientists named Steve. Project Steve has a serious message. Approximately one percent of Americans are named Steve or Stephanie, so do the math. Our one thousand Steves represents a hundred thousand scientists accepting evolution, as opposed to the rather paltry number dissing Darwin. It’s important because in states where we have major problems with anti-evolution going on, the number of scientists doubting evolution has been proclaimed to the public. I just want the press to keep asking, ‘How many Steves do you have?’”
And the thousandth Steve is: “The distinguished botanist at the University of Tulane and head of the Tulane Herbarium, Steve Darwin.”
—Steve Mirsky
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add CommentGood Job Steves. But I think you are fighting a losing battle. Anti evolutionists are ignorant when it comes to the theory itself. I think most people who cannot except evolution do not understand how long it actually takes. They cannot even begin to comprehend time in terms of millions of years. Even as a child I could understand the theory of evolution. It frustrates me to know end that some people will never understand. Actually, I'm fine if someone doesn't believe evolution, but don't try to get your "intelligent design" nonsense passed off as real science. Nothing about intelligent design is scientific. Unfortunatley, ignorant people abound in this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, my spelling and grammar are not good, I know this, but I'm sure some intelligent design psuedo scientist will point it out and use it as an insult to my intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like this! Science is defined as a popularity contest! Number of believers = truth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this100 years ago, all the "Steves" were anti-evolution. That must mean that evolution wasn't true then.
100 years from now, once science comes back to its senses, all the "Steves" will be anti-evolution again. That must mean that evolution will not be true then, either!
OneEye--that's not the point. The point is that if anti-evolutionists offer a group of scientists to the public as "proof" that evolution is not our current best theory, then those who believe evolution is our best current theory, and thus should be taught as such, can offer a much larger group of experts as "proof". I doubt many, if any, of the "Steves" would assert that the size of their group is "proof" that the current form of the theory of evolution is "truth"--that's a much bigger claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat? A creationist missed the point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOneEye (and HALF-BRAIN) is making typical mystical predictions about the future, based on misunderstandings of the past and present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, what can one expect from religious "logic?"
Creationists also must refuse to see that all other science disciplines support evolution in some way. Geology, biology, physics, chemistry. Not one of these areas of study has evidence to disprove evolution. how can that be? To me it is just ridiculous. I mean, the body of evidence for evolution is soooooo enormous that you would have to be mentally challenged to believe anything to the contrary. the funny thing is that creationists act like it's a big conspiracy. I have a Jehovahs witness I work with who claims that fossils are not real because he saw some at the museum and they were made out of plaster. try explaining to someone that ignorant how evolution would work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy has evolution advocacy become a cult? It's the best biology framework, so far and it works, who could ask for anything more. I think the best choice here is to deny any resource based on modern biology to the anti-evolutionists. Let evolution take its course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, JAndrews, that's EXACTLY the point of Project Steve - to show, by dint of the "Steve" sample, that the overwhelming number of scientists support evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was necessitated by the fact that a non-trivial number of credentialed scientists do not accept evolution as "fact" (or even as that good a theory). NCSE wanted to prove that the number of evolution-rejecting scientists was insignificant in the face of the overwhelming number of evolution believers. Hence, numbers = truth. "We all say it so it must be so."
Which any casual read of this article would clearly show - and which you yourself clearly indicate.
So, who missed the point again?
Netman4ttm - evolution has always been a cult. The aim of evolution is to produce the "intellectually fulfilled atheist" - to explain life without the unpleasant necessity of paying homage to God. It's a pseudo-scientific worldview worked up around an atheistic framework - not science at all, but an atheist religious doctrine: "In the beginning, NO God created the heaven and the earth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatt - Neither physics nor chemistry have any comment on evolution. Biology flatly denies evolution, as is best demonstrated by the wholesale destruction of Darwin's "tree of life" thanks to DNA evidence. Abiogenesis is a known impossibility, and fossil phylogenies dispute fossil phylogenies ("postcranial paradox"), while morphological phylogenies dispute fossil phylogenies, and genetic phylogenies dispute fossil, morphological and genetic phylogenies! If biology shows us anything, it is that the principle of common descent is completely unsubstantiated. The only evidence that can be adduced to support evolution is paleontological (NOT geological), and that is weak at best and falsifying at worst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere IS a consistent picture emerging: Evolution is NOT supported by the evidence. This is why rational people reject it - and why science must eventually abandon it as a failed theory.
