Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:

Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life is made yet – Science is decades behind in knowing the Origins of life.


If we skim over all the indepth debates people have about the origins of life, and the difficulties and confusions they go through to try to prove each other wrong, we see one common truth;


Scientifically we are many decades behind in actually producing any form of biological man-made life.



So let’s set the facts straight:

1 – No man made life has been biologically produced yet, meaning that science has not shown a biological being come to life from dead matter (excluding already existing biological cells like sperm and egg cells).

2 – A full cell -which would be the basic foundation for any originating life- has not been independently created by scientists from non-biological materials. This is further complicated because even organelles within cells are complicated in structure, especially how they work with each other to ‘run the cell factory’ (wherein all the organelles work together like a factory to take in nutrients, convert these nutrients into energy, carry out specialized functions, and reproduce as necessary. Each cell stores its own set of instructions for carrying out each of these activities.) [note: this is just a brief glimpse of how complicated each individual cell is.]


[img]
http://www.matlabtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cell_structure_001.jpg[/img]

3 – Even the origins of cells and how they structurally formed is hotly debated amongst scientists, Darwin was not aware how complicated cells would be (he didn’t have Electronic microscopes at that time) and this is how he proposed that cells formed easily from non-living matter. Now we know how complicated cells really are.

Basic example: Cells are an ‘Open-Closed system’ wherein they are able to open up to allow nutrients to enter into them, then close so other substances (i.e. viruses or pathogens) do not enter into them. They can also expel waste materials out of themselves through the ‘Open’ system. Scientists still cannot explain how this system might have originated in the ‘first cell’ which may have supposedly formed from non life. Meaning: How did any small organelles enter and remain within the ‘original first cell’, if cells membranes are made from lipid bi-layers (meaning: ‘fats’). How would a piece of fat produce a ‘Open-Close system’ by itself? How did the fat-based cell membrane then keep any organelles safe within itself for so long without spilling them out or being engulfed by viruses, if it didn’t know how to create a Closing system initially?

These are just basic points and questions which have no clear or definite answers from the scientist community. Looking into this is useful in studying biology, infact Allah tells us in the Quran to look into the Origins of life when He says:

Say, [O Muhammad], “Travel through the land and observe how He Originated creation (bad’a khalq). Then Allah will produce the final creation (on Judgment Day). Indeed Allah, over all things is capable.” (Quran 29:20)

What we see is that science is many decades behind in knowing even the basic answers to the Origins of biological life. This means that Atheists or Agnosts cannot be confident that ‘life originated by itself.' (it's a 'matter of faith' for them) It also makes Muslims realise that any scientific advancements into this research should only increase them in certainty at the amazing complexities in Allah’s design-work.

http://ex-atheistmuslims.com/no-man-...e-is-made-yet/

[Pygoscelis]

Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life is made yet – Science is decades behind in knowing the Origins of life.

Decades behind what? If he means behind theists claiming we were made by Gods, isn't it more like centuries behind that? Big difference of course is that if and when science solves this mystery, it will do so with evidence to back it up.

Scientifically we are many decades behind in actually producing any form of biological man-made life.[/B]

Again, behind what?

Scientists still cannot explain how this system might have originated in the ‘first cell’

So?

infact Allah tells us in the Quran to look into the Origins of life when He says:
Say, [O Muhammad], “Travel through the land and observe how He Originated creation (bad’a khalq). Then Allah will produce the final creation (on Judgment Day). Indeed Allah, over all things is capable.” (Quran 29:20)

That doesn't tell us anything more than science does. That is just an assertion with no evidence.

This means that Atheists or Agnosts cannot be confident that ‘life originated by itself.'

Since when have agnostics claimed life originated by itself? You don't even have to think that to be atheist.

It also makes Muslims realise that any scientific advancements into this research should only increase them in certainty at the amazing complexities in Allah’s design-work.

Why? First you say that scientists can't yet explain how life came to be, as if that means religion has something right, and then you say that once science does unravel the mystery, that'll also mean religion has something right. You seem to want it both ways.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Decades behind what? If he means behind theists claiming we were made by Gods, isn't it more like centuries behind that? Big difference of course is that if and when science solves this mystery, it will do so with evidence to back it up.

I guess we will never reach agreement on this, but I struggle to accept the science behind the theory of evolution, which many atheists claim as a fact, and hence there is no need of any creator God.

In the spirit of searching for God the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Eric

[observer]

I struggle to accept the science behind the theory of evolution, which many atheists claim as a fact, and hence there is no need of any creator God.

I think that "I struggle to accept the science" needs to be weighed against the fact that the scientific community, people who are experts in the field, who study this as a job, who have studied this for over 150 years now, do accept it as fact.

Also, I'm not sure many atheists claim that evolution precludes a god, just the creation stories of the major religions. I'm an atheist, evolution-believer but I can't see how evolution being true would mean that there couldn't be a god.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Independent]

TOE is not incompatible with faith in a God, but it is incompatible with various religious Creation accounts (eg all life created in a matter of a few days, assuming 'days' are interpreted as the standard 24hr version).

[Ali Mujahidin]

I'm an atheist, evolution-believer but I can't see how evolution being true would mean that there couldn't be a god.

What you have said stirred up some strange thoughts in my mind. Please correct me if I am wrong. I get the idea that you think those "scientifically-proven facts of evolution" represent solid evidence of the handiwork of some kind of supra-normal being doing some kind of experiment and we are the result of that being's experiments. Did I get that right?

[observer]

What you have said stirred up some strange thoughts in my mind. Please correct me if I am wrong. I get the idea that you think those "scientifically-proven facts of evolution" represent solid evidence of the handiwork of some kind of supra-normal being doing some kind of experiment and we are the result of that being's experiments. Did I get that right?

No, I don't believe there is a god.

What I mean is that even with evolution being an established fact, that wouldn't stop there necessarily being a god. In fact, nothing can stop the possibility of there being a god. All evolution shows is that the religious creation explanation is incorrect.

There are plenty of Christians for example (and I'm sure many muslims/hindus etc.) who have no problem reconciling evolution with their faith.

[Muhaba]

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved. what proof is there that this assumption is true?

Theists observe creation and assume that God must have caused it to happen.

What more proof is there for evolution to be true? How do you know for sure that it all happened by itself and God didn't cause it to happen. Why should evolution negate the need for God's existence. Even if evolution is true, then it can only be because God programmed matter/organism to evolve. There is no way anything can evolve by itself into anything else. That is a senseless belief.

[observer]

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved. what proof is there that this assumption is true?

Theists observe creation and assume that God must have caused it to happen.

What more proof is there for evolution to be true? How do you know for sure that it all happened by itself and God didn't cause it to happen. Why should evolution negate the need for God's existence. Even if evolution is true, then it can only be because God programmed matter/organism to evolve. There is no way anything can evolve by itself into anything else. That is a senseless belief.

Evolution doesn't negate god, no-one has suggested otherwise. It would negate the creation stories of religion however. Also, in science you can never be 100% sure, everything is only our best guess until we improve on it. That's the big difference between science and religion - religion claims to have all the answers, science claims to be looking for the answers and freely admits where it is lacking. Religion requires no evidence, science without evidence is not science.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution, probably the best evidence being found in our DNA and the fossil record. Every year that passes we will improve on our theory of evolution until it is as close to perfect as it can be. It will, however, never be able to "show" that there is no god. If there is indeed no god, then it is impossible to prove that as you cannot prove a negative.

[Muhaba]

^then why are you atheist?

[observer]

^then why are you atheist?

Well, I'm atheist because I see no evidence for god. I'm atheist in the same way that I don't believe in unicorns, or the Greek gods for example. I see no evidence. I think it's completely normal that people should invent religion as an explanation for the world but I think that it's unnecessary and that nature is everything that there is, there is no god "outside" nature.

There could be a god (as indeed there could be many gods, or many unicorns) but I don't think there is. I certainly can't believe in any of the religions as so much of what they say I don't like or agree with.

[Muhaba]

well, there is a difference between God and unicorn. existence of unicorn is not necessary for existence of the universe. the universe / creation does not depend on whether there is a unicorn or not. But existence of the universe does depend on existence of God.

the universe came into being somehow. it didn't always exist and it didn't come into being by itself. Some Being (an All-powerful and All-wise Being) had to bring the universe into being. So if there is no God, then there can be no universe, no creation. then you and I would not exist. and if we and all that is around exists, then God must exists.

Thus everything existing points to the existence of God. It's that clear.

Even if science says that organism evolved from one specie to another, still the first organism, cell or whatever had to be created. the first piece of matter had to be created. It didn't come from nowhere by itself.

[observer]

the universe came into being somehow. it didn't always exist and it didn't come into being by itself. Some Being (an All-powerful and All-wise Being) had to bring the universe into being. So if there is no God, then there can be no universe, no creation. then you and I would not exist. and if we and all that is around exists, then God must exists.

It doesn't follow that because there is a universe therefore - god.

You say an all-powerful, all-wise being had to being the universe into existence - why?
You say it didn't always exist - how do you know?

We don't know if the universe has a beginning. We don't know if it has always existed - indeed the idea of the universe beginning may actually be nonsensical - we don't know.

It may have been brought into being by god. It may have always been here. We don't know. You can make the argument either way but god is certainly not definitely necessary for there to be a universe.

Personally, I love the mystery of it!

[Ali Mujahidin]

Well, I'm atheist because I see no evidence for god.

Consider this scenario.

A fish is swimming in the pond. It's a very smart fish. Very logical. Very sensible.

A line falls into the water. Complete with hook, lure and sinker. The fish swims around the hook, line, lure and sinker. It has heard some fish say that there is a fisherman somewhere at the other end of the line. However, try as it may, using all the logic and sense and science at its disposal, the fish can see no evidence of any fisherman. So it concludes that there is no fisherman.

Do you get my drift?

[observer]

Consider this scenario.

A fish is swimming in the pond. It's a very smart fish. Very logical. Very sensible.

A line falls into the water. Complete with hook, lure and sinker. The fish swims around the hook, line, lure and sinker. It has heard some fish say that there is a fisherman somewhere at the other end of the line. However, try as it may, using all the logic and sense and science at its disposal, the fish can see no evidence of any fisherman. So it concludes that there is no fisherman.

Do you get my drift?

Yes, it's the most common religious argument. But it's essentially what is known as "The argument from ignorance" - we don't know something so we say that it must be a higher power. People used to pray to gods to make the sun shine, the rain fall - science shows us why this is unnecessary and illogical.

Imagine this - the fish in the pond doesn't understand how the pond works. It may be infinite, it may not. It may have a beginning, it may not. The idea of cause and effect in the pond may not be as simple as the fish perceives it to be. From the fish's perspective, things are simple in the pond - but the real nature of the pond is not understood by the fish.

Everything that we used to say relied on god or gods has been shown to be natural, not supernatural, in nature - tides, eclipses, seasons, sunrise, the stars, earthquakes, the movement of the planets - all of this has been explained as being dependant on god's will - until science shows that not to be the case.

Now, you may say that everything ultimately depends on god's will, fine, I can't prove it's not any more than you can prove it is. But we know, thanks to science, that every natural occurrence that we used to attribute to god's (or the gods') whim is based on natural laws. I see no reason to say that just because we don't fully understand something, we should say that god did it.

Also, religion and science come at the big questions differently. Religion says - OK, my book says this so let's find proof of that. Science says - I see A happen, I think that might be because of B. Let's test that and see if it's right. If not, let's think of another idea.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

TOE is not incompatible with faith in a God,

I disagree, TOE is incompatible with faith in God

but it is incompatible with various religious Creation accounts (eg all life created in a matter of a few days, assuming 'days' are interpreted as the standard 24hr version).

If TOE is not compatable with religious accounts of creation, that simply means I cannot trust TOE.

Faith is different to science, we accept and trust that God exists, and we accept scripture as God's word, it is called faith.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Independent]

Greetings Eric

I disagree, TOE is incompatible with faith in God

Can you clarify for me - do you mean, incompatible with faith in any God? Or your God? Surely, it can't be incompatible with faith in a God in general.

[truthseeker63]

WS Good Link Qatada.

[Pygoscelis]

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Yes. A lot more.

For evidence for theism..... we get a lot of unsupported claims, a few word games and strange logic, and a request to believe on "Faith".

For evidence for evolution, look here http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/...evolution.html

There is quite a lot of it, of many different types.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Claims of Gods are usually not.

And Evolution is open to revision and even discarding as better evidence comes along. I don't think many theists will be ready to discard their religion based on the evidence that comes in.

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved. what proof is there that this assumption is true?

No such assumption is made.

Theists observe creation and assume that God must have caused it to happen.

what proof is there that this assumption is true?

Why should evolution negate the need for God's existence.

It doesn't, as observer has noted. As Eric H said, it doesn't disprove God. It just leans towards an explanation in which God isn't required. Evolution doesn't preclude Gods, as was said above. It just shows some creation stories to be wrong.

Even if evolution is true, then it can only be because God programmed matter/organism to evolve.

what proof is there that this assumption is true?

If TOE is not compatable with religious accounts of creation, that simply means I cannot trust TOE.

The theory of evolution is not something anybody should trust. Just like the idea that the earth goes around the sun isn't something anybody should trust. It isn't about trust. It isn't about faith. It is about evidence. The best evidence we have points this way. As soon as the best evidence points in another direction we should modify or abandon the theory or idea. And as the evidence mounts stronger and stronger we shouldn't cling to the idea irrationally. The same should apply to religious accounts... but the religious don't seem to want to think that way.

[Gator]

So when the first artificial cell is made, what then? Where will the goal posts be moved to?

[Muhaba]

It doesn't follow that because there is a universe therefore - god.

You say an all-powerful, all-wise being had to being the universe into existence - why?

All-powerful because the universe couldn't have been made by a being that was weak or had limited power. consider the planets- could they have been placed into unwavering orbits by someone who didn't have immense power?

An All-Wise God because whatever is in the universe shows that it was made with wisdom, with intelligence.

You say it didn't always exist - how do you know?

We don't know if the universe has a beginning. We don't know if it has always existed - indeed the idea of the universe beginning may actually be nonsensical - we don't know.

it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning. But even if it hadn't been proven, we can see with our own eyes that nothing has been here since forever. everything has a beginning. creatures are born and then die. the world has been constantly changing. nothing is the same forever. nothing lasts forever.

and what has a beginning has to have a cause.

It may have been brought into being by god. It may have always been here. We don't know. You can make the argument either way but god is certainly not definitely necessary for there to be a universe.

Personally, I love the mystery of it!

Actually everything around us points to the existence of God but some are too blind to see it. There is no mystery there at all.

[Muhaba]

So when the first artificial cell is made, what then? Where will the goal posts be moved to?

it would once again prove the existence of God. an artificial cell has not been made even by someone so intelligent as human being who has made such advances in technology then how can you expect that cells could've come into being by themselves without the work of an Intelligent Being?

And if artificial cells are made by humans, it would show that cells needed someone to make them. they couldn't come into being by themselves. To prove that God is not needed, you would have to show that the cells came into being by themselves, without anyone causing them to be made. you would also have to prove that the elements needed to make the cells also came into being by themselves out of nothing.

[Ali Mujahidin]

the fish in the pond doesn't understand how the pond works.

Very true. And neither you nor I fully understand how everything works either. So, for all your scientific knowledge you are not exactly any more intelligent than the person who accepts that rain falls because God wills it to be so.

Don't agree? Then tell me how, with all your scientific knowledge, you can make rain fall at will? Before you answer that, please double-check to see if the science of rain-making is really working the way it's supposed to be or is it still a hit and miss affair. Something like, if we seed this cloud, the chances that rain will fall is increased by X percentile points.

[Muhaba]

Yes. A lot more.

For evidence for theism..... we get a lot of unsupported claims, a few word games and strange logic, and a request to believe on "Faith".

actually evolutionists also play word games but because they call themselves scientists, you readily believe them.

For evidence for evolution, look here http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/...evolution.html

The site states: That all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor is a fact .
Why should all life on earth evolve from a single common ancestor? if something can evolve by itself, then it's very much possible that many things evolve and not just one. In that case, life on earth would not have a single common ancestor.

There is quite a lot of it, of many different types.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Claims of Gods are usually not.

And Evolution is open to revision and even discarding as better evidence comes along. I don't think many theists will be ready to discard their religion based on the evidence that comes in.

whether you can discard a theory or not doesn't make it right or wrong.
some things are self-evident truths while others are not. Existence of God is a self-evident truth.

No such assumption is made.

yes assumptions are made in the theory of evolution.
take the statement from the site you gave:

Fossils provide a snapshot of what life on earth looked like at various stages in the past. These can be dated using methods such as Carbon-14 dating. What the fossil record shows is that, as you look deeper and deeper back in time, species become much less complex and fewer different types of species can be found. This suggests that life started off simple and then gradually evolved into the various different forms we see today.

Note the word "suggest."

Although animals are very different from one another, there are a lot of similarities as well. For example, all mammals have a similar bone structure in their limbs, even though the bones are different sizes. This indicates that there was once an original animal with that structure and that that structure eventually evolved into many different forms. Other similarities in anatomy structure can be seen in insects and plants.

it indicates but we don't know for sure that that was what happened because we didn't witness it. thus this is an assumption and not a proven fact.

Species in the old world (Europe, Asia, and Africa) are often quite different than species in the new world (North & South America). Species in Australia and other remote islands (e.g. - kangaroos) are especially unique. This indicates that as animals spread out over the earth, they evolved differently in different locations.

Again why should animals with one common ancestor spread out to different parts of the world? why didn't they evolve from separate ancestors in each part of the world? If things could evolve by themselves without God causing it, then there would be many and not one common ancestor.

ERV's are a special type of virus that infects DNA. They continue to get copied from generation to generation even when they no longer cause damage and are thus a type of fossil in our DNA. When you compare the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, you will find the exact same ERV's in the exact same locations, something that simply could not have happened by chance. Again, this indicates that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

What about their position in other organism? Isn't it possible that they infect similar parts of DNA?

what proof is there that this assumption is true?



It doesn't, as observer has noted. As Eric H said, it doesn't disprove God. It just leans towards an explanation in which God isn't required. Evolution doesn't preclude Gods, as was said above. It just shows some creation stories to be wrong.



what proof is there that this assumption is true?



The theory of evolution is not something anybody should trust. Just like the idea that the earth goes around the sun isn't something anybody should trust. It isn't about trust. It isn't about faith. It is about evidence. The best evidence we have points this way. As soon as the best evidence points in another direction we should modify or abandon the theory or idea. And as the evidence mounts stronger and stronger we shouldn't cling to the idea irrationally. The same should apply to religious accounts... but the religious don't seem to want to think that way.

[Pygoscelis]

All-powerful because the universe couldn't have been made by a being that was weak or had limited power. consider the planets- could they have been placed into unwavering orbits by someone who didn't have immense power?

Even if we grant your premises, your conclusions don't follow. Immense power doesn't equal all powerful. "made with wisdom" doesn't mean All wilse.

it has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning.

First, no it hasn't. For all we know our universe could be cyclical with big bangs and big crunches. For all we know our universe could have been formed from another universe.

Second, why are you reaching out to science now after turning a blind eye to its findings on evolution?

But even if it hadn't been proven, we can see with our own eyes that nothing has been here since forever. everything has a beginning.

what proof is there that this assumption is true?

[Pygoscelis]

The site states: That all life on earth evolved from a single common ancestor is a fact .
Why should all life on earth evolve from a single common ancestor? if something can evolve by itself, then it's very much possible that many things evolve and not just one. In that case, life on earth would not have a single common ancestor.

I agree. It may have had multiple. But if you trace the evidence you find that these multiple would have been very similar to each other, because all the evidence points to common ancestry, common dna, common structures, etc.

whether you can discard a theory or not doesn't make it right or wrong.

That is is falsifiable and we haven't been able to find any evidence to falsify it, despite repeated findings, is evidence that it is true.

And no, that we can discard and modify it doesn't make it right or wrong. But it does make it a theory worth having and revising. It is an honest and open approach to solving the puzzle. Declaring you have all the answers by fiat isn't.

some things are self-evident truths while others are not. Existence of God is a self-evident truth.

No it isn't. It is an assumption you make, for which you provide no evidence, and only faith. It may seem obvious to you, but does is not also seem obvious that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth? We have found evidence otherwise and we have abandoned these assumptions.

yes assumptions are made in the theory of evolution.

Assumptions are made, yes. And they should be tested where possible.

However, you claimed:

Scientists observe creation and assume that organisms came into being by themselves and then evolved.

This is not true.

take the statement from the site you gave:

Fossils provide a snapshot of what life on earth looked like at various stages in the past. These can be dated using methods such as Carbon-14 dating. What the fossil record shows is that, as you look deeper and deeper back in time, species become much less complex and fewer different types of species can be found. This suggests that life started off simple and then gradually evolved into the various different forms we see today.

Note the word "suggest."

That doesn't denote an assumption. That denotes inconclusive evidence.

Although animals are very different from one another, there are a lot of similarities as well. For example, all mammals have a similar bone structure in their limbs, even though the bones are different sizes. This indicates that there was once an original animal with that structure and that that structure eventually evolved into many different forms. Other similarities in anatomy structure can be seen in insects and plants.

it indicates but we don't know for sure that that was what happened because we didn't witness it. thus this is an assumption and not a proven fact.

No. that isn't an assumption either. That is a hypothesis backed up with some more inconclusive evidence (that animals have similar anatomical structures).

Species in the old world (Europe, Asia, and Africa) are often quite different than species in the new world (North & South America). Species in Australia and other remote islands (e.g. - kangaroos) are especially unique. This indicates that as animals spread out over the earth, they evolved differently in different locations.

Again why should animals with one common ancestor spread out to different parts of the world? why didn't they evolve from separate ancestors in each part of the world? If things could evolve by themselves without God causing it, then there would be many and not one common ancestor.

They did evolve separately. That is the point. The further apart they are the more different they are, but the further back you go in each area's fossil record, the more similarities you see between them. That fits with the theory of a common ancestor that migrated to both places and then evolved seperately in those places.

