Selam aleykum

Creation vs evolution.
This is one of the hotest topics for more than 100 years now. Ever since Darwin wrote “origin of the species” People have been debating this, not because of the contens of his theory, but because of what it suggest, namely that there is no such thing as creation. Troughout the years of discussion both party’s have come forth with false statements, accusations, blind argument, basicly been disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. But lets take a closer look to what is know.

Darwins vs. faith.
I have absolutely no idea what Darwin actually believed. Some say he became atheistic because of his findings; some say he was catholic but wanted to change the dogmatic regime, some say he was simply agnostiastic. Here’s an interesting qoute by Darwin:

This suggests he wasn’t a complete atheist. Personally, I find the most logical explaination would be: He thought evolution was the way god created the different species. The reason evolutionists argue so much with theists is because evolution seems to contradict the “7 days” theory. Evolution doesn’t contradict creation. A chemical reaction making life come forth out of lifeless matter contradicts creation. And even then, one could argue that if a god controled the fysical/chemical laws inflicting this, all credit should still go to him. Then again such arguments are unneeded since there seems to be a big flaw in those theory’s. Sort of like “the chicken or the egg” al over again.

Chicken vs egg.
Contemporary organisms carry their genetic information in nucleic acids - RNA and DNA - and use essentially the same genetic code. This code specifies the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each organism needs. More precisely, the instructions take the form of specific sequences of nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids. These nucleotides consist of a sugar (deoxyribose in DNA, and ribose in RNA), a phosphate group and one of four different nitrogen-containing bases. These nucleic acids specified the composition of all needed proteins. It also relied on proteins to direct many of the reactions required for self-perpetuation. Hence, the central problem of origin-of-life research can be refined to ask, By what series of chemical reactions did this interdependent system of nucleic acids and proteins come into being?

Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.

But this is not the only flaw in the “atheistic evolution”. When mentioning “the missing link” most people think about a link between humans and apes. But that isn’t the only missing link.
Here’s some even harder nuts to crack:

Try to think of the imence coincedence needed for a bird to evolve from a mamel.
It would have to have a single mutation in the DNA of such kind that the following happens:
1. Suddenly the creature has wings.
2. Not just 2 long flaps, these wings need feathers, bloodvessels, bones etc... to function
3. The creature will have to have the capacability to devellope stronger muscles in order to move those wings fast enoughf.
4. All bone’s need to have small holes to make the creater more lighter.
5. If only one of these things are missing, the creature can not fly, and hence the mutation would be considerd a handicap rather then an evolution. This would also lower it’s survival chanses.

Or how ‘bout the previously mentioned qoute involving the “eye”. How many different parts and organels does this organ consist of. Al “coincedentialy evolving, mutating ” in the design of a DNA cell? I will not even start making a list for this example as I did with the previous one.

Or how bout the different sexes. Are there evolutionists actually suggesting that 2 different mutations took place in the same place at the same time with 2 of the same assexual ancestrial specie in such a manner that one develloped male organs and the other female, in such magnificance, that they can produce offspring when mating? And that those 2 mutated species actually instinctifly found one another, seduced one another with ferromones, and mated?

creation + evolution
I could keep this up for quite a while, but I guess one gets the suggestion I’m making. Not al species came from the same ancestral primitive being, there might have been evolutions such as dog evolves from wolf and so one but that doesn’t contradict the 7 day- theory (note that days aren’t even litterally but actually mush longer).

Inshallah this article wil cut of the root ;) of disbelieve with disbelievers and stop believers from denouncing evolution, as it isn’t all incorect.
Also May allah forgive me if I made any mistakes or said something I shouldn’t have.

Darwin is some wierd evolution man who thinks we evolved from monkeys to humans.

Nice post

It is a great thread.

Its a good arguement, especially because of the fact its scientific, so more harder to rebutt by the evolutionists

I am not an evolutionist, alhamdulliah im a muslim, although i believe that changes can occur during human beings, only within its certain species, for example, Adam (as) was 40 cubits tall, but we can see over the generations, man's height and size has been adjusted to accomodate the space required for a more populated earth. I.e, man has gotten shorter overtime, but this is not really evolution isnt it, however i totally disagree with the idea of species morphing into another species.

Hi All

Nice post good points. But to quote "Darwinsm" as a complete system of "Evolution" is a bit of a red herring.

I have never been a fan of the method "cast doubt on an aspect of darwinsm to prove that creationist's must be right is bad science"

Regards

Root

Red herring as in "something that draws attention away from the central issue"?

Hi,


Its a very favoured method in approaching arguements, it seems humanity are more talented in pessimism nowadays, well how else can you prove an arguement wrong by not showing what is wrong about it?

And osman, yes, that is correct definiton for red herring.

Of course, and you shouldn't dismiss just for the sake of it, because part of the theory has even been proven, sciences even watches viruses "evolve" on daily basis, but the "aspect" on wich I casted doubt, is coincedently the part that contradicts creationism, hence the purpose of the thread, not to prove creationism, but to dismiss evolution as an argument against it.

I like how you've phrased that last bit, steve. That's a good point, because atheists try to use evolution as a means of disproving creationist arguments, so these rebuttals illustrate the evolution cannot disprove creation.

I think you can always go back to mutations and discuss the biological complexity of life today, as another argument. Also, the vast difference between human beings and other life forms.

I think this quote prity much sums up the circles that people like to go round. Of course evolution cannot disprove "creationism" and visa versa, of course this is by it's very definition where our current understanding is.

You have two choices when seeking the answer to our past. Read it all in the bible and know "Everything" then get on with the rest of your life. Or reflect and question current understanding to the point we know little but the little we have learned has blown open a religous creationist view. Since it is important at this time to recognise a difference between "creationism" and "religous creationism". Also, don't be fooled into arguements specific to an evolutionist view for that is foolish. Only now are we beginning to contemplate just how easy it is for life not to have even had it's origins on this planet which the Quran also "reluctantly" and openly admits.

It always pays to read the small print.

Recent archeological discoveries are now beginning to blow holes further into such religous history as the flood of Noah & moses parting the seas. At the end of the day all you are left with our two things:

Fact & faith. Which is a difficult issue since the two will contradict each other. they always have and they always will. Evolution does not use faith, and it does not claim to know it all. Our level of understanding grows, and thier is little or no time for us to appreciate our simple narrow minded approach to the big question.

Why are we here

To worship god. Follow the straight path, abstain from sinning. Listen to the prophets. Fear god. Get knowledge and do what you think is right. Do ritcheous things. I got more stuff but I am too lazy to write it all now.

"Why are we here" is a question which is relatively simple and makes sense if you just think about it in simplistic terms, people have wasted their lives trying to answer this question by overcomplicating and trying to explain through unecessary eloquence, using a simple explanatory tool called occam's razor.

We are here to serve god and to guide our destiny via free will.

Evolutionism, creationism, at the end of the day these schisms in thought did not arrive independantly, creationism arrived from the faith in god's words, and evolutionism though it may have some truth to it, was given birth by an incomptent darwin attempting to dismantle the church through the use of scientific intellecutalism.

Could you give an example on fact and faith contradicting? I haven't found any so far (well not in islam), but if you'r able to bring any up, I'd be happy to add my 2 cents on it.

Why are we here? Personally I think about it this way:
So the "good" could be seperated from the "bad". Well not exactly, who belongs where is already know, so one could argue that this test is not needed, but then again without the test it would be unfair. Anyone saw the movie "minority report"?