Hi!: creationists do not deny evolution, just say that God had an intervention on the outcome, a concept impossible to prove or prove not by experimental ways; from a theological point of view, the kind of evidence some request to accept that evolution is guided , will let all of us almost lacking freedom because the obviousness is mandatory. Never nobody will be able to find such an evidence. Other inherent concept in the dicussion is the problem of the government right to impose a belief in schools against the parental beliefs, and even more, connected to the fact that some psychiatrists say that the omnipotence of God is a reflect of the omnipotence of the unconscious; as the id works in an all or nothing rule, eliminating the belief in an omnipotent being outside us will destroy the id omnipotence, as there is no middle term between omnipotence an castration at this level. Thus eliminating the belief in an omnipotent being would be a way of castrating a person, a step towards converting him or her into an slave. Sometimes apparently academical discussions hide a much different thing. Regards
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry OneEye there is no god. There also is no Zeus, Jupiter fill in the next 2,000 to 3,000 names. Evolution is not a belief system; it is a scientific framework that explains how life as we now see it got here. Before you start in with where/how did life start remember that is not a issue that evolution needs to address. The origins of life belong to the world of chemistry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNetman4ttm: Thanks for flaunting your atheistic bias. Because we know you are an atheist, we now no longer need to listen to you. Your atheism demands that you be an evolutionist - hence, you cannot be part of a rational debate on the truth or falsity of evolution. Thanks for your comments, though!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, I am not an evolutionist whatever that is. I look at evolution as the best scientific frame work to explain modern biology. Deus ex machina does not explain anything. I would have been a Newtonian physicist until Einstein showed up. And if someone comes after Darwin, who can explain biological diversity in a new way I might make the switch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving been dragged to any number of religious events in my youth by my high school friends who were trying to "save" me, I can attest that reality, e.g., empirical data, and religious beliefs exist of some groups in different dimensions. Different modes of thought; different universes. There is really no hope of introducing common sense, much less logic, to people like One Eyed who not only give no evidence of understanding evolution, but feel compelled to drag in atheism into the mix. What is next for someone who supports Darwin? Hating children and dogs? Darwin's own life--surrounded in domestic bliss with children and pets of all kinds, would make this ridiculous but the issue isn't about facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and scientists often fail in not viscerally realizing that if someone sees a flat earth, that the point is not about the earth at all, it is instead about any number of other topics. In the flight from reason there is a promiscuous accumulation of taboos: evolution = atheism has provided us with is just one example. All the due diligence and methodical effort that a good scientist will put into explaining that the earth is not flat, is lost. It isn't about the earth, it is about many other needs. The psychological need for magical thinking on both an individual and cultural level is not taught to scientists and it is ultimately beyond describing in a comment like this, but rest assured, it exists, and it is translated into politics like the Kansas Board of Education. It is prudent to realize that in some places in the world, like rural Russia and the Congo, witches are still burned.
One hopes that irrationally will die out, but if we look at the numbers who seek comfort and guidance in astrology and numerology, it is obviously not going to happen any time soon.What then, can a scientist do?
Let me suggest that what has long been long done and is perhaps being increased over the last few years, be continued and beefed up even more. MAKE SCIENCE FUN. Let the young come to their own opinions but learn to address questions and speak so that more and more young people can understand. And be patient: I once taught about the concept of race and I was never so pleased as when two years after the class, a former student came up to me and announced that they finally understood the class.
For me, that was a moment of Divinity and I can certainly assure those who believe that evolutionists and atheism are cut from the same cloth that in my case and that of many I know, It is not so. But one should not feel bound to a litmus test for ideas: my concept of a benign universe is mine; and evolution exists even as I write. And I, for one, agree with the ancients and rather think that on a social level, in that of ideas, evolution exists as well. In due course and over time--and let us hope it is not glacial--simple facts will be accepted for what they are and we can get along to understanding the real world and not one of magical thinking.