ERV's are a special type of virus that infects DNA. They continue to get copied from generation to generation even when they no longer cause damage and are thus a type of fossil in our DNA. When you compare the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, you will find the exact same ERV's in the exact same locations, something that simply could not have happened by chance. Again, this indicates that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

What about their position in other organism? Isn't it possible that they infect similar parts of DNA?

It isn't that they infected similar parts of DNA. It is that they are the exact same.

I don't believe any of these lines of evidence to be absolutely conclusive, but taken together they do make a pretty good case. And this definitely answers your question

Is there any more proof for evolution than there is for theism?

Yes. There certainly is. You've got all this for evolution. For theistic claims you've got nothing but "Its self evident!!"

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

As soon as the best evidence points in another direction we should modify or abandon the theory or idea.

God always was, always is and always will be, science has not given me, or will not be able to give me any proof one way or another.

Faith in God is more about searching for a purpose in life, it is about changing ourselves, being merciful, forgiving, helping the poor.

The theory of evolution leads us to believe.............

Having said that, I have admired your sense of justice and fairness in the way you respond to moral issues.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[observer]

Very true. And neither you nor I fully understand how everything works either. So, for all your scientific knowledge you are not exactly any more intelligent than the person who accepts that rain falls because God wills it to be so.

Don't agree? Then tell me how, with all your scientific knowledge, you can make rain fall at will? Before you answer that, please double-check to see if the science of rain-making is really working the way it's supposed to be or is it still a hit and miss affair. Something like, if we seed this cloud, the chances that rain will fall is increased by X percentile points.

But I'm not saying that science has taken over rain-making duties from god. What I'm saying is that previously, people thought that you prayed for rain and if you prayed enough then the rain came.

Now, we know about the water cycle and we know that rain has nothing to do with god's whims. We can't make it rain, but why do we have to? We understand how it works and can see that there is no need for a deity where rain is concerned.

Likewise, we understand how and why planets orbit the sun and how they are made. We can't make a planet and put it in orbit - does that lessen the truth of what we know? I don't think so.

[Independent]

For evidence for evolution, look here http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/...evolution.html

A handy link. I think this point is particularly interesting - I've heard it before but forgotten about it:

Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes whereas humans have only 23. However, our extra long chromosome no. 2 matches almost perfectly with two of the chimpanzee's smaller chromosomes, indicating that our two species share a common ancestor and that at some point along our ancestral line, the two chromosomes became fused together to create our chromosome no. 2.

For me, the truth often shows itself in the tiny details, the loose ends, the discarded parts of reality. This chromosome is a tiny piece of evidence in the grand scheme of things. But it fits TOE exactly. Although there are certainly big gaps in TOE, as yet nothing has been discovered that contradicts it - which is extraordinary if it isn't broadly correct.

If we are all created by divine fiat, why drop that little clue of the extra long No 2 chromosome? If this is indeed an act of God, can it be that He deliberately wants people to believe in TOE? I cannot understand why God would plant such a piece of evidence in favour of TOE, if He didn't want us to believe in it. But why would He want us to be confused?

For me, it's far simpler that God (if He exists) set the mechanism of evolution in the same way as He set the laws of gravity etc (which most Muslims and Christians don't disagree with). There doesn't need to be any conflict at all bvetween faith and science.

[Ali Mujahidin]

We understand how it works and can see that there is no need for a deity where rain is concerned.

Very interesting conclusion. So just because you understand how rain comes about, you think that automatically makes it superfluous to get God involved in the equation. So, now that we understand how babies are made, do we also conclude that there is no longer any need for a man and a woman to be involved in making a baby?

[Pygoscelis]

Very interesting conclusion. So just because you understand how rain comes about, you think that automatically makes it superfluous to get God involved in the equation. So, now that we understand how babies are made, do we also conclude that there is no longer any need for a man and a woman to be involved in making a baby?

We have observed evaporation, condensation, and rain. We have seen how it works. We can explain it without involving Gods. We have no evidence that Gods are required.

We have directly observed the formation and union of sperm and egg , and we have further observed each step along the way as the fertilized cell grows into a baby. We have seen how it works. We can't explain it without involving women. We have evidence that women are required.

No matter how much faith somebody may have in the stork theory of baby making, the evidence points to women. No matter how much faith somebody may have in creation stories, the evidence points to evolution.

[observer]

^^^^ This! :thumbs_up

[Born_Believer]

I've studied science almost all my life now and I have a number of friends who are atheists and we often have these discussions. I think it's safe to say that we don't always agree LOL

But the one point we agree on and I think all atheists who are being totally honest with themselves would too is that evolution is nowhere near being proven. There is some evidence that may be construed being in favour of the theory but the vast majority of evidence is against it and we have been told lies on multiple occasions by scientists to prove this theory. It's a sad state of affairs really.

There was this really interesting book I once had with regards to the apparently different stages of human development "from ape to man" and it clearly debunked most of it as myth. Considering that many scientists will have you believe that these different ancestors of man never co-existed when in fact they did. I'm trying to find any links to that information and I hope I do.

[Independent]

evolution is nowhere near being prove

'Not proven', i agree with. 'Nowhere near' - depends how you define near. Give it a few decades.

There is some evidence that may be construed being in favour of the theory but the vast majority of evidence is against it

No, I don't think there is any evidence at all against it. Can you suggest anything? Revision of the fossil record and reclassification of some fossils as non-ancestors (the example you mention) is not evidence against. It just means they got that particular fossil wrong.

What would be highly decisive evidence against would be the discovery of a homo sapiens fossil from 2 billion year old strata.

I can't think of any evidence that proves TOE wrong - whereas evidence like the No 2 chromosome which I quoted above are difficult to explain by any other theory except TOE.

[Muhaba]

I agree. It may have had multiple. But if you trace the evidence you find that these multiple would have been very similar to each other, because all the evidence points to common ancestry, common dna, common structures, etc.



That is is falsifiable and we haven't been able to find any evidence to falsify it, despite repeated findings, is evidence that it is true.

actually you haven't found any evidence to prove evolution. all you have is fossils with similarities between creatures and you've deduced that it must mean they evolved from each other. you have no evidence that they in fact did evolve from each other.

And no, that we can discard and modify it doesn't make it right or wrong. But it does make it a theory worth having and revising. It is an honest and open approach to solving the puzzle. Declaring you have all the answers by fiat isn't.

No it isn't. It is an assumption you make, for which you provide no evidence, and only faith. It may seem obvious to you, but does is not also seem obvious that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth? We have found evidence otherwise and we have abandoned these assumptions.

Assumptions are made, yes. And they should be tested where possible.

However, you claimed:

This is not true.

That doesn't denote an assumption. That denotes inconclusive evidence.

No. that isn't an assumption either. That is a hypothesis backed up with some more inconclusive evidence (that animals have similar anatomical structures).

They did evolve separately. That is the point. The further apart they are the more different they are, but the further back you go in each area's fossil record, the more similarities you see between them. That fits with the theory of a common ancestor that migrated to both places and then evolved seperately in those places.

If they evolved from one or similar common ancestors all by themselves, then why didn't they evolve entirely differently from each other. why should there be so much similarities between them the farther back you go that you have to assume they evolved from a single common ancestor? why didn't the first organisms evolve totally differently. doesn't that show that if they did in fact evolve, then they were programmed to evolve in a certain way. otherwise, it isn't logical to assume that organisms evolving separately would evolve in the same way.

It isn't that they infected similar parts of DNA. It is that they are the exact same.

I don't believe any of these lines of evidence to be absolutely conclusive, but taken together they do make a pretty good case. And this definitely answers your question



Yes. There certainly is. You've got all this for evolution. For theistic claims you've got nothing but "Its self evident!!"

you can believe whatever you want to believe. the blind really can't be led to the truth. if you see similarities between animals the you accept it to mean that they evolved from each other and you even assume that it means there is no God. But you see all the wonderful Signs of God (in the world around you as well as in living things) but you can't accept it means that God has created it all and that God does exist.

[Born_Believer]

Evidence against Evolution: the fact that it is mathematically impossible for all the necessary components required for the evolution of the human species to fall into place through chance or randomness. And when I mean impossible, I really mean impossible. A number of the worlds leading mathematicians went through all the possibilities, chances, etc and came to the conclusion that the chance of such a thing happening just did not exist in the realm of mathematical probability.

Other evidences,

The fossil records themselves because as Darwin himself put it, evolution "was/is in a continual state of motion" so what we should find is a whole bunch of intermediary fossils, fossils showing (this will sound crude) half birds, have mammals etc. I know there have been some fossils found with supposed "feathered dinosaurs" etc but they are disputed within the scientific community itself so can't be taken seriously. That is to say there are huge gaps in the current fossil records and after 100+ years of evolution theory and millions of discovered fossils you would think we'd at least find one intermediary?? Darwin himself said, " The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

[Muhaba]

We have observed evaporation, condensation, and rain. We have seen how it works. We can explain it without involving Gods. We have no evidence that Gods are required.

We have directly observed the formation and union of sperm and egg , and we have further observed each step along the way as the fertilized cell grows into a baby. We have seen how it works. We can't explain it without involving women. We have evidence that women are required.

No matter how much faith somebody may have in the stork theory of baby making, the evidence points to women. No matter how much faith somebody may have in creation stories, the evidence points to evolution.

you have evidence that women are required because you are on the outside and can see how the process takes place. now consider yourself a tiny organism in the womb. all you see is some sperm coming and one of them fertilizing the ovum and then the baby forming in stages. in that case you would wonder how this process takes place. is it all happening by itself? or is something making it happen? did the sperm and ovum come into being by themselves or something caused them to form? etc. the same is the case with rain and other natural phenomena.

[Independent]

Evidence against Evolution: the fact that it is mathematically impossible for all the necessary components required for the evolution of the human species to fall into place through chance or randomness

No, this is not evidence against. It is important however. It tells us that the current model for mutation/evolution is not sufficient to account either for the rate of change, or the success of it (ie viable lifeforms). It does not tell us that this model cannot ever be improved on. For example, in the field of cosmology, Copernicus correctly demonstrated that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. But his mathematical model for the orbits was quite wrong - because he thought the planets went in perfect circles, whereas in fact the orbits are parabolic, as Kepler proved afterwards. Copernicus was right in the substance of his theory, but wrong in the mathematical model. Similarly, it would be surprising if what we know about evolutionary models was the end of the road.

That is to say there are huge gaps in the current fossil records

I'm guessing that your quote from Darwin that didn't reproduce is related to his worries for the fossil record - that this is a much weaker evidence than people suppose. I'm familiar with it and I agree it is correct to say that fossils do not prove evolution in themselves. The record is far too incomplete. It's like trying to construct a complete novel from 0.001% of the text. A lot of damage has been done to TOE by fanciful family trees constructed on insufficient fossil evidence.

What the record does show is a great deal of circumstantial evidence and also the broad sweep - simple life forms to more complex - over a very long period of time. As far as the fossil record goes there are gaps, but no contradictions. Why not? Just as is the case with the No2 chromosome I quoted above, you'd almost have to believe God was deliberately laying a trail of confusion.

[Born_Believer]

above post was incomplete, sorry

The fossil records themselves because as Darwin himself put it, evolution "was/is in a continual state of motion" so what we should find is a whole bunch of intermediary fossils, fossils showing (this will sound crude) half birds, have mammals etc. I know there have been some fossils found with supposed "feathered dinosaurs" etc but they are disputed within the scientific community itself so can't be taken seriously. That is to say there are huge gaps in the current fossil records and after 100+ years of evolution theory and millions of discovered fossils you would think we'd at least find one intermediary?? Darwin himself said, "The geological record is extremely imperfect ..... (cut out some parts for an easier read, you can find the whole paragraph on the internet) He who rejects these views (the fossil records) will reject my whole theory."
What is Darwin saying? He is saying that if the geological record if incomplete, which is the case, it gives enough grounds to reject his theory, although it is clear from his entire work that he hoped one day that record would be more complete than it was back then. Interetsingly, we have not gone much further than the days of Darwin himself.

In terms of the origins of life, all evolutionists would agree that initially it was chemical. That is the very foundation of all such theories. A leading evolutionist and one of the best chemists of his age (passed away a few years ago) stated that, " proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other...And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

He is how ever a great evolutionist and so tried to say that maybe it was RNA which came first but he himself admits, "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best".

Then there are the lies told to us about embryonic recapitulation, which we just learnt in our first year in medicine (when I put the these facts forward to the lecturer she was absolutely stunned into silence and refused to discuss the matter further ^o)) anyway here is the basics for anyone who doesn't know:
Embryonic recapitulation is a theory that states that higher life forms go through the "previous evolutionary chain" before birth. So we have a gill stage, yolk sac and then of course the famous tail. The gill slits are supposedly left overs from our fishy ancestors, the yolk sac from our reptile grandfathers and the tail from our monkey ancestry Interesting isn't it?

Well not really, considering it's a load of, excuse my french, -------s. ills as we all know allow fish to "breath" under water. the so called gill slits observed in our embryonic stage aren't actually gills, in fact they aren't even slits, they are actually pharyngeal pouches, these essentially become a number of glands, including the thymus...not much to do with breathing eh?

But hey, let's say that was just a slight overlook, what about the yolk sac? In reptiles it is supposed to store food but even secondary school kids know that the embryo receives all its nutrients from the mother directly and the yolk sac is the primary site of blood cell production. 2 out of 3 dead wrong....erm....maybe third time lucky?

Let's look at the tail...but duh duh duh, it's not actually a tail, it is simply the elongation of our spine which extends beyond the muscle defined area of the embryo. In later life this will become the coccyx.

I think I'll stop here.

[Born_Believer]

read the remainder of my post, thanks

[Independent]

read the remainder of my post, thanks

My post above was in the reply to episode one of your post, but it still stands.

You have to remember that Darwin died before the science of genetics even got started. So fossils, geology and naturalism was all he had to go on.

With regards to the origin of life: it's quite correct to say that no satisfactory explanation exists as yet. Once again, that doesn't mean we have to stop here. The history of science is all about overcoming apparent obstacles, not just giving up. Also, origin is not the same as evolution - for instance, you could be a Christian who believes both in TOE and that God created the first organism, it's not incompatible. (Many believe just that).

The examples you give are of incomplete or inadequate proof, not disproof or contradiciton. I don't think there is anything that directly contradicts the broad principle of evolution.

If I may repeat the questions from my post above - why are there no fossils that disprove TOE? And what is the explanation for chromosome No2 which appears to be a fusion of chimpanzee 2A and 2B?

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

We have observed evaporation, condensation, and rain. We have seen how it works. We can explain it without involving Gods. We have no evidence that Gods are required.

The beauty of the matter is that for people of faith, the more they observe and understand all of this and more, it only increases their faith. In some cases, it may have sparked their faith in the first place, by God's permission. It causes them to appreciate the need for God even more. As human knowledge of some natural phenomena increases, the wonder behind them is in no way diminished. Rather the more we know, the better we appreciate the power and wisdom of the One Who originated them. In this way, we do not have to see science and religion as mutually exclusive, rather one reinforces the other. God calls upon man to repeatedly reflect on His signs all around us, as these direct us to believe in Him. The very act of using reason enables one to understand the message behind them.

Ha, Meem.
The revelation of the Book is from Allah , the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
Indeed, within the heavens and earth are signs for the believers.
And in the creation of yourselves and what He disperses of moving creatures are signs for people who are certain [in faith].
And [in] the alternation of night and day and [in] what Allah sends down from the sky of provision and gives life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and [in His] directing of the winds are signs for a people who reason.
These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
[Al-Jathiyah 45: 1-6]

We have directly observed the formation and union of sperm and egg , and we have further observed each step along the way as the fertilized cell grows into a baby. We have seen how it works. We can't explain it without involving women. We have evidence that women are required.

And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
[Al-Mu’minoon 23: 12-14]

He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted?
[Az-Zumar 39: 6]

[Signor]

^^
We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
Al Fussilat -53

The developments of "natural" sciences and the sciences that study human physiology will prove the essentials of Islamic faith, especially God's Existence and Oneness. So almost all human beings will have to confess the truth of the Qur'ān and the Messengership of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings.In addition to sciences, future history, worldwide, will clearly show that the Qur'ān is the truth

[Pygoscelis]

So almost all human beings will have to confess the truth of the Qur'ān and the Messengership of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings.

Why do I always see this expressed this way, with the word "confessed"? Does confessed mean something else in religious circles than it does in legal circles? Because confessed as I understand the word would imply that people know what you say and simply won't admit it. That isn't the case.

It would be like us saying "Soon enough you will have to admit that evolution is true.".... as if you know it is and are refusing to confess.

[Hulk]

I don't get how some of the atheists who have been on this forum for years and have participated in numerous threads still believe that theists believe in God simply because they "can't explain" something. Makes me wonder if they've ever really learned anything or are they intentionally ignoring what has been addressed many times already.

Atheist assumption of theists: They don't know how nature works so they go the easy route and attribute it to God. We on the other hand look to science to understand how it works.


Theist view: I don't understand how nature works but I do believe that it must have a Creator.
(After studying) Understanding the science behind how it works fascinates me as to how it can be in such a way. The nature in which it works tells me that it must surely come from a Creator.


-----
The difference is simple IMO. A theist observes the world around him, and he sees it as evidence for the Creator. An atheist does the same thing and sees it as evidence of having no Creator.


I feel the same way when I marvel at my laptop, handphone, a piece of art work. To me it is clear that they have a designer much like the same way I view the universe.

If I see a laptop, I can tell straight away that it must surely have come from a manufacturer. The atheists will see it and if they understand how it works they would think that it somehow means that there is no manufacturer.


What it all boils down to is that we believe that something cannot come from nothing. We say that the source of all in existence/creation is the Creator, Who is unlike creation.


The atheist would like to use the argument "Well then where did God come from?", but the theist has already stated that their belief is that the Creator is Uncreated and so such a question is absurd. So the atheist will then say "Ok since your God can be uncreated then the universe can be uncreated as well.".


If we were to ask them Who ordained the system of the universe (eg the speed of light/sound/electricity) (why creature have an innate desire to survive) etc then "it just is cause it is".

[Muhaba]

^beautifully said

[Iceee]

^^ Hulk just smashed (Hulk-Punched) the atheists!

[Independent]

I feel the same way when I marvel at my laptop, handphone, a piece of art work. To me it is clear that they have a designer much like the same way I view the universe.

If I see a laptop, I can tell straight away that it must surely have come from a manufacturer. The atheists will see it and if they understand how it works they would think that it somehow means that there is no manufacturer.

I'm not sure this comparison is quite as simple as that. If these things were truly equivalent, then how would we ever tell the difference between a product of nature and a product of man?

But in fact we can in almost every case tell the difference between man-made and naturally occurring objects. That means that there must be something distinctive about them. They have characteristics which are unique to one, but not found in the other.

The laptop is without question the product of 'intelligent design'. A flower, or any other naturally occurring object, is the product of a natural process - and we can tell the difference.

[Muhaba]

I'm not sure this comparison is quite as simple as that. If these things were truly equivalent, then how would we ever tell the difference between a product of nature and a product of man?

But in fact we can in almost every case tell the difference between man-made and naturally occurring objects. That means that there must be something distinctive about them. They have characteristics which are unique to one, but not found in the other.

The laptop is without question the product of 'intelligent design'. A flower, or any other naturally occurring object, is the product of a natural process - and we can tell the difference.

actually a flower is even more the product of intelligent design because plants have reproductive ability. if laptops had reproductive ability, then it would also be a natural process. but humans can never give reproductive ability to anything. nor can humans put life in anything.

[Independent]

actually a flower is even more the product of intelligent design because plants have reproductive ability. if laptops had reproductive ability, then it would also be a natural process. but humans can never give reproductive ability to anything. nor can humans put life in anything.

Well, many machines are already entirely produced by other machines, which could be called 'reproduction' - a-sexual reproduction of course!

More seriously - how is it that we can distinguish with absolute certainty between naturally occurring objects and man-made objects? It's because natural objects, and organisms, are visibly the product of natural processes. We never find anything that doesn't fit. There are no naturally occurring objects, or organisms, that break the rules. Not a single one. They are 100% obedient to the rules laid down from the beginning of the universe onwards.

Whereas, a man-made object is an interruption in the landscape. A laptop in a field is an impossibility as a product of natural processes.

It's misleading to think of a flower as an object of design because it makes us think that God is creating each item as if for the first time, every time - whereas it is plainly the result of a process (which He may or may not have begun at the start of the universe - a separate question). And if it were not the result of a process, we could tell the difference.

[Hulk]

Thank you for your input Independent. I do believe that they have been covered in my post.

To be really technical, man does not have the ability to create anything. We use the materials in the universe at our disposal to materialise our design.

Do reflect on what you have said regarding nature, natural processes, rules, "they are 100% obedient to the rules laid down from the beginning of the universe onwards."

Thank you for saying that there is indeed a beginning. Also you do agree that there are rules.

The question is then from my post "Who ordained the system of the Universe?"

We can appreciate what a child can build with lego bricks but it shouldn't make us forget that the lego bricks are in itself something to reflect upon.

As I said in my post. Each sees evidence for their own belief. If learning about a flower doesn't fascinate you(or maybe it does but you don't attribute it to anything) I can't force it on you.

Personally, I am reminded of the Quran which mentions that there are signs throughout the universe. One of the nature of signs is that not everyone understands them.

[Independent]

Greetings Hulk

Really, my point is simply that the simile of the laptop which you use (and which I've seen elsewhere) does not tell us anything about whether the world has been actively designed or not.

To put it another way, the laptop in the field is distinctive because you know instantly that it has been 'designed' whereas the nature around it has not. It is the exact opposite of the proof it's held up to be. It shows how nature has not been 'designed' in the normal sense of the word.

To give another example, a crystal doesn't form because someone is designing it, but as a consequence of natural laws which make atoms combine in a certain structure.