Netmant4ttm: Wow! Those pedals work even better backwards!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the record, "deus ex machina" better explains, defines, and predicts the existing biome. Here are four examples: (1) Commonality of design implies commonality of designer. (2) Parsimony (efficiency) of design implies a high degree of expertise on the part of the designer. (3) Remarkable adaptation demonstrates a vastly higher likelihood of design than of accidental/random evolution. (4) The existence of purpose for all known biological structures indicates that these biological structures are purposive rather than haphazard.
Further, the existence of information in biology indicates an original, pure master source of information - better explained through "deus ex machina".
An excellent example of the predictive power of the design hypothesis is shown the debunking of the notion that most DNA is "junk". Design advocates had reason to believe that the purpose of this DNA was merely unrecognized - while evolutionists wanted it to be junk in order to prove the undirected origin of life. Turns out that the design advocates were right, as the ENCODE project demonstrated.
Evidence continues to pile up that directionless, random forces were NOT involved in the creation of life on earth. The picture is becoming clear, so that now evolution has a face that only and (atheist) mother could love.
(By the way, I'm DYING to hear you speculate about these "other" explanations for biological diversity. I have one for you - but it begins with a capital G, so I know you're biased against it!)
I love the way that people like JHSibal can read my obviously-informed, obviously rational, obviously studied posts and then conclude that I am immune to fact and logic. Typical atheist bigotry: If it isn't atheism, then it isn't logic!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose that's one way to excuse yourself from dealing with the issues!
Oops - one more point for netman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(5) Common genetic elements, shared by unrelated species, show that genetic elements are placed by a designer rather than inherited from common ancestors. (E.g., platypus genome contains reptile, avian, and mammalian genes, contrary to any possible phylogeny.)
There are plenty more; these are just for starters.
OneEye writes: "I like this! Science is defined as a popularity contest! Number of believers = truth! 100 years ago, all the 'Steves' were anti-evolution. That must mean that evolution wasn't true then. 100 years from now, once science comes back to its senses, all the 'Steves' will be anti-evolution again. That must mean that evolution will not be true then, either!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou STILL utterly miss the point, OneEye. The point is not that evolution must be true if the vast, vast majority of scientists presently accept it (100,000 scientists COULD all be wrong -- though that doesn't presently seem to be the smart way to bet). Anti-creationists like to list a few dozen scientists who are evolution skeptics as if that demonstrates a serious debate within the scientific community about whether evolution phenomena are historic fact or evolution theory in serious dispute as the leading scientific theory explaining the historic diversification of life; it is almost as if they want to say, "See, among scientists, evolution skeptics to evolution advocates stand like six-of-one, half-dozen of the other." The point of a thousand scientists named "Steve" (approximately one percent of all scientists) who are advocates of evolution is that among scientists, evolution skeptics to evolution advocates stand more like half-of-one, six-dozen-of-the-other!
Since the number of scientists for or against evolution reveals nothing about whether evolution theory is valid science and reasonably likely to be right, why did anti-evolutionists start citing numbers of evolution-skeptical scientists in the first place? And having done so in the first place, now that they are BADLY losing the "count the scientists who are pro and con" game that they started in the first place, it is pitifully disingenuous of you or any other anti-evolutionist to now say, "well, THAT doesn't make evolution true." The point is that IF 100,000 pro-evolution scientists don't make evolution certainly true (and they don't), then a few dozen anti-evolution scientists certainly don't make evolution false (and they don't).
Get it now?
(<sigh> Probably not.)