Which leads to your question....pushing it back further in time....did God create the laws of nature which resulted in the structure of the crystal etc? I don't rule this out, because how can I tell? I can't prove it. What i can say is that the behaviour of the universe doesn't give anything away one way or the other.

Thank you for saying that there is indeed a beginning.

I was being a little careless here, as in fact I believe it's more likely than not that there is a multiverse which makes the notion of a beginning rather irrelevant....but I don't want to get into that debate.

As I said in my post. Each sees evidence for their own belief. If learning about a flower doesn't fascinate you(or maybe it does but you don't attribute it to anything) I can't force it on you.

I most certainly do find nature fascinating, exciting even, and also the science behind it.

I don't call myself an atheist because I'm not sure I meet all the criteria. Having said that I don't believe in any organised religion. Thanks for your posts.

[Pygoscelis]

I don't get how some of the atheists who have been on this forum for years and have participated in numerous threads still believe that theists believe in God simply because they "can't explain" something.

You misunderstand. The God of The Gaps thing is not used to disprove God, or even as evidence against Gods existing. It is merely the pointing out of a logical fallacy so often put forward as theists as evidence for Gods existing. This fallacy isn't so often used by professional debaters or clergy or imams as it is used by people on the internet, which is why you see it mentioned here so often. It is when people give no actual argument or evidence for a creator God existing and instead insist a creator God exists merely because we can't explain X otherwise. And then when we do explain X otherwise, a new X is thought up, and a new God of The Gaps "argument" is made.

Theist view: I don't understand how nature works but I do believe that it must have a Creator. (After studying) Understanding the science behind how it works fascinates me as to how it can be in such a way. The nature in which it works tells me that it must surely come from a Creator.

Why does it tell you that it surely must come from a creator? Do you have a better reason than just because you have no other way of explaining it? If you do, then you don't fall into the God of the Gaps thing.

The difference is simple IMO. A theist observes the world around him, and he sees it as evidence for the Creator. An atheist does the same thing and sees it as evidence of having no Creator.

Atheists do NOT see the world as evidence that there is no creator. I have lost count of how many times I have written this here. You just don't seem to want to accept it.

What it all boils down to is that we believe that something cannot come from nothing. We say that the source of all in existence/creation is the Creator, Who is unlike creation.

The atheist would like to use the argument "Well then where did God come from?", but the theist has already stated that their belief is that the Creator is Uncreated and so such a question is absurd.

The way it is usually stated is that "something can't come from nothing" (premise1), "so everything needs a creator", "except the top creator itself"(special pleading), "because that would mean infinite regress", "and infinite regress is impossible" (premise2). Very rarely is any basis given for premise1 or premise2, or for the special pleading.

If we were to ask them Who ordained the system of the universe (eg the speed of light/sound/electricity) (why creature have an innate desire to survive) etc then "it just is cause it is".

Science is making efforts to figure it out, but if the atheists you speak of are honest, whey will simply have to admit they do not know. If you are honest, you have to do the same. You don't know. That is why you need "faith". A major difference, perhaps a fundamental difference, between atheists and theists, is that theists see Faith as a virtue. Atheists don't.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Also, origin is not the same as evolution - for instance, you could be a Christian who believes both in TOE and that God created the first organism, it's not incompatible. (Many believe just that).

The Bible indicates that God created man, I believe the Qur’an is the same, so TOE would seem incompatible with scripture.

My problem with evolution is not the biological progress, but the evolution of movement, bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles. Somehow mutations would have to produce bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that give a biological and chemical advantage to the organism as a priority. Somehow these mutations coincidently would have to be a good shape size, and connect to other components to aid movement.

A billion years ago there were no species with bones, eight hundred million years later, there are species with complete working skeletons comprising around 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.

I reckon that the evolutionary process would not give you a billion successive chances of passing advantageous mutations forwards from one generation to the next. Every mutation has to be passed through a population.
Then there is the matter of the brain and sensors, it is pointless for biological change to make all these bones, muscles, nerves etc. If you have no guiding system these things are just a heap of junk.

I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[MustafaMc]

If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.

I believe that atheists do not appreciate the significance of this statement. They are more comfortable with made up probabilities and an extremely long period of time to explain the origin of life and the various species than they are in simply that a supernatural Being designed and created all that exists. They do not see the multiplication of all of these infinitesimally small probabilities as being so close to zero that in fact the probability is actually zero and an impossibility. The whole of ToE on a macro scale is based on speculation and is as much based on faith as my and your belief in God is. We take the signs around us as evidence for His existence and we say, "Glory be to God in the highest" while atheists say, "Ho hum, it's just the result of a natural process."

[Independent]

Greetings Eric

The Bible indicates that God created man, I believe the Qur’an is the same, so TOE would seem incompatible with scripture.

I appreciate that while many people feel the scriptures can be interpreted metaphorically, others do not and therefore TOE becomes incompatible. Nevertheless TOE is not incompatible with faith in general - only with specific faiths.

Personally I am certain that TOE is broadly correct and at some point this will be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It will make no more sense to disbelieve in TOE than in gravity. What will happen then? Those who have set themselves wholeheartedly against TOE will be faced not with a scientific crisis, but with a crisis of faith. I think this is an unnecessary battle - but I'm no theologian so it's not up to me.

Obviously this is just my prediction right now. But if this forum is still going 30 years from now, and we are both still alive, i promise to come back and say 'I told you so'. (Hopefully in the meantime i will come up with a more polite way of saying it.)

[Independent]

They do not see the multiplication of all of these infinitesimally small probabilities as being so close to zero that in fact the probability is actually zero and an impossibility.

As you know from our previous discussions, I agree that the current model for TOE is not sufficient to account for either the rate of mutation, or its viability. The maths don't stack up. But this is no more the end of TOE than the apparently errant orbit of Mars in Copernicus's calculations was to heliocentricity.

TOE critics concentrate on the flaws/gaps in TOE but are reluctant to apply the same standards of completeness in reverse. Why do fossils indicate an overall progress from simple to more complex? Why is there not a single fossil ever found that contradicts TOE? Why are there so many examples of apparent genetic relatedness, as in the No2 chromosome example I quoted above? Why would God create part of a mechanism for evolution (genetics/biology/maths as we understand it so far) and then not finish it off?

Why would God put down so many confusing clues for TOE? Why would He choose to make evolution unable to function except by continual direct intervention on His part, yet make all the other laws of the universe complete in themselves?

[Muhaba]

Greetings Eric

I appreciate that while many people feel the scriptures can be interpreted metaphorically, others do not and therefore TOE becomes incompatible. Nevertheless TOE is not incompatible with faith in general - only with specific faiths.

Personally I am certain that TOE is broadly correct and at some point this will be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It will make no more sense to disbelieve in TOE than in gravity. What will happen then? Those who have set themselves wholeheartedly against TOE will be faced not with a scientific crisis, but with a crisis of faith. I think this is an unnecessary battle - but I'm no theologian so it's not up to me.

Obviously this is just my prediction right now. But if this forum is still going 30 years from now, and we are both still alive, i promise to come back and say 'I told you so'. (Hopefully in the meantime i will come up with a more polite way of saying it.)

I believe we will be the ones to say "I told you so" to evolutionists because time will prove TOE wrong and will prove that God in fact did create all. There's a verse in the Quran that states that God will His signs in the universe as well as in humans. That is a prophecy and it will happen. Mankind will see the signs of God in everything (possibly through scientific advancement) and will realize that God is the creator and that everything didn't come into being by chance.

[Pygoscelis]

As you know from our previous discussions, I agree that the current model for TOE is not sufficient to account for either the rate of mutation, or its viability. The maths don't stack up. But this is no more the end of TOE than the apparently errant orbit of Mars in Copernicus's calculations was to heliocentricity.

TOE critics concentrate on the flaws/gaps in TOE but are reluctant to apply the same standards of completeness in reverse. Why do fossils indicate an overall progress from simple to more complex? Why is there not a single fossil ever found that contradicts TOE? Why are there so many examples of apparent genetic relatedness, as in the No2 chromosome example I quoted above? Why would God create part of a mechanism for evolution (genetics/biology/maths as we understand it so far) and then not finish it off?

Why would God put down so many confusing clues for TOE? Why would He choose to make evolution unable to function except by continual direct intervention on His part, yet make all the other laws of the universe complete in themselves?

This is a very good point. Creationists seem to always be attacking the Theory of Evolution, and never seem to be supporting Creation Theory. If Evolution was proved wrong tomorrow, that would do nothing to prove Creation Theory right, so it is an odd tactic to take.

will realize that God is the creator and that everything didn't come into being by chance.

This is a false dichotomy.

The whole of ToE on a macro scale is based on speculation and is as much based on faith as my and your belief in God is.

There is evidence, even if it is not conclusive. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and despite many findings it hasn't been falsified yet. And any good scientific mind will change if it is falsified in the future. This is not a religious dogmatic mindset claiming to have the perfect and certain answer by way of revelation through Darwin's Holy Book.

The evidence for evolution is incomplete. There are still things we can't explain. It would indeed take a lot of faith to claim that evolution is for certain the full and complete answer and that nothing else played a role in shaping life on this planet. But I don't know anybody who takes that position.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I agree that the current model for TOE is not sufficient to account for either the rate of mutation, or its viability.

So there are some serious flaws with TOE

Independent

The maths don't stack up.

I suggested some maths that I perceive as a problem for TOE also, would you care to comment?

Eric H

My problem with evolution is not the biological progress, but the evolution of movement, bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles. Somehow mutations would have to produce bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that give a biological and chemical advantage to the organism as a priority. Somehow these mutations coincidently would have to be a good shape size, and connect to other components to aid movement.
A billion years ago there were no species with bones, eight hundred million years later, there are species with complete working skeletons comprising around 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.
If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.
I reckon that the evolutionary process would not give you a billion successive chances of passing advantageous mutations forwards from one generation to the next. Every mutation has to be passed through a population.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Independent]

So there are some serious flaws with TOE

That's why it's still called a 'theory'! But 'flaw' is a pejorative word - 'incomplete' is more accurate.

I suggested some maths that I perceive as a problem for TOE also, would you care to comment?

Actually I was saying that the maths for TOE rate of mutation don't stack up - i was under the impression I was on your side with this one!

The difference is, i believe that the inadequacy of this explanation will be improved on, just as happened with Copernicus etc. As i say, when you look at it round the other way, and try to find a piece of evidence that 'disproves' TOE, there is none.

Again to make the comparison with Copernicus - if astronomical sightings were then made that appeared to place the Earth at the centre of the solar system, that would have been disproof. No such sightings were made. However, the variations in the orbit of Mars meant that his maths didn't entirely add up, and the notion remained a 'theory' until Kepler enhanced it.

[Gator]

Is there a link for a really good run down on the rates of evolutionary change from a creationist point of view? Thanks.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Actually I was saying that the maths for TOE rate of mutation don't stack up - i was under the impression I was on your side with this one!

I understood that you were on my side with the maths problem, and maths has been the incentive for scientists to adjust their thoughts.

Again to make the comparison with Copernicus - if astronomical sightings were then made that appeared to place the Earth at the centre of the solar system, that would have been disproof. No such sightings were made. However, the variations in the orbit of Mars meant that his maths didn't entirely add up, and the notion remained a 'theory' until Kepler enhanced it.

Agreed, but, these planets can be observed in their orbits today, science has come up with ways to observe their movements, and plot their course. The evolution that I am most interested in happened from around six hundred million years ago, scientists do not have time machines to observe it as it happened.

The time the very first bone or cartilage came into existence, certainly less than a billion years ago, according to fossil records, more like six hundred million years ago.

So if we look at some maths, suppose a generation is one month, you could have twelve billion generations in a billion years. Suppose a mutation takes ten years to spread through a population, that could give a hundred million chances to pass a mutation forwards to a next generation, which indeed is a big number.

If you were looking purely at mathematical odds of a two to one chance of each component being right, then with a bit of luck you might get thirty right with a hundred million chances. If there were a hundred components to get right, a hundred million chances just wouldn’t work. But we know of many skeletal systems that have a combined total of around two thousand bones, ligaments, muscles and tendons.

As you say the numbers just do not add up.

Why would God put down so many confusing clues for TOE?

I am not sure that God put down any clues for TOE, he just created the universe and life. Evolution just seems like a bucket full of holes, you stick your TOE in one of the holes, and the water keeps coming out the gaps. :D

Whoops sorry about that

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[observer]

I think the fundamental mistake that you're making is the assumption that evolution is pure chance - it's not.

Evolution works on these 3 components:

(1) Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.
(2) Organisms vary, and these variations are at least partly heritable by their offspring.
(3) On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favored by the environment will survive and propagate. Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations.

It's these 3 combined which mean that your analogy is not accurate.

Think about guessing a 10 digit password. If we guess 10 digits and then ask "is that right?" it's going to take us a long time to get the answer. But if as we're guessing, any letter we get in the correct place is held (here we can think of the held letter as being a beneficial mutation in a creature) then guessing the password suddenly becomes incredibly manageable and takes much less time.

The explanation I've used comes from here http://phys.org/news/2010-12-mathema...evolution.html and is from a paper from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

This http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf is a much more maths heavy look at the way in which maths is mis-used by anti evolutionists.

[MustafaMc]

Personally I am certain that TOE is broadly correct and at some point this will be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It will make no more sense to disbelieve in TOE than in gravity. What will happen then? Those who have set themselves wholeheartedly against TOE will be faced not with a scientific crisis, but with a crisis of faith.

...and I am just as 'certain' that it is broadly incorrect, but I could be wrong. We know a whole lot more about the intracacies of genetics and molecular biology now than when Darwin came out with his book, but they have in no way reinforced ToE. True, the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics was seen initially to support ToE as it was a means to explain heritable differences between individuals that could be extrapolated upon, but I find it quite telling the ToE hasn't advanced beyond very rudimentary basics that can be accepted on a micro scale.

Why would He choose to make evolution unable to function except by continual direct intervention on His part, yet make all the other laws of the universe complete in themselves?

This is a good point and you could be right. The development of a single individual from a fertilized egg seems quite miraculous to me, but, having some understanding of the process, I see that each step is not directly controlled by God. There could possibly come a time when the molecular basis for ToE, without the intimate involvement of God, is shown to be based on scientific principles, but until then I will have to say, "Where's the beef?"

The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and despite many findings it hasn't been falsified yet. And any good scientific mind will change if it is falsified in the future.

I don't see how it is falsifiable, yet if it is proven true, then "any good scientific mind will change" and accept it.

[MustafaMc]

Evolution just seems like a bucket full of holes, you stick your TOE in one of the holes, and the water keeps coming out the gaps.

Peaceful greetings, Eric H. Could it rather be seen as wishfully trying to make a bucket out of a bunch of holes?

[جوري]

^ atheists have to be dogmatic and indoctrinated about their religion how else can they justify their lifestyle choices? I can't believe how many times this topic has been discussed and they still come back with lengthy self concocted fatwas recycling 200 year old rhetoric!

We don't use the same drugs from five years ago to treat many conditions yet they use the same ailing arguments from the time of galilee. Somehow jumping on the back if a retired and I mean that as in shelved pioneers makes them smarter by proxy!
People have to drop their beliefs when discussing science- no one is interested in opinion everyone has one as is!

[Independent]

Greetings Eric

The time the very first bone or cartilage came into existence, certainly less than a billion years ago, according to fossil records, more like six hundred million years ago

I don't think bones present a specific challenge to evolution ahead of other issues. The evolution of the bone structure is extremely unlikely to have occurred one by one, bone by bone. Instead, it's likely that the capacity to create bone would have evolved, and subsequently used to develop bones where necessary.

Interestingly, there is evidence that a breakthrough evolutionary step can result in a spurt in development. For instance it is suggested that once sight evolved, it was so useful that creatures with some version of the eye rapidly filled all available niches. The rate of evolution is not governed simply by abstract maths, but also by utility and environment. It's misleading to think of it as simply random - natural selection is anything but random as the word 'selection' implies. However, it does not require a guiding intelligence.

I am not sure that God put down any clues for TOE, he just created the universe and life.

The combined No 2 chromosome is found only in humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. This makes absolute sense with TOE. If it is instead the result of an act of God, it is bizarre and difficult to understand except as a deliberate clue. If it had been found in the 'wrong' branch of the evolutionary tree it could potentially have disproved evolution. Yet once again, no evidence is ever found that disproves TOE. The Creationist account of the world does not make sense in this context, unless you attribute deliberate confusion to God.

[Independent]

This http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf is a much more maths heavy look at the way in which maths is mis-used by anti evolutionists.

Very interesting link here which casts doubt on the doubters, as it were. The popular statistics about the improbability of evolution happening in the time period available are themelves open to question.

For instance, TOE critics such as Michael Behe have treated mutations as if they were only either 'good' or 'bad' - whereas in fact most of them are neutral. A neutral mutation may be passed on because there is nothing to prevent it from happening. This greatly affects the statistics Behe presents.

Behe is also famous for the argument of 'Irreducible Complexity' (a revival of the Paley's watchmaker argument). The idea is that some developments require more than 10 mutations, without any one of which the development would be either useless or even destructive. But increasingly we are finding that those individual mutations are either beneficial for a different, unrelated purpose or simply neutral. (For example, most of the enzymes needed for blood clotting also have utility in digestion - so they evolved and were retained for a separate purpose, and then co-opted for clotting.)

This means that they could indeed have evolved one by one and the mathematical 'impossibility' of their simultaneous development is revealed as illusory.

TOE is not the finished article, but from the evidence so far I can't see any reason to suppose that it is wrong in fundamental concept. When you focus not on the gaps in TOE, but on the absence of any evidence at all that actually contradicts TOE, then it's very hard not to accept that it must be broadly correct.

[observer]

TOE is not the finished article, but from the evidence so far I can't see any reason to suppose that it is wrong in fundamental concept. When you focus not on the gaps in TOE, but on the absence of any evidence at all that actually contradicts TOE, then it's very hard not to accept that it must be broadly correct.

Exactly; as the years go by the evidence keeps stacking up and evidence against is conspicuous by its absence.

One of the problems, as discussed in the link, is that now, as in other branches of science, there is much that the layman simply does not know about these things. This often makes it difficult to understand the subtleties of the argument but also, as with the distorted probability argument peddled by creationists, it makes it easy to introduce pseudo-science into the debate which appears to counter evolution but really does no such thing.

[Ali Mujahidin]

there is much that the layman simply does not know about these things.

Interesting observation. So how many atheists would you say fall in the layman category who simply do not know enough about the TOE to really understand what it's all about? Or are all atheists experts in TOE?

[Independent]

So how many atheists would you say fall in the layman category who simply do not know enough about the TOE to really understand what it's all about

Of course, most of us are laymen about any subject - being atheist or otherwise doesn't affect this. The world is too complicated to be an expert in more than one or two things. But the broad concept of evolution is easy to understand and appears to fit with the world people see in many ways.

[observer]

Of course, most of us are laymen about any subject - being atheist or otherwise doesn't affect this. The world is too complicated to be an expert in more than one or two things. But the broad concept of evolution is easy to understand and appears to fit with the world people see in many ways.

Exactly.

[Independent]

The habit of associating TOE with atheism is both innaccurate and misleading. TOE is supported by many scientists who are also religious such as the Roman Catholic Kenneth Miller. He has a very good rebuttal of creationism and particularly the famous flagellum argument here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html).

He concludes this about the debate:

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom. Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

[Muhaba]

Very interesting link here which casts doubt on the doubters, as it were. The popular statistics about the improbability of evolution happening in the time period available are themelves open to question.

For instance, TOE critics such as Michael Behe have treated mutations as if they were only either 'good' or 'bad' - whereas in fact most of them are neutral. A neutral mutation may be passed on because there is nothing to prevent it from happening. This greatly affects the statistics Behe presents.

Behe is also famous for the argument of 'Irreducible Complexity' (a revival of the Paley's watchmaker argument). The idea is that some developments require more than 10 mutations, without any one of which the development would be either useless or even destructive. But increasingly we are finding that those individual mutations are either beneficial for a different, unrelated purpose or simply neutral. (For example, most of the enzymes needed for blood clotting also have utility in digestion - so they evolved and were retained for a separate purpose, and then co-opted for clotting.)

This means that they could indeed have evolved one by one and the mathematical 'impossibility' of their simultaneous development is revealed as illusory.

TOE is not the finished article, but from the evidence so far I can't see any reason to suppose that it is wrong in fundamental concept. When you focus not on the gaps in TOE, but on the absence of any evidence at all that actually contradicts TOE, then it's very hard not to accept that it must be broadly correct.

If the only proof you have is that there is no evidence to contradict TOE, then what evidence is there that contradicts the statement: the world was created by God?

[Muhaba]

Greetings Eric


I don't think bones present a specific challenge to evolution ahead of other issues. The evolution of the bone structure is extremely unlikely to have occurred one by one, bone by bone. Instead, it's likely that the capacity to create bone would have evolved, and subsequently used to develop bones where necessary.

Interestingly, there is evidence that a breakthrough evolutionary step can result in a spurt in development. For instance it is suggested that once sight evolved, it was so useful that creatures with some version of the eye rapidly filled all available niches. The rate of evolution is not governed simply by abstract maths, but also by utility and environment. It's misleading to think of it as simply random - natural selection is anything but random as the word 'selection' implies. However, it does not require a guiding intelligence.


The combined No 2 chromosome is found only in humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. This makes absolute sense with TOE. If it is instead the result of an act of God, it is bizarre and difficult to understand except as a deliberate clue. If it had been found in the 'wrong' branch of the evolutionary tree it could potentially have disproved evolution. Yet once again, no evidence is ever found that disproves TOE. The Creationist account of the world does not make sense in this context, unless you attribute deliberate confusion to God.

Note the words in bold. Theory of Evolution is nothing but a bunch of assumptions. There's no evidence that what is being suggested is correct. And assumptions are not science. For example, it's not said "it's likely that the sun is in the center of the solar system." The sun being in the center is a verified fact. but in TOE all you have is "This thing is like this, there are some fossils here, there are some similarities between these things, so it's likely that they evolved or it's suggested that this happened." blah blah blah.

[جوري]

fact is chromosome fusion or breaks or translocation has only given us diseases such as cancer

The result is that a fusion gene is created by juxtapositioning the Abl1 gene on chromosome 9 (region q34) to a part of the BCR ("breakpoint cluster region") gene on chromosome 22 (region q11). This is a reciprocal translocation, creating an elongated chromosome 9 (der 9), and a truncated chromosome 22 (the Philadelphia chromosome).^[2][3] In agreement with the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN), this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_chromosome
.. and the same goes for mutations except for silent mutations.. none of the proposed methods of 'evolution' have given us a new species .. adaptation isn't evolution in the sense atheists desire. Be that as it may the methods of reproducing the results they desire can be easily attained in a lab, why not put the money where the mouth is? take a primate and turn it human!

The 'creationist' need not make a case for creation, all they need to do is point out the flaws in the so-called 'scientific theory'

[Ali Mujahidin]

Of course, most of us are laymen about any subject - being atheist or otherwise doesn't affect this. The world is too complicated to be an expert in more than one or two things. But the broad concept of evolution is easy to understand and appears to fit with the world people see in many ways.

I think it was not really that long ago when the broad concept of a flat earth was easy to understand and appeared to fit with the world people saw in many ways. I suppose that proved that the earth was flat, right?

[Pygoscelis]

If the only proof you have is that there is no evidence to contradict TOE, then what evidence is there that contradicts the statement: the world was created by God?

There is plenty of evidence besides that, which has already been shown in this thread. Just scroll up. And in case you've been ignoring his many posts, Independent has been saying that evolution and God are compatible.

It is some theists here who are saying that evolution and God are not compatible. I can see why they take that position, because whereas evolution does not disprove God, it does go a long way towards disproving literal translations of the creation myths of the major religions. And once a theist admits that part of his holy book isn't literal, who is to say what parts of the rest of it are literal, if any?

Now, let's consider your question of what evidence is there that contradicts the statement "The world was created by God". May I assume you mean an all powerful, all knowing, and all benevolent God? If so then we have plenty of evidence against that. If we accept the presumption that life forms on earth were created in their present form by a designer, then we can reasonably conclude that the designer is either incompetent or malevolent.

We eat, breathe, and speak through the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death every year. Dolphins have separate holes for eating and breathing. Does God like dolphins more than humans? We have cross-wired brains where the left side of the brain controls the right side of our body and the left side controls the left. Our eyes are wonderful products of evolution, but surely an all powerful designer could have done much better. We only see a very small segment of the light spectrum, and we have blind spots.

And evidence for evolution keeps getting found, leading scientists into concluding we evolved. Did God plant this just to confuse us? Is God a trickster God more in this for his own entertainment?

Evolution simply fits better as an explanation than does direct creation by Allah.

[جوري]

Again, more stuffing less science by non-scientists who proclaim to have better understanding than those who're actually studied in the fields of genetics, molecular biology and medicine. Sobhan Allah!

[White Rose]

Our eyes are wonderful products of evolution, but surely an all powerful designer could have done much better. We only see a very small segment of the light spectrum, and we have blind spots.

And evidence for evolution keeps getting found, misleading scientists into concluding we evolved. Did God plant this just to confuse us? Is God a trickster God more in this for his own entertainment?

Evolution simply fits better as an explanation than does direct creation by Allah.

What do you mean by better? Is it in terms of what you want to see?

[Pygoscelis]

The 'creationist' need not make a case for creation, all they need to do is point out the flaws in the so-called 'scientific theory'

If no argument is made for creation, then can he really be called a "creationist"? He's just an anti-evolutionist who falls into God of the Gaps logic from there, failing to realize that disproving evolution doesn't prove creation.

I think it was not really that long ago when the broad concept of a flat earth was easy to understand and appeared to fit with the world people saw in many ways. I suppose that proved that the earth was flat, right?

It may have been a reasonable conclusion initially, if the evidence fit, before some thought and research was done. Then it would have been replaced with a better understanding as more evidence came in. Science works like that. Evolution is no exception. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. If we find enough evidence to falsify it then we will have to move on to better theories, with more evidence for them. And in doing so we should always admit that our knowledge is not perfect.

Kind of off topic, but interesting, is that it didn't take much to realize the world is round.

Are you familiar with the Greek God Atlas? Have you noticed he carries a sphere and not a disc?

The ancient Greeks knew the world isn't flat. So did medieval Europeans.

The pople who opposed Columbus's voyage did not do so because they thought the earth was flat, but because they thought Columbus had miscaluclated the size of the earth, and that it would actually take him a lot longer to get to India than he thought it would. And they were right. That is why Columbus thought he was in India when he was actually in the Caribbean.

[Pygoscelis]

Again, more stuffing less science by non-scientists who proclaim to have better understanding than those who're actually studied in the fields of genetics, molecular biology and medicine. Sobhan Allah!

How many of your experts who have studied genetics, molecular biology, and medicine, and who oppose evolution, are named Steve?

Look Here! http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

If you really think truth is determined by votes of scientists, I think you lose.

Take some comfort in knowing that it isn't, and that your constant Ad Hominems never mean anything.

If you'd like to address the actual points made in my posts, feel free to do so.

[observer]

What do you mean by better? Is it in terms of what you want to see?

Well, it'd be nice not to have a big blind spot in your eye wouldn't it? That's not really very perfect "design" is it?

http://www.moillusions.com/2012/03/find-your-blind-spot-trick.html

[جوري]

If no argument is made for creation, then can he really be called a "creationist"? He's just an anti-evolutionist who falls into God of the Gaps logic from there, failing to realize that disproving evolution doesn't prove creation.

it is the default conclusion!

How many of your experts who have studied genetics, molecular biology, and medicine, and who oppose evolution, are named Steve?

Look Here! http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

If you really think truth is determined by votes of scientists, I think you lose.

Take some comfort in knowing that it isn't, and that your constant Ad Hominems never mean anything.

If you'd like to address the actual points made in my posts, feel free to do so.

I have no idea what this rant is all about really? My previous posts were a direct response to the fusion/translocation claims.
I understand your desire to meander and bait.. I find that to be rampant amongst trolls but it doesn't aggrieve me. If you wish to discuss science please do so. If you've personal beef then simply report the alleged 'adhoms' to the mods, they can be the judge of that!

best,

[جوري]

Well, it'd be nice not to have a big blind spot in your eye wouldn't it? That's not really very perfect "design" is it?

http://www.moillusions.com/2012/03/find-your-blind-spot-trick.html

The best cameras don't compare to the eye and I won't get into details of that for brevity' sake, but I have not seen anyone make the claim that cameras aren't designed for running the gamut of imperfections.

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

[White Rose]

The best cameras don't compare to the eye and I won't get into details of that for brevity' sake, but I have not seen anyone make the claim that cameras aren't designed for running the gamut of imperfections.

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

You said it better than I could.

[observer]

The best cameras don't compare to the eye and I won't get into details of that for brevity' sake, but I have not seen anyone make the claim that cameras aren't designed for running the gamut of imperfections.

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

But no camera is claimed to have been designed by a perfect being. You claim the eye was. Why would a perfect being design something faulty?

[جوري]

But no camera is claimed to have been designed by a perfect being. You claim the eye was. Why would a perfect being design something faulty?

A perfect being can design whatever he deems fit, it isn't per your standards to define that perfection!

[observer]

A perfect being can design whatever he deems fit, it isn't per your standards to define that perfection!

Oh of course, absolutely; I agree that I can never guess what a god would design or why - just interesting that he'd design something so obviously flawed, no?

[جوري]

Oh of course, absolutely; I agree that I can never guess what a god would design or why - just interesting that he'd design something so obviously flawed, no?

As stated what you see as flawed others see as nothing short of a miracle. Yours isn't the compass by which we measure perfection or flaws!

best,

[observer]

Yes, I agree that it's horses for courses. Just interesting that something so obviously flawed would be designed by a perfect designer.

[جوري]

You keep peddling nonsense not sure why?
There's no room for a philosophical/ religious debate of why, if you don't meet on a common ground and there's no room to discuss science if you don't know how science works or how it is tied into philosophy at this stage. I don't like nonsense questions even if in rhetoric!

best,

[observer]

You keep peddling nonsense not sure why?
There's no room for a philosophical/ religious debate of why, if you don't meet on a common ground and there's no room to discuss science if you don't know how science works or how it is tied into philosophy at this stage. I don't like nonsense questions.

best,

Well, I'm not sure why it's nonsense.

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed. But I understand that if my religious, scientific and philosophical intelligence is beneath you that you may not want to furnish my nonsense with an answer. Fair enough.

[جوري]

Well, I'm not sure why it's nonsense.

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed. But I understand that if my religious, scientific and philosophical intelligence is beneath you that you may not want to furnish my nonsense with an answer. Fair enough.

In fact I have already summed up for you why and hate to repeat myself. There's no point arguing finite details of philosophy to someone who doesn't subscribe to it all together, and there's no point discussing terms of perfection when your baseline is also not in concert with what we know of science. If you're of the disposition of posing your own queries and answering for others as is the case with most atheists then by all means don't let me interrupt this soliloquy!

[observer]

In fact I have already summed up for you why and hate to repeat myself. There's no point arguing finite details of philosophy to someone who doesn't subscribe to it all together, and there's no point discussing terms of perfection when your baseline is also not in concert with what we know of science. If you're of the disposition of posing your own queries and answering for others as is the case with most atheists then by all means don't let me interrupt this soliloquy!

So no answers from you then?

Have I posed and answered questions for others? Not sure that I have... But hey, I'm just an idiot atheist so I probably don't understand.

[جوري]

Have I posed and answered questions for others? Not sure that I have.

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed

I understand that if my religious, scientific and philosophical intelligence is beneath you

I hate going around in circles- we should get back to the original topic not why God would create this or would create that!

best,

[observer]

Yes, let's.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I don't think bones present a specific challenge to evolution ahead of other issues.

I think bones present a massive challenge for evolution, three billion years ago cells just needed a chemical and biological advantage to survive, bones need to form shapes that aid movement. If for arguments sake the best biochemical shape for a bone is a ball; that might not be the best shape for movement.

The evolution of the bone structure is extremely unlikely to have occurred one by one, bone by bone.

I agree, they need to evolve with tendons, muscles, ligaments, a nervous system and a brain to direct movement. If they evolve two by two or three by three, I see more problems, because it just compounds the number of extras to make each bone a workable advantage. If a worm like creature evolves with a bone, it could make it less flexible than its boneless rivals, the bone could become a burden and slow it down, no heritable advantage.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

If we accept the presumption that life forms on earth were created in their present form by a designer, then we can reasonably conclude that the designer is either incompetent or malevolent.

It has been said that anyone who expresses an opinion about the nature of God, reveals more of their own nature, than they do about the nature of God.

We eat, breathe, and speak through the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death every year. Dolphins have separate holes for eating and breathing. Does God like dolphins more than humans? We have cross-wired brains where the left side of the brain controls the right side of our body and the left side controls the left. Our eyes are wonderful products of evolution, but surely an all powerful designer could have done much better. We only see a very small segment of the light spectrum, and we have blind spots.

You may have missed out another design fault, we die.

And evidence for evolution keeps getting found, leading scientists into concluding we evolved. Did God plant this just to confuse us? Is God a trickster God more in this for his own entertainment?

God gave us a clue in scriptures, he created every living creature according to its kind, scientists may not want to believe this, it is their choice.

Evolution simply fits better as an explanation than does direct creation by Allah.

I would have to disagree, evolution seems very flawed, and as Independent said, the maths don’t add up for evolution.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Gator]

Interesting observation. So how many atheists would you say fall in the layman category who simply do not know enough about the TOE to really understand what it's all about? Or are all atheists experts in TOE?

As for a layman's point of view. You really don't need much to see through an argument from ignorance.

In my view, complexity (or "Math is Hard!") is just not a good basis. Since the discussion has been going round and round, here’s a little skit to give you an idea of how your argument sounds to me. Not saying right or wrong, but just trying to give you an insight into my thinking.

It’s the dawn of human history (not assuming YEC). Two cavemen are standing outside their caves. One believes that only natural forces control the universe and the other believes a deity does. Unfortunately both were named Thag, so I’m going call one Atheist Thag (Athag) and Theist Thag (Tthag). As they stand there, a lightening bolt cracks through the sky, striking the tallest tree in the forest.

Athag: Whoa! Did you see that!
Tthag: Wow! God is amazing!
Athag: Here we go. Why do you think god caused that?
Tthag: Well, I believe God causes lightening. It is so unlike anything else and we have no explanation so it has to be from a God.
Athag: Why does it have to be a god? Couldn’t it come from some natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Do you have an explanation for it?
Athag: Well, it could be some shifting when some unknown power source becomes unbalanced.
Tthag: Puh-lease, that is just a lame theory. Do you have a solid explanation or not.
Athag: A one hundred percent sure fire complete explanation…..no.
Tthag: Ah ha! You admit it.
Athag: But do you remember what our grandfathers used to tell us about fire. They used to say it only came from God.
Tthag: Yeah, I do. They used to believe it was delivered by only lightening. And when they needed it there was only one way to get it. Sacrifice a virgin to produce lightening, which would strike a tree and bring fire.
Athag: Well, my Mom discovered you could make fire by rubbing sticks a certain way.
Tthag: Yeah, my grandfather says he had never seen a woman try to break out of the wooden sacrificial pen as hard as she did. Wasn’t that nine months before you were born?
Athag: Yes, moving on. But don’t you see that what people once thought was only from God was actually something they could do because it was a natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Nice try, heretic, but that was then, this is now. What tree did it hit?
Athag: That tree there. The tallest one.
Tthag: That’s right smart guy, the tallest one. There must be thousands of trees in the forest and the lightening just happen to hit the tallest tree. Do you know the odds of that happening!? In fact, have you ever noticed that it almost always hits the tallest tree. The odds are incalculable! Can you explain that!
Athag: Well no not in exceedingly technical detail.
Tthag: Well thank you for proving my point. Don’t you think that in our advanced age we would know this stuff by now. Think of it. In the last two generations we’ve discovered how to make fire and the wheel! And even with all our amazing and complex advances, no one understands where lightening comes from. Ergo God. Lightening is just one example, all you have to do is look around to see evidence of God. Its right their in front of your eyes.
Athag: uhg.

[جوري]

Verbiage really is the only defense of the meek!

[MustafaMc]

As stated what you see as flawed others see as nothing short of a miracle.

Assalamu alaikum, ukhti. You, I and other creationists do indeed see that life, life processes and species of life are miraculous. The fact that all of the information needed for a exquisitely complex individual such as that of a human, a whale, a platypus, a manatee, a horse, etc is found in a extremely small package called a zygote that looks amazingly similar across species amazes me to no end. I am further fascinated by the fact that some people fail to see the obvious design for the various species of life that demands a Designer and a Creator for them to come in to being. How they can be satisfied with Darwin's theory for the origin of the species through natural selection acting upon genetic variation created primarily through a destructive process escapes me. Their dogmatic adherence to ToE makes less sense to me than a believer who has faith that God is entirely responsible for creating all that exists.

[Pygoscelis]

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed.

You and I see it as flawed because we look at from the point of view of wanting ideal vision. If ideal vision was the goal then God failed and it isn't perfect design. But, as the rude lady pointed out, who are we to say what should be? If God, for whatever reason, intends us to have poor vision, blind spot, minimal colour vision when compared to some other animals, etc, then the design is perfect for what he intended. I noted above that we eat and breathe through the same hole (unlike dolphins) guaranteeing that some of us will choke to death. Poor design if you want to stay alive, but perfect design if God intends choking.

If we accept the premise that an all powerful God created life on earth as it now is, then we can look at how that life is and realize that this God isn't all that benevolent towards us. The logic of creationism leads to a very indifferent and unkind sort of deity, and a trickster deity with no interest in efficiency (consider our cross wired brain, that whales have foot bones but no legs, etc) and an interest in misleading us into thinking evolution happens.

[جوري]

I noted above that we eat and breathe through the same hole

One is called the trachea and the other an esophagus .. if you're of the impression they're the 'same hole' then take some anatomy lessons. Perhaps the 'imperfect design' is meant to keep your chatter box shut while eating and how rude, and gauche it is indeed to do the same two tasks at a time. Either talk or breathe while eating so which will it be?
I don't think you've much credibility when it comes to design when basic anatomy and physiology eludes you to speak so freely of logic.. and thanks for calling me rude, I have brought it to the mods attention.

best,

[Independent]

I think bones present a massive challenge for evolution

Essentially you seem to be troubled by the apparent difficulty of evolving multiple parts/systems simultaneously. This is another aspect of Behe's 'Irreducible Complexity' argument. The idea is that some aspects of organisms consist of multiple evolutionary steps, without which the whole unit would be either useless or even actively destructive. However, a number of Behe's examples have already been shown to be consisting of parts or functions that did indeed evolve separately beforehand. This means that the complex structure is an assembly of pre-existing parts, not a one-off invention. This leaves Behe's argument insecure, to say the least.

With regard to your example specifically - the bone structure - we can in fact see there is an evolution of both parts and function over a very long period. If the bone structure had been created in one go by divine fiat, we should see complex bone systems right from the first. But we don't. What we see is entirely consistent with TOE. In fact there are no bone fossils of any kind which contradict TOE. There are gaps in the story - but that's inevitable given the random nature of fossil formation and is still consistent with TOE.

Why are there no fossils to contradict TOE? With so many millions of examples available to study, it can't be by chance. Therefore, if the Creationist account is correct, we have to assume that God has deliberately imitated the course that TOE would take, even though there is no TOE. This does not make any sense either theologically or in any other way.

Why would God behave differently with TOE than with the laws of physics? Why make one area self sustaining, and the other dependent on His constant intervention? Is He unable to develop TOE? This can't be! Why do people resist TOE yet accept scientific laws in all other fields?

If there is no TOE, why are there no fossils to contradict it?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

If we accept the premise that an all powerful God created life on earth as it now is, then we can look at how that life is and realize that this God isn't all that benevolent towards us. The logic of creationism leads to a very indifferent and unkind sort of deity,

You seem to be describing evolution rather than God, TOE favours the strongest, the most powerful, these qualities in humans seem to encourage trampling on the weak. Hitler used evolutionary principles, billionaires and overpaid footballers are happy with them too.

The twenty thousand children who die UNOTICED; every single day from grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease are all victims of evolutionary principles.

The Bible has around two thousand passages that refer to justice for the poor and oppressed, to love, forgive, not to judge, these are not the laws of an oppressive God. The teachings of the Qur’an also centre on justice for the poor and oppressed, to love our neighbours, to forgive to control anger, these are not the teachings of a malicious God.

and a trickster deity with no interest in efficiency (consider our cross wired brain, that whales have foot bones but no legs, etc) and an interest in misleading us into thinking evolution happens.

If God gave us perfect bodies, we would still be unjust and unkind towards each other, kill, steal etc, what incentive does God have, that he should give us perfect bodies?

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor and oppressed

Eric

[جوري]

Not sure what showcasing bones next to each other in boxes have to do with speciation? another non argument!

[observer]

Not sure what showcasing bones next to each other in boxes have to do with speciation? another non argument!

Hang on, are you actually suggesting that the study of fossils can tell us nothing in this field? Seriously? Or have I misunderstood you?

[جوري]

Hang on, are you actually suggesting that the study of fossils can tell us nothing in this field? Seriously? Or have I misunderstood you?

What does the study of fossil mean to you pray do tell?

[observer]

What does the study of fossil mean to you pray do tell?

Not really sure what you're asking here.

The study of fossils is what it is - the study of fossils! The hope of gaining insight into the development of species? The possibility of tracing a species' lineage back through history? The chance to study long-extinct animals?

Do you see it as a futile pursuit?

[جوري]

Not really sure what you're asking here.

You're the one with the questions, shouldn't you elaborate on your queries or am I to use my psychic abilities to search for meaning?

The study of fossils is what it is - the study of fossils! The hope of gaining insight into the development of species? The possibility of tracing a species' lineage back through history? The chance to study long-extinct animals?

study of long extinct animals doesn't equal to speciation do you not agree?

Do you see it as a futile pursuit?

From your end yes the lot of you seem very confused!

best,

[observer]

^^^ The fossil record is invaluable in showing how species changed over time, therefore I'd say that yes, the study of fossils is very relevant to speciation. Not the only tool, no, but important - yes.

[جوري]

^^^ The fossil record is invaluable in showing how species changed over time, therefore I'd say that yes, the study of fossils is very relevant to speciation. Not the only tool, no, but important - yes.

That's much stuffing as usual. How about you discuss the mechanism by which placing fossils in glass boxes shows speciation? you share 50% of your genes with bananas btw so I guess I can put you in a box, a banana in a box and a drosophila in a box and label it speciation from 50-90%.. you guys really are a funny bunch!

[observer]

That's much stuffing as usual. How about you discuss the mechanism by which placing fossils in glass boxes shows speciation? you share 50% of your genes with bananas btw so I guess I can put you in a box, a banana in a box and a drosophila in a box and label it speciation from 50-90%.. you guys really are a funny bunch!

So you'd say it is futile to study fossils then?

[جوري]

So you'd say it is futile to study fossils then?

How do you arrive to the conclusion you do? Really I am curious.. you're not big on faith given your life style choice yet constantly make large leaps that are a complete non-sequitur to what preceded!
There are tons of reasons we study fossils. I have personally studied fossils for the purpose of posterior spinal fusion surgeries. Do you have something of substance to impart as to how these fossils showcase speciation? would you like to discuss the mechanism of action of that rather than waste my time with inane Q's?

[observer]

How do you arrive to the conclusion you do? Really I am curious.. you're not big on faith given your life style choice yet constantly make large leaps that are a complete non-sequitur to what preceded!
There are tons of reasons we study fossils. I have personally studied fossils for the purpose of posterior spinal fusion surgeries.