And if you start thinking that the more honest and humble attitude is to say "I not know", for metaphysical questions such as: from where we came prior to birth and for where we go post death? And to think that this knowledge is not really available to us? Then to consider AGNOSTICISM like an alternative from atheism and religion, should not to be an absurd. The AGNOSTIC believe that not is in the nature of the human condition to know about this things. The Greek philosopher Socrates ( that was not an agnostic) said something like this: "All I know is that I know nothing". It would be useful for reflection and for soothing the arrogance of mind when considering tenets em general or in science or religion. If you have Agnostic belief you are able to proclaim one religion only for convenience without regret, and to be able of to have the freedom to accept the truths of real science. In that point of reflection, accepting the agnostic point of view, you can consider what merit more respect about of the starting of life in universe or specifically in our planet earth: The versions of religions or the version (or versions) of science. I (that am not a scientist) value more the science in its journey in search of truth! Apparently the one thousand of the Americans scientists named Steve also believe in ... science! (is it not incredible? Scientists that believe in science!). And you? Are you atheist, religious or perhaps AGNOSTIC?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we also need to mention WHY so many scientists support evolution, and not necessarily how many. By that rational, the flat earthers were correct 1,000 years ago. The majority of scientists today support it based on thousands of legitimate studies from individuals from other diciplines, like Matt said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver the years, the "theory" has been supported and reinforced, but has not been disproven.
Personally, I like what Richard Dawkins had to say about evolution: "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun."
Ceationists like to say: "it's the theory of evolution!" It's also theorised that the Earth orbits the Sun. Yeah, that's just a theory too, but at least it is based on a body of well tested and verified hypothesis, not faith.
I have "faith" in the scientific method, in that I completely trust it. It could wrong or partly wrong, but at least it can be modified.
Oh my, OneEye. You missed the point again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey aren't saying numbers=truth. They are saying the vast majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as accurate in order to point out that the few people creationists can get to refute it do not represent anything near the consensus view.
Facts and Reason are the best course to truth, and the scientific method is a strong framework to lead us closer and closer to truth. If you have any interest in truth, you'd stop trying to pick simple points out of complex issues...
Sure everyone knows that numbers don't equal truth, but lifting that point out of the argument and making it THE argument doesn't make YOUR point any closer to the truth.
If I say ten things that each work together to make a complex point, and you take one of them out of context, miconstrue how it was meant to be used, but then insist that since the changed context you used happened to be something people know is correct (like numbers don't equal truth), then you've somehow disproved the original argument.... clearly you have no real interest in finding truth... you just have an agenda to confuse people and you are using your intellengence to dumb people down.
is there possible if i believe both. Because evolution is just a theory, and so is religion/creationist. what if someday we know that some species evolve and some don't, just like some object attract to magnet and some don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "skip" of logic of One-Eyed to paint me as not believing in the concept of a divinity because I support evolution merely supports my initial premise: the issue with this and those who hold this line of belief--and it is belief and not thought-is not evolution at all, it is the flat earth. The earth IS flat and don't bother me with the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI specifically said that I am not an atheist but my words are meaningless because they don't fit his prejudice. The evidence for evolution is meaningless for those who know that evolution doesn't exist, although-to use a famous example--when they need antibiotics they don't want to be given a 1950s variety.
100,000 Steves is a wonderful project but like racial or sexual orientation prejudice, the effect of knowledge over individual and cultural belief will be limited. What is known, used in the lab and published is one thing, but the sociological implementation of science is often far more powerful.
I was once supervising a group of inmates on a trail-building project. At some point in the venture, I split up a few of the sedimentary rocks to make steps. In doing so, I found a fossil leaf and said to the inmate next to me "Hey, check out this fossil leaf." He then asked "What's a fossil". At first I though that he was joking, but then realized that he wasn't. I was then deeply saddened to realize that this guy was 23 years old, and had been let down by our educational (social, justice, etc.) system so badly that he was completely without the most basic scientific concepts in which to approach a perception of the world that he lives upon. During discussions like this one, I cannot help but feel that there are many people like that young man, and that they area a lot more likely to be lured towards a simple supernatural explanation of the world, than they are to be lured towards a complex, scientific explanation of it. I don't think that they are stupid, but that they are lacking a more complex framework and analytical skills in which to base their "choice" in the creation vs. evolution debate. If we are going to turn the tide on public opinion, we are all going to need to do a much better job of making sure all the members of our society have the basics in which to think critically, rationally, intelligently and analytically about the world around us. Until then, superstition will prevail, and young men like him will be at a great loss.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisharunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif anyone of you uses his/her intellect then after watching all those videos listed in the above link; you people would change.