It's not a conclusion, it's a question.

You are seemingly incapable of actually answering a simple question without either attacking the questioner or obfuscating the argument so completely that the original discussion is rendered pointless!

So do you think the study of fossils can't shed any light on speciation? (Note the "?" - this is another question).

[جوري]

It's not a conclusion, it's a question.

It is a question that doesn't draw from the premise!

You are seemingly incapable of actually answering a simple question without either attacking the questioner or obfuscating the argument so completely that the original discussion is rendered pointless!

In fact I have answered your Q and it is there for all to see. I can't help if you don't know how to support your argument or ask pertinent questions!

So do you think the study of fossils can't shed any light on speciation? (Note the "?" - this is another question).

in what way has it shed light on speciation? Perhaps if you answer that correctly you'll not need to pose the same Q multiple styles when I have already replied to it!

best,

[observer]

in what way has it shed light on speciation?

OK, I'll focus on this part as it's pretty clear that you're not open to answering any question (I've re-read your posts and can see nowhere where you have answered the question posed - maybe you could point me to it? I imagine not).

Very briefly, below is how the fossil record helps shed light on speciation, I've higlighted the most fundamental part. The quote comes from here http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArtic...-a0001666.html , a very nice website with a lot of clear explanations.

The process of the initiation, formation and establishment of descendent species from existing ancestral species is called speciation. Several aspects of this process can be studied using the fossil record, including how and why rates of speciation have changed through geologic history and how the morphology of lineages change over time as descendents gain phylogenetic independence from their ancestors. The fossil record also provides ancient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which allows genetic analyses of extinct populations and species that give insight into genetic differentiation, among other processes. Organisms are neither all equally likely to be preserved in the fossil record, nor do they have similar rates of achieving reproductive isolation and morphological differentiation from their ancestors. We know more about the fossil record of speciation in groups such as marine bivalves, gastropods, plankton and bryozoans, which have comparatively better fossil records, than groups such as mammals or plants.

[جوري]

OK, I'll focus on this part as it's pretty clear that you're not open to answering any question (I've re-read your posts and can see nowhere where you have answered the question posed - maybe you could point me to it? I imagine not).

Very briefly, below is how the fossil record helps shed light on speciation, I've higlighted the most fundamental part. The quote comes from here http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArtic...-a0001666.html , a very nice website with a lot of clear explanations.

The process of the initiation, formation and establishment of descendent species from existing ancestral species is called speciation. Several aspects of this process can be studied using the fossil record, including how and why rates of speciation have changed through geologic history and how the morphology of lineages change over time as descendents gain phylogenetic independence from their ancestors. The fossil record also provides ancient deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which allows genetic analyses of extinct populations and species that give insight into genetic differentiation, among other processes. Organisms are neither all equally likely to be preserved in the fossil record, nor do they have similar rates of achieving reproductive isolation and morphological differentiation from their ancestors. We know more about the fossil record of speciation in groups such as marine bivalves, gastropods, plankton and bryozoans, which have comparatively better fossil records, than groups such as mammals or plants.

I have answered your Q. You can't glean what is important unfortunately just given what you highlighted above. Do you or do you not understand what mechanism is? you know on a molecular level. Genetic variations and study of DNA is all nice and I have already stated as much above, there's very little variations between us and any creature up to and including fruits.. do you want to show me how fifty percent of you evolved into a banana is what I am asking!

best,

[observer]

You can't glean what is important unfortunately just given what you highlighted above.

How so? Does what I've highlighted not demonstrate the utility of fossils to the study of speciation?

[جوري]

How so? Does what I've highlighted not demonstrate the utility of fossils to the study of speciation?

NO, it doesn't!

best,

[observer]

NO, it doesn't!

Imperious debating!

I can't help but feel that this discussion is going to lead nowhere. Let's leave it there shall we?

[جوري]

Imperious debating!

I can't help but feel that this discussion is going to lead nowhere. Let's leave it there shall we?

I guess you've nothing by way of mechanism?

[observer]

I guess you've nothing by way of mechanism?

Well, what I understand by evolutionary mechanism support ToE - either I've missed the point or am thinking of something different if you're thinking of mechanism as counter to evolution?

[جوري]

Well, what I understand by evolutionary mechanism support ToE - either I've missed the point or am thinking of something different if you're thinking of mechanism as counter to evolution?

I am thinking molecular biology and genetics - care to discuss those in light of said fossils?

[Independent]

You seem to be describing evolution rather than God, TOE favours the strongest, the most powerful, these qualities in humans seem to encourage trampling on the weak

Not really - this is a misunderstanding based on the phrase 'survival of the fittest' which did not appear in Origin and is not even from Darwin. To add to the confusion, the word 'fittest' has changed in meaning since the 19th century. In this C19th context it was used to mean not strongest, but 'fit for purpose', or 'most appropriate', or specifically with relation to evolution - most relevantly adapted. This does not necessarily mean stronger. A physically weaker creature may survive where a stronger one becomes extinct, because it is better adapted to changing circumstance (or else we would still be living with the dinosaurs).

This also means that evolution can reward altruistic behaviour, which we can see in nature and in Man where cooperative behaviour is highly beneficial. Evolution can never be immoral like Hitler - but you could call it amoral.

It does have other moral implications - which is that things occur in nature not because there is a moral purpose, but because they can. To use an example - venereal disease exists not because we are sinful, but because sexual congress is just one more means to transmit germs and sustain a lifecycle. Creatures adapt to fill all the available niches. Shaking hands also transimits germs. If venereal disease is immoral, so is measles.

Also....

With reference to my previous post: how would a Creationist account for the way the fossil record imitates evolution, unless it is actually a result of evolution? Is there a theological explanation given for this?

[observer]

I am thinking molecular biology and genetics - care to discuss those in light of said fossils?

Well, again, what I know of molecular biology and genetics all supports ToE. Instead of alluding to what you might possibly be meaning to say - why not make life simpler and tell me what you are refferring to?

[جوري]

Well, again, what I know of molecular biology and genetics all supports ToE. Instead of alluding to what you might possibly be meaning to say - why not make life simpler and tell me what you are refferring to?

You don't understand the mechanism by which one species evolves into another? I didn't think it was a big mystery!

[observer]

You know, the way debates usually work is that someone makes a point, backs that point up and then responds to counter points. I *think*, although I could well be wrong as it's difficult to follow what you're getting at, that you're saying I don't fully understand evolution, is that right? Is that your point?

Well - if it is, you're right, I don't. Nobody does. However, when there is so much evidence (easily understandable evidence) to support it, it seems churlish to dismiss it.

As I said, it seems we're going nowhere; let's leave it there.

[جوري]

You know, the way debates usually work is that someone makes a point, backs that point up and then responds to counter points. I *think*, although I could well be wrong as it's difficult to follow what you're getting at, that you're saying I don't fully understand evolution, is that right? Is that your point?

It isn't difficult to derive what I am getting at. I am not using volumes of words. If you believe in this as a science then you should be able to discuss it fluidly!

Well - if it is, you're right, I don't. Nobody does. However, when there is so much evidence (easily understandable evidence) to support it, it seems churlish to dismiss it.

What evidence? that you put skulls in boxes? Perhaps intellectual bullying works on school boys but not here. 'Churlish' doesn't a scientific argument make. Perhaps it is the sort of crap that sells on atheist forums as they often like to self-congratulate and insult- over here we prefer evidence based science!

As I said, it seems we're going nowhere; let's leave it there.

it is going nowhere because the lot of you don't know what the heck you're talking about. One guy doesn't know a trachea leads to the lungs and the esophagus the alimentary tract yet has the audacity to speak of illogical and you tag not far behind with the big conundrum that's molecular biology as a mechanism to explain this mysterious speciation through fossil record.
Perhaps if the lot of you cut the crap and especially the attitude of knowledge and superiority where where neither exist can we leave it there.. and we should have in fact done that a few pages ago if you'd realized that you can't support your argument with something other than 'churlish' for a response!

best,

[observer]

they often like to self-congratulate and insult

Oh sweet irony! :D

[جوري]

Oh sweet irony! :D

There's no irony here at all.. nothing is opposite of expectations here.. in fact it is going exactly as expected! At any rate, I don't like the perpetual meandering as a form of dodging the painful stuff you either know or you don't. And I know that you don't and neither do your pals!

best,

[Pygoscelis]

The twenty thousand children who die UNOTICED; every single day from grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease are all victims of evolutionary principles.

Evolution is a process. It can't "victimize" anybody. Disease and viruses can do through evolution, but there is no mind directing it for you to say is victimizing people.

But if you rule out evolution and claim instead that an all powerful God created life on earth how it now is, then you do have a mind that designed it for you to say is victimizing people.

If a bridge collapses and the travelers on it plunge to their deaths, you can't say the creator of the bridge intended that to happen, but only because the creator of the bridge isn't perfect and all powerful. If the creator is perfect and all powerful, then you can conclude that he intended this result, and you can judge him accordingly.

If you take a strict creationist stance, with no interceding evolution or free will (Or do you believe viruses have free will?), you can conclude that God intended the disease and viruses people suffer from. You can say that he specifically invented them in all their horror. You can also conclude that he did not intend efficient design when we see structures in nature that are not efficient.

The Bible has around two thousand passages that refer to justice for the poor and oppressed, to love, forgive, not to judge, these are not the laws of an oppressive God. The teachings of the Qur’an also centre on justice for the poor and oppressed, to love our neighbours, to forgive to control anger, these are not the teachings of a malicious God.

So you've got a stark conflict within the strict creationist interpretation. How do you explain it?

If God gave us perfect bodies, we would still be unjust and unkind towards each other, kill, steal etc, what incentive does God have, that he should give us perfect bodies?

Because he designed us that way?

Or perhaps because he gave us free will, which is a whole other debate.

If he did give us free will then that isn't relevant to my point of his direct creation. As Independent pointed out earlier in the thread, you also may escape my above conclusions if you take the position that God set it off and then random mutation and natural selection took over.

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor and oppressed

In the spirit of seeking justice the poor and oppressed.

[Pygoscelis]

I noted above that we can eat and breathe through the same hole (meaning the mouth).

One is called the trachea and the other an esophagus .. if you're of the impression they're the 'same hole' then take some anatomy lessons.

It isn't difficult to derive what I am getting at. I am not using volumes of words.

I understand your desire to meander and bait.. I find that to be rampant amongst trolls but it doesn't aggrieve me.

Perhaps if the lot of you cut the crap and especially the attitude of knowledge and superiority where where neither exist can we leave it there..

...

The 'creationist' need not make a case for creation, all they need to do is point out the flaws in the so-called 'scientific theory'

it is the default conclusion!

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

over here we prefer evidence based science!

...

^ atheists have to be dogmatic and indoctrinated about their religion how else can they justify their lifestyle choices?

If you're of the disposition of posing your own queries and answering for others as is the case with most atheists then by all means don't let me interrupt this soliloquy!

You keep peddling nonsense not sure why?

I don't like nonsense questions even if in rhetoric!

Perhaps intellectual bullying works on school boys but not here.

you guys really are a funny bunch!

[جوري]

I noted above that we can eat and breathe through the same hole

The hole for breathing is called your nose, the one for eating is called your mouth, when you chew your glottis which is guarded by your epiglottis covers your windpipe so you can eat and it doesn't go down the wrong pipe.. pays to have good manners at the dinner table and focus on that!
In fact it is brilliantly designed. Or where would you like your breathing and eating apparatus? perhaps breathing our of your ears in three D and eating out of your eyes? lol.... if a person runs after every atheist whim we'd all end up freaks!

[Muhaba]

the design is perfect but some ppl are brainless.

[Iceee]

the design is perfect but some ppl are brainless.

All they want to believe is: If God created humans, why didn't he put make them all the same colour so there won't be any racism?
Why didn't he make everyone strong? Why he didn't do this... do that...

Above: Why didn't he make everyone have perfect vision to be able to see atoms in the air? Why didn't he make a recording button in our eyes. Why can't we share our eye-sight to see if our spouse is cheating...?

All these stupid questions. Stop asking and start believing. There's a reason for all of this, but you people are brainwashed into not listening and going on their cell-phones to come up with another question/answer.

[Muhaba]

^that is so true. I mean, in today's modern and technological age, we consider multifunctioning to be a sign of advancement and atheists consider it a sign of imperfection. Just think of all the things we have that we use for multipurpose, such as mobile phones that have internet access, washer and dryer in one, etc. To be able to breathe, talk and eat with the mouth is a sign of the Great design of God. It should make us understand that this could not have come into being by itself. About why the left brain controls the right side of the body, and the right brain controls the left side, we do not know what the wisdom in it is at this time because our human knowledge is limited. In time, with scientific advancement, we may learn what the benefits are. or maybe the benefits are already known but I and some others haven't learned of them. the brain is a wonderful thing by itself and human abilities and intelligence already prove that it couldn't have come into being by itself.
As for eyesight, it is a miracle in itself. could it have come into being by itself? unfortunately instead of pondering over this, atheists want to know why our eyesight couldn't be better. They should also ask why we can't fly and are not superhuman. The answer is simply that God was creating humans and not superhumans. It probably wouldn't be beneficial if you could see through walls and hear from great distances, etc. All these human limitations are not God's limitations because God created us according to the design He chose and for a particular purpose. but the way humans and other living things are made and their differences all show God's greatness and intelligence. The fact that everything on earth is so compatible shows that a Creator - and only One Creator - made this.

just think of oxygen. humans need oxygen to live. We need it every moment. how many breaths do we take in a minute? But if there were only humans and animals on earth, the oxygen wouldn't last. it would get finished because during breathing, oxygen is taken in and carbon dioxide is released. So very soon, the atmosphere would get filled with carbon dioxide. But God created plants. Plants take in carbon dioxide during daytime and release oxygen. Thus there is cycle. Plants and animals contribute to this oxygen - carbon dioxide cycle together thus helping each other survive. But did this all come into being by itself? Did plants and animals evolve to make this happen? Why should there even be oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It's obvious that none of this happened by itself but was designed by God. And God is the best of the designers!

[observer]

All these stupid questions. Stop asking and start believing.

Why is it stupid to ask why god has done something in a particular way?

If you are to ask no questions and believe blindly, I would suggest that that sounds more like brainwashing than the alternative.

[Iceee]

If you are to ask no questions and believe blindly, I would suggest that that sounds more like brainwashing than the alternative.

Lol, you think all Muslims follow religion blindly? That's funny.

You forgot we have the Quran, hadiths, scholars, mufti's, Imams, mosques, and lectures. That ain't blind homeboy.

[observer]

nfortunately instead of pondering over this, atheists want to know why our eyesight couldn't be better

Just a quick point - I don't think atheists do want to know why our sight couldn't be better. We believe we know why our sight is how it is, the question about deficiencies in sight are raised to question the idea that a perfect all-powerful being created us.

I'm amazed by our eyes (and everything else) but my wonder is at the glory of nature, not a deity.

[observer]

Lol, you think all Muslims follow religion blindly? That's funny.

Not at all - you said "stop asking, start believing" - I mean that that sounds like following blindly.

I have known many muslims who continually question and look for meaning.

[Iceee]

Nobody else talk in this thread, I want the answer to the following:

We believe we know why our sight is how it is

[observer]

Nobody else talk in this thread, I want the answer to the following:

Evolution.

[Iceee]

Evolution.

I'm done. :omg:

[Muhaba]

Sometimes it's best to stop asking and start believing. Nature is not all-glorious by itself. Nature can't do anything. Nature couldn't even created itself. do you in your right mind really believe that from nothing something could've arisen and then that something being lifeless then by itself turned into unicellular organisms and then those unicellular organisms evolved and continued to evolve to bring about such different creatures, perfectly compatible with each other and with their environment which also came into being by itself to sustain their life and survival??? The eyes are a wonderful thing but some ppl don't have eyes to see with. The brain is a great thing, but some ppl don't have brains to think with.

Evidence of a creator is all around us. But if only you could see.

[Pygoscelis]

The hole for breathing is called your nose, the one for eating is called your mouth

You can breathe through both your nose and your mouth, and people choke to death because of it. You can go ahead and say they deserve it and call them uncouth if you want, and I guess you don't want anybody coming to your rescue should it happen to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. Whales don't choke to death.

Instead of trying, and failing, to nit pick one of the many examples given, perhaps you could actually address the point that was made? The "Design" of nature, if we choose to call it that, with all of its disease, parasites, and hostile environments (you would die instantly if exposed to most parts of the universe), does not point to a benevolent designer. If he is all powerful, and he designed nature as it is, with no intervening force or process (such as evolution) then he intended what we have the way we have it, and we can draw conclusions about him from that. You can try distracting us all you want, but you can't avoid that point. For many, especially the vulnerable, regardless of their moral virtue, life is brutal, painful, and short, and according to strict creationism, God must have wanted it that way.

Stop asking and start believing.

You don't want people thinking? You want them to turn off their brains and just obey and believe what they are told? That is one of the most disturbing mentalities within religious thought.

Galileo addressed it long long ago:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Lol, you think all Muslims follow religion blindly? That's funny.

You forgot we have the Quran, hadiths, scholars, mufti's, Imams, mosques, and lectures. That ain't blind homeboy.

You forgot to mention your own moral sense and your own mind.

[Vito]

Evolution.

Our vision is the way it is because we evolved that way? So the monkeys or whatever it is you believe we evolved from had poor/no vision but we just evolved that way to adapt? ^o)

[Muhaba]

You can breathe through both your nose and your mouth, and people choke to death because of it. You can go ahead and say they deserve it and call them uncouth if you want, and I guess you don't want anybody coming to your rescue should it happen to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. Whales don't choke to death.

I'd like to you design something better. Why not show us how you want humans to be like. Or do you want humans not to be able to breathe with mouth and only have the nose for breathing? I guess people will die a lot more when we get the cold and have our noses clogged.

[جوري]

You can breathe through both your nose and your mouth, and people choke to death because of it. You can go ahead and say they deserve it and call them uncouth if you want, and I guess you don't want anybody coming to your rescue should it happen to you, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens. Whales don't choke to death

We're born obligate nose breathers, do any of you read or do research before you write? If your trachea/esophagus were designed any other way you wouldn't be able to eat or breathe, humidify the air, or even scream. Not only is the design perfect but it is also aesthetically pleasing!
We're born in a balance between life and death. This isn't heaven for people to live eternally, we're here to live and die!

Instead of trying, and failing, to nit pick one of the many examples given, perhaps you could actually address the point that was made? The "Design" of nature, if we choose to call it that, with all of its disease, parasites, and hostile environments (you would die instantly if exposed to most parts of the universe), does not point to a benevolent designer. If he is all powerful, and he designed nature as it is, with no intervening force or process (such as evolution) then he intended what we have the way we have it, and we can draw conclusions about him from that. You can try distracting us all you want, but you can't avoid that point. For many, especially the vulnerable, regardless of their moral virtue, life is brutal, painful, and short, and according to strict creationism, God must have wanted it that way

Again, another ill conceived useless paragraph as we're accustomed, not only have I replied above but also previously, a 'flawed design' per your standards doesn't preclude the presence of a designer - God can create whatever he desires, you're not owed anything you should be grateful you're anything at all not an amoeba to sit here and act as if an opponent as if you've a say of what perfection is.. and in fact if you do it just tells us how ignorant you're of anatomy, physiology, genetics and biochemistry not to mention molecular biology.

The other fellow just babbling about 'Evolution' yet can't do any better by way of mechanism on a cellular level isn't any better than those who profess God designed it ...


I have to come back to the same 10 pages of recycled nonsense, and no one wants to do the slightest bit of research, as if God has to apologize to them for hos vision of the creation yet they owe no apologies for that much ignorance and that much waste of time and webspace!

[Pygoscelis]

I'd like to you design something better.

Why? I don't claim to be perfect or all powerful.

I guess people will die a lot more when we get the cold and have our noses clogged.

Due to viruses that God specifically designed to make us suffer and die?

[Pygoscelis]

a 'flawed design' per your standards doesn't preclude the presence of a designer

I didn't say it did. In fact I specifically considered what it would mean if we did have an all powerful designer. Why do you respond to posts you apparently don't read?

God can create whatever he desires

Sure. And we can draw conclusions about what he desires by looking at what he designed. This is is a God that designed us to suffer, some much more than others, with no regard to moral virtue or vice on our part, and yet you call him "Just". This is a God that designed horrible disease and natural disasters to afflict us and a massive universe most of which we can't survive in, and yet you worship him and call him "good". Go figure.

[observer]

Our vision is the way it is because we evolved that way? So the monkeys or whatever it is you believe we evolved from had poor/no vision but we just evolved that way to adapt? ^o)

Yes, exactly.

...our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago.

[جوري]

I didn't say it did. In fact I specifically considered what it would mean if we did have an all powerful designer. Why do you respond to posts you apparently don't read?

You keep asking the same questions over the course of a little under a decade it bears repeating perhaps one of those times it will take and given your subsequent boring paragraph!

best,

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

The "Design" of nature, if we choose to call it that, with all of its disease, parasites, and hostile environments (you would die instantly if exposed to most parts of the universe), does not point to a benevolent designer. If he is all powerful, and he designed nature as it is, with no intervening force or process (such as evolution) then he intended what we have the way we have it, and we can draw conclusions about him from that. You can try distracting us all you want, but you can't avoid that point. For many, especially the vulnerable, regardless of their moral virtue, life is brutal, painful, and short, and according to strict creationism, God must have wanted it that way.

Whatever we see around us, yes, God intended it that way. But why are you looking at this one sidedly, choosing to focus only on suffering in life, and drawing conclusions from this? Surely, a fair approach is to look at the whole picture. You speak of disease and parasites, yet you ignore the fact that God also sent down their cure. You speak of hostile environments yet you ignore the vast expanse that is the earth which God made our dwelling place with all we need.

You don't want people thinking? You want them to turn off their brains and just obey and believe what they are told? That is one of the most disturbing mentalities within religious thought.