QuranEnglish on this site you can hear Quran in English. Quran contains 114 chapters so hear them all. and not once but atleast 2 times per year for your own benefit.
Quran is Final Devine revealation. Contains so many truth that even darwin never knew. just like darwin said the universe is static and it never came into existence. But Quran stated 1400+ years ago that Universe is expanding. and hundreds of other facts which were not known to man until very latest discoveries of science.
cell, atom, enzymes, immune system, respiratory system are the enough proof that life was created by a creator who has unlimited knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease explain how termytes without the eyes make such huge buildings for themselves?
How hundreds of honey bees start making a home for their colony and they always prepare a hexagonal type home which is always absolutely accurate. How? How? How?
every new born of all the creatures are also very great proof of creation and not by chance work because new borns are guided to act as is required by them. A deer's new born starts walking just 30 minutes after its birth. same is true about the turtles. who tells them? you? Me? Lord of us all. out of zero volume and infinite density; universe came into existence with a big bang. well we know that explosions destroy not create anything. then how perfect most balance came into existence? there are just 50 million creatures; because man found 50 million till now, there maybe more.
A challenge to evolution which can not be won by any means.
find anything which is more productive then human being on any part of the universe. you have such great telescopes at hand that human has calculated stars which are 13 billion light years away. There are stars which are as bigger than sun that almost 2200 sun are equal to their radius only. so you have plenty of space to find only one creature which makes better aeroplanes or its types, rockets or anything which helps in traveling at higher speeds than human. you understand that human has created too many things. show me one creature which is more creative.
Please don't give me the reference of our lord, Lord of Adam, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace be upon them all) because i know he created each and every thing.
to OneEye
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello!, I might be your stereotypical atheist evolutionist (I'd rather Darwinist, as in Darwin Awards avid reader :)). just to mock the "atheist conspiracy".
Let's start by going on your side... hypothesis, there is a creator, then he made all things on nature exist the way he wanted them to be.
Observation, nature is full of "adaptations", "retro fittings", and "modifications", that aren't consistent with the most basic engineering criteria, which are based on the very same rules nature runs (like physics, chemistry, and biomechanics).
Conclusion. That creator has a very bad crack habit or something like that, because most of his work makes no sense OUTSIDE AN EVOLUTION FRAME, like the blind intestine, which is useful in animals that feed plants (like the monkey like creatures we come from), but useless to us, the fact that humans die if they don't get enough C vitamin from an outside source, because it cannot be produced by the human body, while dogs can produce it, why not to use the same gene pack for the creator's favorite creation?, the Evolution frame would suggest something like "the simians humans evolved from, ate regularly C vitamin rich veggies, while dogs came from carnivores, who seldom go to a salad bar, hence they needed to evolve the hability to make C vitamin, while we didn't."
There is evidence of the fact that life evolved from lifeless chemicals, there are experiments that produce biogenic molecules (aminoacids, fatty acids, sugars, etcetera), and other like the Oparin's Coacervates, which produce things that seem to be early stages of cell evolution.
If you doubt that sciences like astronomy support a long lived universe instead of your 5000 year universe, then I say your god is a big cheater, the closest galaxy is 2 million light years away, that means it's light was running towards us about 1995000 years before your god created it??!!, and if he created the "old" light then he is a real *******!. Geology has very precise formulas to evaluate how old a sample, be it a fossil or the strata it was found is, and thus help to say 'Dino surely died 65 million years before Fred could utter Wilma I'm home!"'. and BTW, Dino had a similar looking hip to Tweety, and there are lots and lots of reptiles that became over time smaller and more like Tweety, until eventually some time ago, you couldn't tell them apart.
luciferpriestgmk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat what you said about termites and bees, is a fascinating example of order resulting from a simple program, you can get hexagonal cells of the same quality by heating a shallow pool of oil softly, and the huge buildings the termites make, are result of an algorithm that goes like "grab some dirt, chew it and spit it when you feel dry air", yes, the termites are blind, but they build their nests to protect themselves from the nasty sun and dry air, which they can sense very well.
when was it that i said the earth was created 6000 years ago? i said its stated in the Quran that earth was created for human beings in 6000 years. a car engine made in the company takes about 5 years to build and test it. but it never means that it was running for 5 years only.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin 6000 years it was created...
why?