Again, taking one aspect to the extreme is unfair. Nobody said that we shouldn't think at all. In my earlier post in this thread, I pointed out that God invites man repeatedly to think and to use his intellect. There are signs all around us of God's existence. If you look at the brother's post again, he said:

All these stupid questions. Stop asking and start believing.

Some questions are unanswerable. God, by definition, is greater than all of His creation. His knowledge and wisdom is beyond all of us. We can ask thousands of questions about why did He choose to do this or that, but we already know that there is a limit to our understanding, so it is pointless to go down that road. We should at least focus on those things which can be answered and whose answer will lead to benefit.

[Independent]

The question i am interested to hear answered from a Creationist point of view, is why does history give us a record of an evolutionary process, if it was not actually evolution taking place? To clarify:

1. There are species and they have appeared throughout history in a certain order. You don't get modern man appearing 1 billion years ago, for instance.

2. This order is broadly progressive from simpler to more complex forms.

3. Highly useful individual organs or features (eg the eye, bones, flowering-insect combination), once they appear in the fossil record, spread and appear in many subsequent species. They never appear in the wrong order. It's as if someone thought of a new idea (the eye) and then kept using it and improving it in later species.

4. Where we are able to track individual characteristics (eg combined no 2 chromosome in modern man, Neanderthals and Denisovans or inability to make vitamin D in chimps and modern man) they also follow a path consistent with an evolutionary relationship.

In other words....

We don't know the mechanism of evolution for sure in every aspect. But the result, the consequence of evolution - a slowly diversifying set of species with particular ancestral relationships to each other - we can see clearly enough.

Why would God deliberately imitate an evolutionary process, but without using evolution? It doesn't make sense. Why continue to invent creatures and entire eco-systems one by one? Why make and then allow to subside into extinction such a huge number of species (exceeding 99%) before man even makes an appearance on the scene? Why make laws of physics, but not of evolution? Why would He make this the only aspect of the universe that can't function according to its own rules?

[جوري]

1. There are species and they have appeared throughout history in a certain order. You don't get modern man appearing 1 billion years ago, for instance.

Excellent article on the matter:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

I am glad you admit that life as we know it didn't always exist though!

This order is broadly progressive from simpler to more complex forms.

Indeed.. makes it easier to replicate if the proposed method of passage of time x a little bit of sun, and a little bit of air were all the necessary formula to turn a single celled organism to a complex being!

3. Highly useful individual organs or features (eg the eye, bones, flowering-insect combination), once they appear in the fossil record, spread and appear in many subsequent species. They never appear in the wrong order.

Organs appeared by themselves ex nihilio? we'd walking eyes before they were incorporated into the human body? how many times did 'evolution' take by way of attempts to not give us a rate limiting step in the urea cycle for instance but has that rate limiting very complex step in other biochemical processes?
Problem with the lot of you is you don't know the weightiness of the finite details of what it takes to put a number of amino acids together to produce a functional protein and from functional proteins to organ systems and from organ systems to complex beings with higher reticular functions so you just use a simpleton catch all term to hide the ignorance behind pompous terms which are see through to most of us. The simple fact is if you were so good and so close to knowing then by all means denature a flowering stalk and then reanneal it back together giving it form in the processes!

4. Where we are able to track individual characteristics (eg combined no 2 chromosome in modern man, Neanderthals and Denisovans or inability to make vitamin D in chimps and modern man) they also follow a path consistent with an evolutionary relationship.

That's a long leap of faith in fact as I have demonstrated in the previous page that acrocentric breaks, translocation or fusions of chromosomes from what we actually know and observe not theorize about give us nothing but deleterious diseased states!

We don't know the mechanism of evolution for sure in every aspect. But the result, the consequence of evolution - a slowly diversifying set of species with particular ancestral relationships to each other - we can see clearly enough.

No, we can't.. what we can see are adaptive changes.. the same way Barrett's esophagus turns squamous cells columnar with repeated insults.

Why would God deliberately imitate an evolutionary process, but without using evolution? It doesn't make sense. Why continue to invent creatures and entire eco-systems one by one? Why make and then allow to subside into extinction such a huge number of species (exceeding 99%) before man even makes an appearance on the scene? Why make laws of physics, but not of evolution? Why would He make this the only aspect of the universe that can't function according to its own rules?

These questions of why are non sensical. We observe nature and record it that is all there is to it!

best,

[observer]

We observe nature and record it that is all there is to it!

But surely we should try to understand​ it as well?

[جوري]

But surely we should try to understand​ it as well?

Yes I insist you do hence the PDF file I enclosed above. Please do read it before you next write!

best,

[observer]

Yes I insist you do hence the PDF file I enclosed above. Please do read it before you next write!

Well, there are 47 pages of text there so it'll take a while! But having a (very) quick skim of it, it seems to conclude that there must have been fine tuning to our genetic code in order for it to have been able to propagate in a hostile environment.

I could equally give you a link to a large document showing that that is not the case.

Again, I think it's clear that ToE is not complete, but I believe that one day it will be as close to complete as we can hope for.

[Independent]

Excellent article on the matter:

I think you posted this before and I read it then. You are still trying to pick holes in TOE but that's not my question - so that's not the answer.

Perhaps someone else could answer from a Creationist point of view?

[جوري]

Well, there are 47 pages of text there so it'll take a while! But having a (very) quick skim of it, it seems to conclude that there must have been fine tuning to our genetic code in order for it to have been able to propagate in a hostile environment.

I could equally give you a link to a large document showing that that is not the case.

Again, I think it's clear that ToE is not complete, but I believe that one day it will be as close to complete as we can hope for.

That's not what it concludes in fact it concludes nothing at all and leaves you to make that decision, by assigning laws of physics and probability to consider how a single celled organism become complex beings across species without a host organism using the smallest number of functional amino acids even though combining amino acids in and of itself doesn't mean we'd have a functional protein and using the proposed methods of 'evolution' which you yourself are yet to define but he has defined them for you. In fact it is generous at all to even have that starting point if we consider that life came from nothing, which it did at least according to your atheist pal above who so much as admitted that life as we know it didn't always exist. And if it exists then that is the process based on the laws of this universe that made it come together.

What does it mean to you that you can give me volumes of literature? Is it verbiage we're after or science, palpable defined investigative science? Please don't waste my time simply because the content doesn't agree with your life style choices. There's not much out there that I haven't read when it comes to science or philosophy or religion- it isn't an arbitrary choice that I am a Muslim! It also isn't about how much we read at the end of the day, it is about what we understand using reason not faith in what someone wrote!

I don't care for 'hopes and dreams' otherwise when it comes to science!

best,

[جوري]

I think you posted this before and I read it then. You are still trying to pick holes in TOE but that's not my question - so that's not the answer.

I don't need to try- the task is accomplished. Stringing words together doesn't a question make when you yourself don't even understand what it means to have a 'fossil record' a fossil record that something existed doesn't mean that a rock one day sprouted wings and took flight by some magic.. means just that, a creature that we so named existed! These are the building blocks of life on earth in whatever form.. not much difference goes between our genetic makeup or anything else even fruits!

Perhaps someone else could answer from a Creationist point of view?

I have already replied to that before using the noble Quran chapter 18.

18:51 to top

I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves,


tell me how it is that you expect people to tell you how or why God did it?

[Independent]

you yourself don't even understand what it means to have a 'fossil record' a fossil record that something existed doesn't mean that a rock one day sprouted wings and took flight by some magic.. means just that, a creature that we so named existed

The fossil record and other evidences do not prove TOE, but are consistent with it. My question remains: from a Creationist point of view, why is this? Please allow someone else to answer.

[جوري]

The fossil record and other evidences do not prove TOE, but are consistent with it. My question remains: from a Creationist point of view, why is this? Please allow someone else to answer.

In what way are they 'and other evidences' consistent with it?

[Independent]

In what way are they 'and other evidences' consistent with it?

Please read previous posts.

Please allow someone else to answer.

[جوري]

Please read previous posts.

Please allow someone else to answer.

I have read previous and already stated stringing words together doesn't an argument or question make. Fossil records of species exists yes.. what does that mean would you like to fill in the blanks by way of mechanism?
by the way I am not withholding anyone from replying to you, perhaps others are simply gracious enough not to point out the folly in your alleged queries.

best,

[Iceee]

by the way I am not withholding anyone from replying to you, perhaps others are simply gracious enough not to point out the folly in your alleged queries.

Nobody else talk in this thread, I want the answer to the following:

We believe we know why our sight is how it is

Evolution.

:skeleton:

Like what's the point of replying? They think they know everything. Excuses, lies, "more evidence needed..,"
In school, they have the best excuses for not doing homework.

[Independent]

would you like to fill in the blanks by way of mechanism?

This is where you misunderstand and repeat answers you have given before. I'm not talking about the mechanisms suggested for TOE. I'm interested in a Creationist account that includes all the evidences that we have (incomplete as they are). For instance, a single one off creation moment, day or week does not fit the evidence. Also, we see species appearing in an order consistent with TOE, but not described in scriptures. I am interested in hearing a Creationist account that is capable of including all the evidence we have in a structure that appears logical and consistent.

[جوري]

This is where you misunderstand and repeat answers you have given before. I'm not talking about the mechanisms suggested for TOE. I'm interested in a Creationist account that includes all the evidences that we have (incomplete as they are). For instance, a single one off creation moment, day or week does not fit the evidence. Also, we see species appearing in an order consistent with TOE, but not described in scriptures. I am interested in hearing a Creationist account that is capable of including all the evidence we have in a structure that appears logical and consistent.

lol I love that you speak of 'misunderstanding' when I have already quoted you from the book itself what the creationist account is.
Otherwise I am not sure what 'order consistent with TOE' means and as opposed to what exactly? the way you write dismissing the finite details only describes what we see nothing more nothing less there's nothing to justify or make consistent with or not consistent with. It is as if someone states she has eyes and a nose and a mouth and ears on the side.. yes that's how faces look like, that is the baseline and anything that deviates from that isn't normal based on observation.

[Pygoscelis]

Whatever we see around us, yes, God intended it that way. But why are you looking at this one sidedly, choosing to focus only on suffering in life, and drawing conclusions from this? Surely, a fair approach is to look at the whole picture.

Yes. Look at the whole picture, realize you are claiming God to be all powerful, and realize that he must intend the horrible suffering in this world to exist. Sure, there is good as well, so maybe he is a little benevolent, but that doesn't change all the nasty stuff he made for us and subjects us to. A perfect creator could have avoided the sadistic diseases that face us.

You speak of disease and parasites, yet you ignore the fact that God also sent down their cure.

Did he? Last I checked we had lots of incurable diseases. And last I checked it was human scientists that came up with the cures we do have. And even if he did send both the problem and the cure, what does that tell us exactly? That he wanted to make us suffer, but only for a while? If he wanted to cure disease, then why did he put it on us in the first place?

Some questions are unanswerable. God, by definition, is greater than all of His creation. His knowledge and wisdom is beyond all of us. We can ask thousands of questions about why did He choose to do this or that, but we already know that there is a limit to our understanding, so it is pointless to go down that road.

No. These are perfectly fair questions. They are all we have to go by to judge this creator you claim to exist. We don't know exactly what his reasoning was that led him to make innocent children suffer through disease, but we do know he did that, if we presume he exists and is all powerful. And before you say it isn't for us to judge him, because we don't know everything, realize that you also judge him and deem him worthy of worship, and call him just and good, etc. If we presume an all powerful creator then all evidence I see points in the other direction.

[Pygoscelis]

:skeleton:

Like what's the point of replying? They think they know everything. Excuses, lies, "more evidence needed..,"

You contradict yourself. If they say more evidence is needed then they don't think they know everything. I have yet to meet an atheist who claims to have the perfect and complete answer to how we came to be. Theists on the other hand, claim that all the time, through "revelation".

[جوري]

We should start a separate thread a spin off the above post of do atheists believe they're entitled to immortality and where does that sense of entitlement stem from? in other words what have they offered if the existence of man can sometimes be construed to be less than that of animals for at least animals if eating, drinking pooping and procreating don't go out of their way to harm and torture and ruin wherever they go!

[Pygoscelis]

I think you posted this before and I read it then. You are still trying to pick holes in TOE but that's not my question - so that's not the answer.

Perhaps someone else could answer from a Creationist point of view?

Doubt it. Creationists always do this. They focus on attacking Evolution and never build a case for Creation Theory, because, as we saw earlier in the thread, they think the "default conclusion" is God-Did-It, rather than admitting they don't know. Its just another God of the Gaps thing.

[جوري]

Lol- so predictable is the defense of the ailing and the dying on top of all the folly and self aggrandizement and congratulations desire someone else to do their homework for them!

[Muhaba]

The fossil record and other evidences do not prove TOE, but are consistent with it. My question remains: from a Creationist point of view, why is this? Please allow someone else to answer.

I haven't studied the fossil records myself so I don't know if they are consistent with TOE or not and I can't accept everything someone tells me.

Have you studied the fossil records yourself?

[Muhammad]

Yes. Look at the whole picture, realize you are claiming God to be all powerful, and realize that he must intend the horrible suffering in this world to exist. Sure, there is good as well, so maybe he is a little benevolent, but that doesn't change all the nasty stuff he made for us and subjects us to. A perfect creator could have avoided the sadistic diseases that face us.

But this completely misses the point of this world being a test. This world was never meant to be a paradise in the first place, or else there would be no reason to have a Day of Judgement, heaven and hell.

Did he? Last I checked we had lots of incurable diseases.

They are currently 'incurable' because of limited research and understanding. That is not to say a cure will never be found.

And last I checked it was human scientists that came up with the cures we do have.

That is expected for an atheist to say. All the evil is attributed to God, but success and achievement is attributed to human beings. Many a time scientists/doctors do not even understand what the problem is, and yet a person still recovers.

And even if he did send both the problem and the cure, what does that tell us exactly? That he wanted to make us suffer, but only for a while? If he wanted to cure disease, then why did he put it on us in the first place?

Because when we look beyond a superficial understanding of these things, we can appreciate many wisdoms behind them. A simple example is that if we were never sick, we would never appreciate our health. People tend to only realise the value of something once it's taken away. In Islam, there are multiple ways of looking at it. Sickness and suffering is an expiation of one's sins, be it simply the prick of a thorn. Obviously someone who doesn't believe in God cannot appreciate this, so it makes more sense to establish the existence of God before attempting to reconcile who God is with our perception of reality.

No. These are perfectly fair questions. They are all we have to go by to judge this creator you claim to exist.

We have a lot more to go by than presumptuous and loaded questions.

We don't know exactly what his reasoning was that led him to make innocent children suffer through disease, but we do know he did that, if we presume he exists and is all powerful.

We also know His wisdom surpasses ours.

And before you say it isn't for us to judge him, because we don't know everything, realize that you also judge him and deem him worthy of worship, and call him just and good, etc. If we presume an all powerful creator then all evidence I see points in the other direction.

One wonders what evidence you are referring to. We are simply dealing with a matter of perspective. There is nothing here that can disprove the existence of God.

[Muhaba]

Doubt it. Creationists always do this. They focus on attacking Evolution and never build a case for Creation Theory, because, as we saw earlier in the thread, they think the "default conclusion" is God-Did-It, rather than admitting they don't know. Its just another God of the Gaps thing.

I want to know where the first matter came from if you say that God didn't create it. TOE does not tell us that and atheists never answer that question.

[Iceee]

I want to know where the first matter came from if you say that God didn't create it. TOE does not tell us that and atheists never answer that question.

They say they don't know... like always. Might take a year to find out, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years... They'll die knowing they don't know this answer.

[Pygoscelis]

There is nothing here that can disprove the existence of God.

Agreed. It doesn't disprove a creator existing. But it does tell us a lot about any creator that does exist.

[Pygoscelis]

They say they don't know... like always. Might take a year to find out, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years... They'll die knowing they don't know this answer.

Why does it make you so uncomfortable to admit you don't know? Admitting you don't know isn't a weakness. It is a strength. It is the first step towards wisdom.

[Independent]

I haven't studied the fossil records myself so I don't know if they are consistent with TOE or not and I can't accept everything someone tells me.

Have you studied the fossil records yourself?

The fossil record shows a development from no life, to simple life forms, to more complex lifeforms over a very long period. No one disputes this (apart from the 'Young Earthers' who dispute the age of the Earth, but as far as I'm aware most Muslims are not of that view). There is a clear progress in development of these fossils. (The relationship between these fossils is in dispute by Creationists - which is what Shaden keeps saying but that's not my point - I'm looking to understand the overall observable trend which is not in dispute. If they are not related, what else is going on that explains what we find?)

Within that general development, you can also see specific developments (eg bones) which having once occurred become more widespread, but which never occur in isolation at inappropriate moments in the fossil record. All this is entirely consistent with TOE. There could be another explanation - but what is it? Creationist spokespeople concentrate their energies in a negative attack on TOE and have little to say beyond that. I would like to know how Creationists account for those evidences which are not in dispute, but which are described and accounted for by TOE rather than the scriptures?

[جوري]

Again, what is your question? life was created in stage why is this news or even an issue?

Nuh (Noah) [71:14]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Waqad khalaqakum atwaran

71:14 "'Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse STAGES?
_______________________

Huwa allathee jaAAala alshshamsa diyaan waalqamara nooran waqaddarahu manazila litaAAlamoo AAadada alssineena waalhisaba ma khalaqa Allahu thalika illa bialhaqqi yufassilu alayati liqawmin yaAAlamoona

10:5 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out STAGES for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.

_____________

Az-Zumar (The Groups)[39:6]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Khalaqakum min nafsin wahidatin thumma jaAAala minha zawjaha waanzala lakum mina alanAAami thamaniyata azwajin yakhluqukum fee butooni ommahatikum khalqan min baAAdi khalqin fee thulumatin thalathin thalikumu Allahu rabbukum lahu almulku la ilaha illa huwa faanna tusrafoona

39:6 He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in STAGES, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?

___________________


if you're not looking for the creationist account that God created us in stages and made the earth ready for us by the presence of the previous creatures, then what is it you're looking for? The TOE account as you believe is observed in fossils is your cross to bear to prove the finite details of on a molecular level and in a scientific fashion not by long leaps of faith of putting skulls next to each other and then going voila 'evolution'!

[Independent]

Again, what is your question? life was created in stage why is this news or even an issue?

Why is life created and progressed in an order that is consistent with TOE, if evolution is not actually the process? Why imitate TOE but not actually use it? Why make self sustaining laws for physics etc but not for the development of lifeforms?

Please, do not try to answer the question if you don't understand it.

[جوري]

Why is life created and progressed in an order that is consistent with TOE,

It isn't!
proponents of TOE simply evolve their understanding of how TOE should work and still come up short!
It is science, should be demonstrable not based on empiricism!
Do you understand how TOE works? that is a more fair question before you propose that others build on a premise that's faulty to begin with!

[Muhaba]

Why is life created and progressed in an order that is consistent with TOE, if evolution is not actually the process? Why imitate TOE but not actually use it?

God said He created the universe in six stages. He also states in the Quran that at one time His throne was over water. Thus, it's likely that the first organisms God created were marine organisms. We know from religious texts that humans didn't always exist but were created at a later stage. Had religious texts claimed that humans existed from the beginning, then you'd have a case. Also, if God can at some point decide to create a being like humans then it's possible that He created the various living things at various different times, according to whatever plan He had.

As for fossil records showing one thing or another, I can't comment on that because I haven't researched it. I can't say that just because you or some other biased people claim that fossil records support TOE, it means that it does. Secondary research can never be accepted without diligence because the researcher may be biased and prepare the study and the results in such a way that it supports their own perspective.

Why make self sustaining laws for physics etc but not for the development of lifeforms?

Please, do not try to answer the question if you don't understand it.

God did make laws for the development of living things but within that species. For example, how a creature develops from conception to birth and then from birth to death all is according to laws and not direct intervention by God.

Please try to understand before you ask a question.

[Muhaba]

Why does it make you so uncomfortable to admit you don't know? Admitting you don't know isn't a weakness. It is a strength. It is the first step towards wisdom.

How about you go toward wisdom and start pondering where the first particles came from and who made them. After you figure that out, then we can discuss whether TOE is true or not. Basically it is a useless discussion because no matter how much TOE is verified, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Because existence of anything proves existence of the Creator.

Why remain an atheist if all the evidence points towards the existence of a Creator?

[Muhaba]

Yes. Look at the whole picture, realize you are claiming God to be all powerful, and realize that he must intend the horrible suffering in this world to exist. Sure, there is good as well, so maybe he is a little benevolent, but that doesn't change all the nasty stuff he made for us and subjects us to. A perfect creator could have avoided the sadistic diseases that face us.



Did he? Last I checked we had lots of incurable diseases. And last I checked it was human scientists that came up with the cures we do have. And even if he did send both the problem and the cure, what does that tell us exactly? That he wanted to make us suffer, but only for a while? If he wanted to cure disease, then why did he put it on us in the first place?




No. These are perfectly fair questions. They are all we have to go by to judge this creator you claim to exist. We don't know exactly what his reasoning was that led him to make innocent children suffer through disease, but we do know he did that, if we presume he exists and is all powerful. And before you say it isn't for us to judge him, because we don't know everything, realize that you also judge him and deem him worthy of worship, and call him just and good, etc. If we presume an all powerful creator then all evidence I see points in the other direction.

Suffering on earth is the result of man's own doing. Can we blame God for the suffering of children from HIV because their parents chose a filthy lifestyle or because evil people injected children with HIV? Many diseases are a punishment from God to make people change their ways, as proven by the various sexually transmitted diseases. instead of saying "our lifestyle is not right," mankind tries to avoid or cure the diseases by various methods and when unsuccessful, blames God. Other diseases are also because of mankind's actions. There are many diseases spread by filth, dirty water, lack of hygiene, etc. Such can be easily prevented by taking various precautions. Individuals and / or nations are responsible for the prevention of such diseases and when they don't take the steps necessary for prevention, then can we blame God??? If you get some disease because you didn't wash your hands after using the toilet, or because your government doesn't care about sanitation, then is it right to blame God?

Still, God created the world a test. Some people will cause diseases and will therefore deserve to be punished on the Day of Judgment. Others will suffer from no fault of their own and will have their sins expiated or will earn rewards. Death and disease will strike the good and bad alike and people such as yourself who are impatient and start blaming God for their troubles will suffer even more in this world and the next because along with God's excellent qualities, He is also the Avenger. While those people who are patient and thankful to God despite their suffering will be rewarded in the next world and may also be rewarded in this world. Such people may also be rewarded for their patience by having their suffering lightened in this world.

[MustafaMc]

Yes. Look at the whole picture, realize you are claiming God to be all powerful, and realize that he must intend the horrible suffering in this world to exist. Sure, there is good as well, so maybe he is a little benevolent, but that doesn't change all the nasty stuff he made for us and subjects us to. A perfect creator could have avoided the sadistic diseases that face us.

Greetings Pygo, no offense intended, but what you you have written reminds of John Lennon's song, "Imagine". It seems that your perception of how the world should be is an utopian one - a Garden of Eden, you might say. Correspondingly, it seems you have rather narrow view of what God should be like 'if He existed' and this view is that of a perfect loving and benevolent father taking care of his children. Since there is suffering in this world and since people are sent to Hell for eternity simply for not believing in and worshiping Him, then you see this is not fair and just which disproves the existence of God from your view of what His nature must be. I believe that God is beyond our ability to comprehend and that it is futile to try to pigeonhole Him into some preconceived idea of what He should be like based on our limited human understanding. We are here on earth and it is real, but if there is an eternity to be spent in either Heaven or Hell then this life has an ultimate meaning only in how it relates to the next life. I mention this here because belief in God is intimately intertwined with that of belief about our afterlife.

[MustafaMc]

Why is life created and progressed in an order that is consistent with TOE, if evolution is not actually the process? Why imitate TOE but not actually use it?

What we have of a so-called fossil record is very much incomplete and to assume that a few seemingly related fossils demonstrate evolutionary principles calls for an extreme leap of faith. In fact the fossil record demonstrates counter-evolutionary principles in that the changes did not occur gradually over eons of time, but rather quickly and in a concerted manner. Surely you have heard of the Cambrian Explosion. The manner by which God created the various species of life is beyond my ability to comprehend. I can see the 'evolution' of a single human embryo into first a zygote, then an infant, then a juvenile, then to an adult as a possible analogy for evolution of the species, but the process of human growth and development is programmed at the fusion of an egg and a sperm and occurs in an ideal environment for its nourishment and protection. Conversely, the information for the so-called evolution of the species from a Common Ancestor is not found in that crudely simple and microscopic unicellular 'ancestor'.

[Ali Mujahidin]

Why does it make you so uncomfortable to admit you don't know? Admitting you don't know isn't a weakness. It is a strength. It is the first step towards wisdom.

Just curious. Does your question imply that you do know? How about coming out with it loud and clear? Do you know for sure that God does not exist? From what you have said so far, you can only say that you have not seen any evidence that God exists. Just because you have not seen any evidence that God exists does not in the least prove that God does not exist.

Ask any man who is born blind. Ask the blind man what is the color of red. His answer will give you some idea what you are talking about when you say that you do not believe that God does not exist for the very simple reason that you have not seen any evidence that God exists. Perhaps you might be able to take the first step towards wisdom by admitting that you do not really know whether God exists or does not exist.

[MustafaMc]

Perhaps you might be able to take the first step towards wisdom by admitting that you do not really know whether God exists or does not exist.

hmm, the evolution of a theist - atheist > agnostic > theist.

[Pygoscelis]

Basically it is a useless discussion because no matter how much TOE is verified, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Because existence of anything proves existence of the Creator.

Who said evolution disproves God? We had a whole major part of this thread where a non-believer was arguing the two can co-exist and it was the theists who were saying no.

Why remain an atheist if all the evidence points towards the existence of a Creator?

Because all the evidence doesn't point towards such a thing. In fact, you've got no evidence or argument here beyond "It's the default!" and "Stop asking questions and start believing!"

[Pygoscelis]

Many diseases are a punishment from God to make people change their ways

And many are not. Some don't even involve viruses. Some are genetic defects. A flaw in the very building blocks you claim God made for you.

And "to make them change their ways" would require that if they did change their ways it would do something to end the disease. Disease doesn't usually work like that. Often once you've got it, its a death sentence and often a long prolonged suffering before that. And often people get disease through absolutely no fault of their own.

Others will suffer from no fault of their own and will have their sins expiated or will earn rewards.

What a concept. You suffer because God wants to abuse you, or should I say to "test" you, and if you don't complain he gives you a prize.

[Pygoscelis]

hmm, the evolution of a theist - atheist > agnostic > theist

Actually, believe it or not, most people I know who call themselves atheists also call themselves agnostic. And I am one.

We consider atheist to mean being without belief in Gods, and Agnostic to mean being without knowledge of Gods. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Many theist I know are also agnostic. They rely on faith and don't claim to have actual knowledge that Gods exist.

[Pygoscelis]

Just curious. Does your question imply that you do know? How about coming out with it loud and clear? Do you know for sure that God does not exist?

No. I do not know for sure that Gods do not exist.

I have stated that many times here.

I do not know for sure how the universe came to be.

Perhaps it has always been. Perhaps it is cyclical with big bangs an big crunches. Perhaps it split off another universe. Perhaps it came to be through some unknown process. Perhaps a God created it as a toy for her to play with because she was bored. Perhaps it is a competition between two cosmic entities. I don't pretend to know.

From what you have said so far, you can only say that you have not seen any evidence that God exists. Just because you have not seen any evidence that God exists does not in the least prove that God does not exist.

Correct. And the same applies to space aliens, faeries, ghosts, and anything else we can't falsify.

Perhaps you might be able to take the first step towards wisdom by admitting that you do not really know whether God exists or does not exist.

I started there. Perhaps you can join me? Can you admit you don't really know whether God exists?

[Independent]

God said He created the universe in six stages.

Well, six days is what is said, not six stages. I know there are arguments about the meaning of the word 'day' in this context. (There are always disputes over translation over key words which I find frustrating and similar to issues with the Bible - even though the Qu'ran is in its 'original' language.) But even if a day means 20,000 years, it's still not remotely close to what's needed.

I have seen some attempts to associate stages in the Earth's history to six stages in the Qu'ran but these are entirely speculative - you could invent 3, 9, 20 stages just as easily.Also, even if you somehow contrive 6 stages of development, in real life they are not the sdame length. Also, the Earth was very far from the first thing that was created in this universe.

if God can at some point decide to create a being like humans then it's possible that He created the various living things at various different times, according to whatever plan He had.

Of course - He can do whatever He wishes - but strangely, He has decided to create them in a certain order. He also decided to create other near-human species (Neanderthal and Denisovans) and then allow them to become extinct very recently. But this does not fit with anything in the scriptures. I think the scriptures have to be understood metaphorically, they do not assist with understanding our development.

God did make laws for the development of living things but within that species. For example, how a creature develops from conception to birth and then from birth to death all is according to laws and not direct intervention by God

That's my point - why has He made laws in every other aspect of life and the world, but not in this? Why start off building a mechanism for evolution (genetics) but then not finish it? Even with a religious context, it doesn't make sense with the rest of creation, it's not logical. You can tell me He has his own logic and humans can't understand it - but if his logic isn't human, then why call Islam a logical religion?

[observer]

No. I do not know for sure that Gods do not exist.

I have stated that many times here.

I do not know for sure how the universe came to be.

I think this is a really important point - it's been made a few times in this thread but bears repeating.

Atheists are so often accused of arrogance, of "thinking they know it all" but it's the exact opposite. We happily admit that we don't know it all, far from it. Anything not logically impossible is possible. God is not logically impossible so there must be the chance of there being a god.

I'm happy with that - there might be. But I'm certain in my own mind that none of the religions we have is correct.

I know that in a number of Islamic countries people are taught that atheists are evil (my Arab students are always shocked when they find out I'm an atheist - one Saudi woman said to once "but they always told us that atheists are bad") but actually, most of us are quite nice! And atheists, because of our lack of scriptures and dogma, are often (not always of course) amongst the most tolerant of people. If you look closely in the press and on the web, you'll find that a lot of the people demanding freedom of religious practice and freedom from religious persecution are atheists.

So I stand by science as the path towards greater knowledge of the universe, but I don't pretend that it has all the answers (yet :shade:).

[Gator]

Suffering on earth is the result of man's own doing. Can we blame God for the suffering of children from HIV because their parents chose a filthy lifestyle or because evil people injected children with HIV? Many diseases are a punishment from God to make people change their ways, as proven by the various sexually transmitted diseases.

What exactly did the children do to be punished by HIV?

Just curious as I would imagine a ultrapowerful creature could have maybe come up with a more effective and humane way of dealing with this. Aren't the parents already going to Hell, so he has to torture and kill their kids here too?

What if the wife who loves her kids terribly, has a slimebag cheating husband, which she didn't know about. So the kids have HIV (which the father couldn't care less about) and the wife has to watch her kids (and possibly herself) go through the anguish of HIV.

And could you also draw the line for me how this evil causes earthquakes and typhoid?

Bottom line, don't pay interest or eat bacon, otherwise I'll torture and kill you kids. This is just the result of primitive tribal thinking.

[Independent]

What we have of a so-called fossil record is very much incomplete and to assume that a few seemingly related fossils demonstrate evolutionary principles calls for an extreme leap of faith.

I know that you don't accept that a proven line of descent of any individual creature can be traced through fossils. But there are some things we can all agree on (apart from Young Earthers). I am not trying to prove TOE directly here. Instead, I am looking at the evidence from a Creationist point of view to see if it is a better fit than TOE.

1. In its totality, the fossil record does show a trend from the very simplest lifeform to the more complex. The relationship between individual creatures is unclear - but the general trend is beyond doubt. This is not what we would expect to see in a Creationist world. There is no reason whatsover for a Creator to invent creatures in an order from simple to complex over a long period. He could just as easily do them all in one go, or the most complex first, or any other combination in between. Had it been irregular in this way TOE would have been disproven to me or anyone else.

The existence of this progress does not eliminate the possibility of Creationism (God can do whatever He wants) but it is certainly a better 'fit' with TOE.

2. Looked at in more detail, the fossil record shows us beyond doubt that individual features or attributes (eyes, bones etc) appear at a specific point in history and then multiply into different species. We never see features appear anachronistically. Therefore, if the world is created by God, it must be that he decided to follow this particular pattern for reasons unknown. This pattern is consistent with TOE and 'explained' by it. Whereas with Creationism, it is not necessary and actually puzzling.

3. Geographical constraints...we can see certain types of creatures emerging in different parts of the world (eg marsupials in Australia). This is consistent with and explained by TOE (geographical isolation) but is unnecessary and puzzling in the context of Creationism.

4. Contraints of form...we can see that the creatures of this earth, although very diverse, are still within certain patterns. What's more, we can see how parts of the body (eg the bones of the inner ear) appear to have been re-worked and re-fashioned from other parts and other functions through history. Although the line of descent one to the other cannot be proven, it has a form consistent with that descent. Why is that? Even within a Creationist point of view, it would make more sense and fit more of the evidence to suggest that God has taken an existing bone (for example) and remoulded it to the next purpose. But this is so like what TOE also suggests that I'm not sure what Creationism adds...

To summarise...TOE is consistent with and explains more of the available evidence, even if we lay aside all claims for the descent and ancestry of any particular creature. TOE fits with the idea of a logical and consistent God more than Creationism.

[Muhaba]

What we have of a so-called fossil record is very much incomplete and to assume that a few seemingly related fossils demonstrate evolutionary principles calls for an extreme leap of faith. In fact the fossil record demonstrates counter-evolutionary principles in that the changes did not occur gradually over eons of time, but rather quickly and in a concerted manner. Surely you have heard of the Cambrian Explosion. The manner by which God created the various species of life is beyond my ability to comprehend. I can see the 'evolution' of a single human embryo into first a zygote, then an infant, then a juvenile, then to an adult as a possible analogy for evolution of the species, but the process of human growth and development is programmed at the fusion of an egg and a sperm and occurs in an ideal environment for its nourishment and protection. Conversely, the information for the so-called evolution of the species from a Common Ancestor is not found in that crudely simple and microscopic unicellular 'ancestor'.

Very informative post. Jazak-Allaho khairan! I wonder if the person inquiring about this has read it. A lot of times it seems these atheists / agnostics skip over much of the posts and just continue to repeat their biased ideas - without any scientific proof to back what they are saying.

[observer]

A lot of times it seems these atheists / agnostics skip over much of the posts and just continue to repeat their biased ideas - without any scientific proof to back what they are saying.

You may disagree with the scientific proof for evolution, but to say there is none to back it up is just not true.

[Muhaba]

What exactly did the children do to be punished by HIV?

Just curious as I would imagine a ultrapowerful creature could have maybe come up with a more effective and humane way of dealing with this. Aren't the parents already going to Hell, so he has to torture and kill their kids here too?

What if the wife who loves her kids terribly, has a slimebag cheating husband, which she didn't know about. So the kids have HIV (which the father couldn't care less about) and the wife has to watch her kids (and possibly herself) go through the anguish of HIV.

And could you also draw the line for me how this evil causes earthquakes and typhoid?

Bottom line, don't pay interest or eat bacon, otherwise I'll torture and kill you kids. This is just the result of primitive tribal thinking.

First you want freedom to do whatever you like and then when God doesn't use His power to stop the suffering that the likes of you cause, then you start complaining about God's Justice and Power!

God has given specific commands - that women must cover, that men and women must not freely mix with each other, that parents and society must care for their daughters and not allow them to put themselves in danger by wandering out alone at night or go to unknown places, that alcohol should be banned, that men and women should only have relations through marriage, etc. etc. When someone wants to implement such laws you call Islam an oppressive religion, a backward religion, a tribal religion etc etc. But when you get the freedom that you want and the results are suffering of the people especially innocent children, then you complain why God didn't stop it from happening. Well maybe the answer to this is through the earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Maybe in God's Wisdom it is kindness to the children to allow them to die through such natural disasters instead of enduring suffering in the world and also potential suffering in the next because such evil parents are sure to raise their children in ungodly ways bound for hellfire.

[Independent]

I wonder if the person inquiring about this has read it.

Yes I have (if you mean me) and replied to it above. I should add that the Cambrian explosion and other variations in the evolution rate are fully addressed within TOE, as I presume Mustafa knows. What would threaten to invalidate TOE is not changes in rate, but anachronistic develpments - but these never occur.

[Muhaba]

Yes I have (if you mean me) and replied to it above. I should add that the Cambrian explosion and other variations in the evolution rate are fully addressed within TOE, as I presume Mustafa knows. What would threaten to invalidate TOE is not changes in rate, but anachronistic develpments - but these never occur.

Actually your post was just a repetition previous ones. You didn't really reply to the argument raised by Br. Mustafa.

And you didn't provide evidence. Just stating that fossil records show something is not evidence. You have to include examples, which fossils prove your statement, how many fossils, where they were found, by whom, when, etc along with other supporting evidence, and finally backing it all up with citations - books and scholarly works, scientific websites, etc but not personal websites.

[Independent]

Actually your post was just a repetition previous ones.

I am obliged to repeat some things because they are not being answered. Part of the reason for that is that I am posing the question the other way round. Creationists habitually attack TOE and look for any flaw in any part of any evidence. A single flaw is deemed to bring the entire edifice crashing down and (mysteriously) prove Creationism at the same time.

I think it is interesting to look at the world from the point of view of the other side and this is what I am doing. I am trying to see whether what we know about the world fits best with Creationism, or with TOE. Which explains more evidence, which less.

And you didn't provide evidence. Just stating that fossil records show something is not evidence. You have to include examples, which fossils prove your statement, how many fossils, where they were found, along with other supporting evidence, and finally backing it all up with citations - books and scholarly works, scientific websites, etc but not personal websites.

This is not a reasonable or practical request. 100% of fossils support the observations I have made above. (For example, the first vertebrates appear in the cambrian explosion and are common afterwards, but there are none at all before.) No one is providing that kind of evidence about anything here. Also, it's not necessary, because the statements i have made about the fossil record are, as far as I know, not disputed by anyone (except Young Earthers) including Mustafa - at least not so far.

What he does disagree with is the notion that any ancestral line of descent or relationship can be traced between particular fossils. I am not claiming this in my observations above so it doesn't matter one way or the other, as far as my argument goes. I'm also not making any argument from genetics so any problem he may put forward in relation to genetics/mutation rate etc is not relevant here.

I am saying that TOE still fits the remaining evidence better than Creationism - and makes even more sense with a God who has also created the laws of physics etc.

[observer]

And you didn't provide evidence. Just stating that fossil records show something is not evidence. You have to include examples, which fossils prove your statement, how many fossils, where they were found, by whom, when, etc along with other supporting evidence, and finally backing it all up with citations - books and scholarly works, scientific websites, etc but not personal websites.

Well, here's a quick overview of human evolution in the fossil record with most of the info you ask for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

This is a link from the Smithsonian Museum, one of the most respected museums in the US, probably in the world. http://humanorigins.si.edu/

This is a link from Berkely about the evolution of man, notable scientists furthering the theory and a quick explanation of how evolution research has progressed http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_17

I mean, there are thousands of books on evolution. Your high school science text book will have explained what we know about evolution.

Bookwise, the grandaddy is Darwin's Origin of Species. The further reading list at the bottom of the wiki article is pretty comprehensive. I mean, it's pretty pointless to throw links about and books but evolution is the most readily accepted theory of the origin of life amongst scientists. It is not a crackpot theory that people desperately cling to to debunk god.

[MustafaMc]

God did make laws for the development of living things but within that species. For example, how a creature develops from conception to birth and then from birth to death all is according to laws and not direct intervention by God.

Assalamu alaikum, you are exactly correct about 'laws for development' and they are most amazing such as specific temporal and spatial of genes that are identically present in all cells of an individual. In contrast, there has not been demonstrated one iota of evidence that this prepotency was present in the supposed 'Common Ancestor'. The cascade of extremely precise changes needed for the development of a higher organism from an infinitely simpler one screams for the need of a Higher Being to make those changes down to the smallest detail of every single base pair in the genome of a species. The infinite wisdom needed merely to develop DNA and the process for its translation into specific protiens is enough for me to say, "Subhan'Allah" and it increases my faith in Allah (swt). It further amazes me how the beauty of this and the impossibility of its emergence through naturalistic evolution escape the atheist and agnostic.

[MustafaMc]

We consider atheist to mean being without belief in Gods, and Agnostic to mean being without knowledge of Gods. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Many theist I know are also agnostic.

I consider an atheist as one who actively believes that God does not exist, an agnostic straddles the fence and doesn't believe one way or the other while theists believe there is a God. Atheist = "God does not exist", Agnostic = "God may or may not exist", Theist = "God exists". Simple, but that is how I see it.

[Muhaba]

You may disagree with the scientific proof for evolution, but to say there is none to back it up is just not true.

actually what I wrote was that atheists aren't giving any scientific proof to back u what they are saying.

[MustafaMc]

TOE is consistent with and explains more of the available evidence, even if we lay aside all claims for the descent and ancestry of any particular creature. TOE fits with the idea of a logical and consistent God more than Creationism.

I don't have an issue with what appears from the outside as evolutionary origins for species over time, nor do I have an issue with instantaneous creation or the seminal pair of each species. I quite strongly believe in God as the Creator, but I don't know the exact physical means by which God created the species, including humans. I was not witness to the act, but I have the Qur'an that tells me certain things about creation that I accept without knowing whether they are literal or metaphorical. What I take exception to is the complete lack of acknowledgement by evolutionists that naturalistic evolution without any involvement by God in the process is completely inadequate to explain how each microbe, plant and animal species descended naturally from a prokaryotic, unicellular common ancestor.

[MustafaMc]

actually what I wrote was that atheists aren't giving any scientific proof to back u what they are saying.

You are exactly correct! We have immensely more knowledge about molecular biology and genetics today, but evolutionists cannot get beyond simple Mendelian genetics of 1900 to have any semblance of science to promote their ToE. They point to fossils and commonality of DNA across species as evidence, but they do not show any model by which the needed changes could have emerged without some Higher Being directing the process.

[Muhaba]

I mean, there are thousands of books on evolution. Your high school science text book will have explained what we know about evolution.

I didn't get brainwashed in high school with weird assumptions because I didn't study evolution. studied ecology instead - a much more interesting and more beneficial topic than evolution.

[Muhaba]

You are exactly correct! We have immensely more knowledge about molecular biology and genetics today, but evolutionists cannot get beyond simple Mendelian genetics of 1900 to have any semblance of science to promote their ToE. They point to fossils and commonality of DNA across species as evidence, but they do not show any model by which the needed changes could have emerged without some Higher Being directing the process.

i'm sure scientists like you can shed more light on this topic and it's important for scholars of Islam (who already have a sound foundation in Islamic knowledge) to study such things so they can respond to the claims of evolutionists and atheists. A lot of times these atheists are just making assumptions and pretend that what they are presenting is credible scientific facts when actually it's just biased baseless information.

[observer]

it's important for scholars of Islam (who already have a sound foundation in Islamic knowledge) to study such things so they can respond to the claims of evolutionists and atheists.

And that's the problem when religion tries to be scientific - you're starting from an answer (you know how life started) rather than a question (how did life start?). The truth should be the truth, islamic knowledge or not,.

[observer]

We have immensely more knowledge about molecular biology and genetics today

Indeed we do, and would you say that the majority of biologists and geneticists support or oppose the theory of evolution?

[Muhaba]

I am obliged to repeat some things because they are not being answered. Part of the reason for that is that I am posing the question the other way round. Creationists habitually attack TOE and look for any flaw in any part of any evidence. A single flaw is deemed to bring the entire edifice crashing down and (mysteriously) prove Creationism at the same time.