Islam/Quran says iron was sent down to the earth because it never existed on it.... well science proved that fact. Quran told this 1400+ years ago...
a big astroid of iron struck the earth and temperature of earth arose and was not supportive to life.... after 6000 years all the matters regarding the balances required to sustain life were established in 6000 years.
Another Challenge to evolutionists like you... you said that many of the creatures are not required...
Ok name them and then kill them...
a few chinease aethiests had the same view about crows so they shot them and then they were dieing for food. because absence of crows created too many imbalances... search google for it.
lastly whatever was created in those tests is not fully known to you thats why you mentioned those tests...
Firstly more than 3 different present items were used in those test...
secondly those tests were arranged in special bottle type things or alike... (means special intention to generate something)..
But But and But... The result of those test...
The resulting amino acids as soon taken out of special containers which were specifically designed to contain them; they just died man.... check on whole results of those tests again.
Brother Please don't try to compete with me because Quran is not my book instead its book to whole humanity. it has whatever a human needs to know.
QuranEnglish visit this site and listen to Quran in English....
Brother Karl.. you answered what the science has studied about termytes.. you witnessed that they are also equipped with some seriously advanced sensory technology... human can not produce like that...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdo you know what is the strongest material on earth?
Web of the Spider, Human being were impressed with it so they made kevlar with kevlar human produced bullet proof jackets. every new born of spider is master architect and knows how to use its organs gifted to it and makes webs absolutely perfect for itself to hunt and feed itself. don't say that it needed that type of material so it automatically generated. look at your own hands they are in the perfect shape so you could do thousands of different tasks with it without any trouble.
OneEye: Thanks for flaunting your religious bias. Because we know you are a religious zealot, we now no longer need to listen to you. Your religiosity demands that you be a creationist - hence, you cannot be part of a rational debate on the truth or falsity of evolution. Thanks for your comments, though!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot that it matters, but I happen to believe in the theory of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill the argument given that some number of scientists named "Steve" support evolution, therefore evolution must be true is a logical fallacy. Specifically, the fallacy is "argument from authority". Feel free to look it up.
Would you believe the argument that Christianity must be true and Buddhism false simply because there are more Christians than Buddhists? You shouldn't -- It's the same fallacy.
I am again disappointed by Scientific American. Forty years ago they were concerned with real science. With each passing year they seem to be more caught up in religious and political issues.
Not that it matters, but I happen to believe in evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, the argument that some number of Steves believe in evolution proves that the theory is true is a logical fallacy, specifically argument from authority. You could look it up.
Would you believe the argument that there are more Christians than Buddhists proves that Christianity is true and Buddhism is false? You shouldn't -- it's the same fallacy.
I'm again disappointed in Scientific American. Forty years they were concerned with real science. With each passing year they seem more caught up with religious and political issues.
Lord/Creator of you, Prophet Adam, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and all the creatures is not OneEye.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen you find old civilization proves like pots 15000 years old.. houses 50000 years old then u say man made then so they came into existence... well when you find fossils of 50 million different species which are maraculously designed to perfection. then you say that all that came into being because of chance... look at the universe with open eyes brothers... its not work of chance rather life is intended by lord.
harunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php
QuranEnglish on this site you can hear Quran's English translation
Remember Quran is the most difficult to be ever translated... Final Devine revealation for human 1400+ years gone by but not a single word proven either wrong or changed by human....
If the koran is so potent a source please tell us what it predicts on some specific subject. something we can check. Otherwise you are playing nostardamus or bible code.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards,
Stuck on a rock