Actually, it's not the flaws or lack of flaws that bring down the edifice but the fact that TOE is contradictory to the statements of God. God has told us in the Quran that He created the first man Himself - God says that He created Adam with His Hands. Basically that proves that Adam was created by God directly and not like the rest of us are created or through evolution. We are all the creation of God but only Adam was created directly.

So, since God tells us that, it means that mankind didn't evolve from apes or anything else. Mankind was created as mankind. God's statement is all the proof we need for this. And since we now have proof (from scripture) that man didn't evolve from any other creature, we know that TOE is incorrect and flawed. No amount of scientific evidence can prove it correct because the theory is baseless.

However, we still need to prove this to atheists and other evolutionists and for that, it's important that we see and study the evidence so that we can bring out the flaws and show that the theory is wrong.

[observer]

So, since God tells us that, it means that mankind didn't evolve from apes or anything else. Mankind was created as mankind. God's statement is all the proof we need for this. And since we now have proof (from scripture) that man didn't evolve from any other creature, we know that TOE is incorrect and flawed. No amount of scientific evidence can prove it correct because the theory is baseless.

That's fine, and your faith is your faith. But that is, essentially, the end of the debate then, as we're working to 2 different concepts of proof. Your book can never be "proved" to be from god scientifically and I can never prove to you that there is no god. So it ends up as you saying "God did it" and me saying "No, he didn't" and we're at an impasse.

[Muhaba]

That's fine, and your faith is your faith. But that is, essentially, the end of the debate then, as we're working to 2 different concepts of proof. Your book can never be "proved" to be from god scientifically and I can never prove to you that there is no god. So it ends up as you saying "God did it" and me saying "No, he didn't" and we're at an impasse.

There's lots of evidence to prove that the Quran is from God. Just reading it will show you that it is. http://www.quran.com . If you haven't read it, then don't say it can't be proved.

[Pygoscelis]

Actually, it's not the flaws or lack of flaws that bring down the edifice but the fact that TOE is contradictory to the statements of God. God has told us in the Quran that He created the first man Himself - God says that He created Adam with His Hands. Basically that proves that Adam was created by God directly and not like the rest of us are created or through evolution. We are all the creation of God but only Adam was created directly.

So, since God tells us that, it means that mankind didn't evolve from apes or anything else. Mankind was created as mankind. God's statement is all the proof we need for this. And since we now have proof (from scripture) that man didn't evolve from any other creature, we know that TOE is incorrect and flawed. No amount of scientific evidence can prove it correct because the theory is baseless.

However, we still need to prove this to atheists and other evolutionists and for that, it's important that we see and study the evidence so that we can bring out the flaws and show that the theory is wrong.

This is refreshingly honest and forthright. We have seen a few hints of this throughout the thread but this is the first time I have seen it openly and directly stated. You reach your conclusion through faith and then try to justify it with reason, whereas we start without the answer, and admit we can't be sure, and then use reason and evidence to try to figure it out.

It really does mean an impasse. Because in answer to my question above, you CAN'T admit you don't know for sure. You have based everything on faith that you do.

So what happens when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it does disprove the religious accounts? Do you leave your religion? If we had absolute proof for evolution, would that be the end of Islam?

[Independent]

I don't have an issue with what appears from the outside as evolutionary origins for species over time

So, if I understand you correctly, you agree that the history of lifeforms on this planet does indeed take an evolutionary form or appearance - but you disagree about the actual method (ie entirely naturalistic v some degree of divine intervention)?

[Pygoscelis]

There's lots of evidence to prove that the Quran is from God. Just reading it will show you that it is. http://www.quran.com . If you haven't read it, then don't say it can't be proved.

Only muslims find that "evidence" convincing, because as you already stated, they need to, so they can be muslims and think it rational.

[جوري]

I can't go to the previous pages to quote.. but what is with the concrete thinking and approach to the Quran by lay people and not any lay people non-Muslims!
this means days, this means years not stages. Who are you actually to say what it means or doesn't mean. Furthermore, what does the disparity of our days to the days of God have to do with anything.. where is the connection between that and how much time it took to create the earth- there's no connection in the Quran, so why are you adding your own connection where none exists?

Also the fellow who speaks about AIDS, aside from Sr. Writer's reply to you which was accurate and to the point- these things are caused by mankind:


Abd Allah ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) came to us and said, 'O Muhajirun, you may be afflicted by five things; God forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication should become widespread, you should realise that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forebears never suffered. If people should begin to cheat in weighing out goods, you should realise that this has never happened without drought and famine befalling the people, and their rulers oppressing them. If people should withhold Zakat, you should realise that this has never happened without the rain being stopped from falling; and were it not for the animals' sake, it would never rain again. If people should break their covenant with Allah and His Messenger, you should realise that his has never happened without Allah sending an enemy against them to take some of their possessions by force. If the leaders do not govern according to the Book of Allah, you should realise that this has never happened without Allah making them into groups and making them fight one another." (Ibn Majah).

and we've already been warned in the Quran:
8:25 to top

Sahih International
And fear a trial which will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively, and know that Allah is severe in penalty.

indeed it is a mercy for some to be taken without the sins of the fathers but make no mistake there will be punishment. So go out there and picket for homos to get married and make it supreme law of the land... don't come complain later when you're taken by all kinds of disasters that have destroyed nations before you for the same exact transgressions- you can do better than the laws of Allah, then taste you the price of your defiance!

[Muhaba]

Only muslims find that "evidence" convincing, because as you already stated, they need to, so they can be muslims and think it rational.

Actually we don't need to but we do. It's convincing evidence that all can see except those who refuse to.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

You reach your conclusion through faith and then try to justify it with reason,

As before, you repeatedly assume that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. And yet God calls mankind repeatedly to reflect upon the creation and recognise His signs.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding. Those who remember Allah standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and think deeply about the creation of the heavens and the earth, (saying): "Our Lord! You have not created (all) this without purpose, glory to You! (Exalted are You above all that they associate with You as partners). Give us salvation from the torment of the Fire.
[Aal 'Imran 3:190-191]

whereas we start without the answer, and admit we can't be sure, and then use reason and evidence to try to figure it out.

If you admit that you can't be sure, should you not at least be agnostic rather than atheist? In the posts that I've been reading, I see bitterness and refusal to reason regarding the concept of God.

So what happens when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it does disprove the religious accounts?

Logically it can't happen because the same Creator of the universe is the One Who revealed the religious accounts.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Many theist I know are also agnostic. They rely on faith and don't claim to have actual knowledge that Gods exist.

I could not do the voluntary work of being a Street Pastor, if I did not have faith and trust in God. we shall be out tonight until 4 am, we can come into contact with large groups of drunks, angry people, suicidal, and troubled people, homeless and lots of wonderful people too. We do not go out to preach, but just to see if we can spread a bit of kindness in the community.

We give thanks to God for all the good things that happen and of course we do pray.

I shall now be away for a week, no time to add anything further, I hope you all keep well.

In the spirit of trusting in God

Eric
]

[Independent]

we can come into contact with large groups of drunks, angry people, suicidal, and troubled people, homeless and lots of wonderful people to

Difficult work, good luck with it. My sister in law was a vicar in a deprived inner London borough for many years and I sometimes felt she was picking up the pieces of social services as much as anything else.

[MustafaMc]

Indeed we do, and would you say that the majority of biologists and geneticists support or oppose the theory of evolution?

I know plenty of scientists, but I don't know any who are atheists. Maybe some of them are closet atheists though and keep it to themselves. I don't discuss evolution with them as religion would surely come in to play. Politics, religion and sexual orientation are not discussed at work.

[MustafaMc]

So, if I understand you correctly, you agree that the history of lifeforms on this planet does indeed take an evolutionary form or appearance - but you disagree about the actual method (ie entirely naturalistic v some degree of divine intervention)?

No, I don't agree that it 'does' merely that it 'appears' to be based on some of the fossil, biologic similarity and apparent phyologenic evidence. I don't know one way or the other, but I personally lean more towards an act of relatively instantaneous creation rather than a gradual evolution over eons of time. If it was the later, then, yes, I disagree about the actual method and see an entirely naturalistic approach is entirely illogical, but that Divine design and direct but gradual implementation through seemingly evolutionary means is possible.

[Gator]

I know plenty of scientists, but I don't know any who are atheists.

Maybe you should get out more.

[Muhaba]

I know plenty of scientists, but I don't know any who are atheists. Maybe some of them are closet atheists though and keep it to themselves. I don't discuss evolution with them as religion would surely come in to play. Politics, religion and sexual orientation are not discussed at work.

I heard in an Abu Ameena Bilal Philips video that most scientists believe in God. Those that don't are related to social sciences and not practical sciences. Also, the video stated that most people in Europe believe in God.

[جوري]

I heard in an Abu Ameena Bilal Philips video that most scientists believe in God. Those that don't are related to social sciences and not practical sciences. Also, the video stated that most people in Europe believe in God.

you're correct and there are research studies on that although I think these types of studies are useless - in other words what's the point of a survey of this nature? Should people base their beliefs on some logical fallacy? Abrahaem :saws: was the only believer along with his nephew during his time and described as an ummah by :Allah: :swt: it's true that there are folks who will come on the day of judgement blaming their leaders and sages and seek that they be twice punished but didn't :Allah::swt: equip us with reason and brains of our own? How sad that one should feel 'wise or smart' by proxy? Someone else did the thinking for them and there was no thought whether deep or superficial to investigate if there were any truth on what they're being taught and from a very early hour!
The problem also is that their society stratifies them in a caste system just like that of India but far more sinister because it's subtle and not in your face. They associate words together and ingrain them on people's minds to be liberal is to be progressive to be an atheist is to be a free thinker etc etc. when nothing could be further from the truth
They even have a study that atheists have a .06 IQ higher point than their Christian counter parts and I remember one atheist here now long gone well aside from changing his status after citing said study lol couldn't do basic math on his head - there was a very basic calculation about the lunar calendar as I'd a discussion with him and he seemed stumped by what should otherwise be considered fifth grade basic math!

You've to pity that not argue with it!

:w:

[Independent]

No, I don't agree that it 'does' merely that it 'appears' to be based on some of the fossil, biologic similarity and apparent phyologenic evidence

So to summarise your view (again if I understand correctly):

1. The overall fossil evidence is consistent with what one would expect of an evolutionary progress, but you think this is simply a matter of appearance, not the result of actual evolution/mutation/speciation etc.

2. You don't accept any ancestral or family link between individual fossils and you believe the apparent similarities are instead the result of entirely separate one-off divine creations, in a process repeated billions of times through history.

3. Therefore, new species are created by divine fiat but new individuals within a species are the result of the ordinary processes of reproduction.

4. You believe that DNA and other genetic process/systems are present only to allow a species to keep its form, as well as allowing limited change in response to the environment (ie what is termed 'micro evolution') - but not to permit or enable 'macro evolution' (ie speciation).

Assuming I have all that right I have a couple of other questions....why would God create lifeforms one by one roughly according to an evolutionary progress, rather than simply creating the means for evolution and letting it run? Why is this the only part of creation which seems to need continual acts of God? Would it not be more logical for God to treat this like the rest of Creation and make it self sustaining?

And is the anti TOE criticism really justified, seeing as the fossil record does have the appearance of an evolutionary progress, even if you don't agree it is the result of a naturalistic process?

[جوري]

Lol here we go again!

Mutations have names!
Want to use a mutation to speciate please?
Want you to mention one mutation that gives us anything other than a disease state- I will let br. Mustafa answer the rest but since you like the point system so much I wanna see
Day one frameshift mutation as am example caused a fish to sprout lungs and walk on land- can you do that pal pls? Otherwise don't use 'fossil record' to name names that are inconsistent with what we know of a science but only science fiction within the confines of an atheist mind that only desires the shell but not the core of the matter!

[جوري]

excellent article even though from a christian perspective I enjoyed the way he reasoned just the same:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...12&article=273

[Muhaba]

So to summarise your view (again if I understand correctly):

1. The overall fossil evidence is consistent with what one would expect of an evolutionary progress, but you think this is simply a matter of appearance, not the result of actual evolution/mutation/speciation etc.

2. You don't accept any ancestral or family link between individual fossils and you believe the apparent similarities are instead the result of entirely separate one-off divine creations, in a process repeated billions of times through history.

3. Therefore, new species are created by divine fiat but new individuals within a species are the result of the ordinary processes of reproduction.

4. You believe that DNA and other genetic process/systems are present only to allow a species to keep its form, as well as allowing limited change in response to the environment (ie what is termed 'micro evolution') - but not to permit or enable 'macro evolution' (ie speciation).

Assuming I have all that right I have a couple of other questions....why would God create lifeforms one by one roughly according to an evolutionary progress, rather than simply creating the means for evolution and letting it run? Why is this the only part of creation which seems to need continual acts of God? Would it not be more logical for God to treat this like the rest of Creation and make it self sustaining?

And is the anti TOE criticism really justified, seeing as the fossil record does have the appearance of an evolutionary progress, even if you don't agree it is the result of a naturalistic process?

This is basically a useless discussion. Our only problem with evolution is when it contradicts religious texts. When God says He created Adam Himself and not just created him but also that Adam was in heaven before being sent to earth, then this is something we're going to believe. As for other organisms, we don't know how God created them. Did He create them one by one? Or did he allow organisms to evolve into other species? Was the process of evolution ingrained in each organism's system or did God cause the evolution of each organism or evolution of one organism into a different species? What does the Quran and Hadith say about other life forms? What information is available in the Quran / hadith to negate or support any one theory? I do not know but I do know that there is a verse in the Quran that made me wonder what it meant when I read it: "Say (O Muhammad): 'Travel through the earth and see how the creation began.'" (29:20)

The verse before this states: Have they not considered how Allah begins creation and then repeats it? Indeed that, for Allah , is easy.

Whatever, the method of creation, it didn't happen by itself but because God made it happen. As for human's creation, God directly created the first man and then from him, created his wife. humans didn't evolve from apes.

[جوري]

This is basically a useless discussion.

Indeed as most discussions of this nature involve more verbiage than necessary in fact if you'd cut all these pages down to two words it would come down to what he said above in a word:

mutation

and prior to that in chromosomal translocation or fusion or acrocentric breaks etc. as the mechanism by which said evolutionary processes take place.. and we all know from molecular bio and genetics that said methods don't produce speciation or evolution but a disease state, the rest of the crap and that's literally what it is, and I am not going to apologize if that offends man or beast can be binned.
If you can't discuss the details but wish to classify this as science then be prepared to answer the hard questions.

:w:

[MustafaMc]

1. The overall fossil evidence is consistent with what one would expect of an evolutionary progress, but you think this is simply a matter of appearance, not the result of actual evolution/mutation/speciation etc.

The fossil record is an extremely thin line of evidence on which evolutionists depend for support of their theory. For you to have any credibility for serious consideration, you will need to understand molecular genetics and statistical probabilities and present a credible theory for how the species evolved unassisted and unguided by a Higher Power. You can begin with a simple case of the domestic horse and a zebra and show the details of how they evolved from a common ancestor. As the sister said above, "If you can't discuss the details but wish to classify this as science then be prepared to answer the hard questions." The reliance upon a theory based on broad generalities despite tremendous advances in biological understanding is most telling about the weakness of ToE.

The evidence I see in the similarity in molecular biology and genetics of closely related species that becomes more dissimilar as a hypothetical phylogenic tree ascends to a hypothetical Common Ancestor can be seen to support ToE. My work actually entails cross-species transfer of genes, but given my scientific understanding, I see that these transfers would never have taken place without the direct involvement of men. I see this as analogous to God creating the species through whatever means befits His majesty.

2. You don't accept any ancestral or family link between individual fossils and you believe the apparent similarities are instead the result of entirely separate one-off divine creations, in a process repeated billions of times through history.

... again fossils don't do much for me, but if you substitute 'molecular genetic' for 'fossils', then I would say, "Yes, I believe the later except I do accept apparent co-ancestry of related species." The issue I have is the reliance upon random mutation as the basic 'creative process' for genetic variation among individuals for natural selection to act upon. If instead the genetic variation can be proposed as having been created by a multitude of Divine fiats over time, then I can begin to become more comfortable with apparent evolution, but then again ToE would never allow for that as not being based on evidence.

3. Therefore, new species are created by divine fiat but new individuals within a species are the result of the ordinary processes of reproduction.

Yes.

4. You believe that DNA and other genetic process/systems are present only to allow a species to keep its form, as well as allowing limited change in response to the environment (ie what is termed 'micro evolution') - but not to permit or enable 'macro evolution' (ie speciation).

Yes, I do not see the speciating genetic changes as being possible without the direct involvement and redirection by a creative, intelligent being - God.

Assuming I have all that right I have a couple of other questions....why would God create lifeforms one by one roughly according to an evolutionary progress, rather than simply creating the means for evolution and letting it run? Why is this the only part of creation which seems to need continual acts of God? Would it not be more logical for God to treat this like the rest of Creation and make it self sustaining?

I don't know the answers to these questions and outside of the Qur'an I have no answer for a more basic question, "Why did God create us?" for which I find, {And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.} 51:56 and {That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.} 6:152

And is the anti TOE criticism really justified, seeing as the fossil record does have the appearance of an evolutionary progress, even if you don't agree it is the result of a naturalistic process?

Yes, it is justified because it is being presented as scientifically based and I disagree with the 'science' behind it. As a scientist I see that ToE is a pseudo-science that has a cult-like following even among some who are scientists themselves.

[MustafaMc]

Whatever, the method of creation, it didn't happen by itself but because God made it happen. As for human's creation, God directly created the first man and then from him, created his wife humans didn't evolve from apes.

... or an 'apelike' common ancestor. I personally believe the same as what you stated.

we all know from molecular bio and genetics that said methods don't produce speciation or evolution but a disease state

... and how this escapes proponents of ToE escapes me.

[MustafaMc]

excellent article even though from a christian perspective I enjoyed the way he reasoned just the same:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...12&article=273

Yes, that was an interesting article and it helped explain why some believe in ToE. Quoting from Reason #4 "... Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233). These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who say such things believe in evolution not because of any evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God....'

This website http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php shows that not all scientists accept ToE.

[Pygoscelis]

You can hem and haw all you want, but at the end of the day the Theory of Evolution has some evidence for it, even if it is evidence you don't find convincing, even if it is incomplete, even if it can't explain everything. Evolution has some evidence for it, from multiple areas of study. Creation by an all knowing all good all powerful God, on the other hand, has no evidence. How could it? It isn't falsifiable and goalposts are constantly moving back. All we get is "Stop asking questions and start believing!" and "Its the default assumption!" and "have faith". Creationists saying evolutionists start with an priori conclusion is the height of hypocrisy.

And claiming "it is the only alternative to special creation" is also very bold and unsupported. It shows an unwillingness to admit that we can't be certain, and that there may be a yet undiscovered truth that isn't evolution OR "special creation".

[جوري]

Lol bold and unsupported are the atheist claims indeed and 'some evidence' requires some explanation so far we've 13 pages or so of the same disdainful verbiage as above and nothing substantive!
Guess default and faith goes both ways here but the disillusioned would love to believe that some expedient effort was made even if it were all a great deal of nonsense!
Believers have glossy websites for their contents all the same where's the evidence based science?
Want to hold on to those beliefs no one is holdin you back but know that it's just that a substitution of beliefs you find unacceptable for an even more absurd set!

[Pygoscelis]

I would like to see you admit what I have admitted from the start.

I don't know for certain how the universe came to be.

I don't know for certain how life came to be on earth.

Can you admit you also don't know?

Or will you guys always duck that question?

Apriori assumption you say?

[جوري]

get a glass of water and calm down.. I repeatedly quoted from the Quran that the secrets of creation are with :Allah::swt: - perhaps if you read more and reacted less you'd have internalized that truth without presenting some fiasco an alternate truth and then binning it when the facts are laid out on the table!

best,

[Muhaba]

You can hem and haw all you want, but at the end of the day the Theory of Evolution has some evidence for it, even if it is evidence you don't find convincing, even if it is incomplete, even if it can't explain everything. Evolution has some evidence for it, from multiple areas of study. Creation by an all knowing all good all powerful God, on the other hand, has no evidence. How could it? It isn't falsifiable and goalposts are constantly moving back. All we get is "Stop asking questions and start believing!" and "Its the default assumption!" and "have faith". Creationists saying evolutionists start with an priori conclusion is the height of hypocrisy.

And claiming "it is the only alternative to special creation" is also very bold and unsupported. It shows an unwillingness to admit that we can't be certain, and that there may be a yet undiscovered truth that isn't evolution OR "special creation".

I want the answer to "Where did the first particle come from?"

Before you can even start thinking whether TOE has any possibility or not, you need to answer that question.

[جوري]

I want the answer to "Where did the first particle come from?"

In fact they need to answer that since they've already admitted that life as we know it didn't always exist!

[observer]

I want the answer to "Where did the first particle come from?"

Before you can even start thinking whether TOE has any possibility or not, you need to answer that question.

And the answer, as stated various times in this thread, is that we don't know. Does not knowing that render the whole of science invalid?

[جوري]

render the whole of science invalid?

You often draw wrong conclusions with the expectation from others to build on your brand of understanding.
I don't think you ask with the intent to listen or learn but the intent to simply reply with anything irrelevant!

best,

[MustafaMc]

I would like to see you admit what I have admitted from the start.

I don't know for certain how the universe came to be.

I don't know for certain how life came to be on earth.

Can you admit you also don't know?

I will admit, "I don't know for certain how the universe came to be and I don't know for certain how life came to be on earth; however, I do strongly believe that God created the universe, life itself, and all species of life." I have admitted genetic similarity between similar species that seems to be consistent with evolution, but I have also pointed out the deficiency of random mutation being a positive creative force for natural selection to act upon. I would like to see someone counter the points I have made to present ToE as a plausible working theory even with a simple example of how a horse and a zebra, or a donkey spontaneously emerged from a common horse-like ancestor. Perhaps even these obvious genetic similarities were created for truly thinking minds to ponder and to build their faith in God as the Creator, glorified and exalted is He.