Creationists dealt a blow

[root]

Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.

One of the main arguements "against" evolution was:

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

Source:http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.

But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.

The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.

The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."

I really don't like the use of the term "Intermediate" species however, it looks like the creationists are going to have to remove a very large piece of thier accusations leveled at Evolution. As of now the creationist statement as noted above is (as we all suspected) utter BS.

This is a major find that fills in the gap

Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.

Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm

The paper is due to be released in the journal "Nature" shortly.

[j4763]

Wow, amazing stuff, and i'm sure more of these "missing links" will turn up in the future as long as we keep on looking!

[nimrod]

I very good post Root, I have never understood why some folks have such a problem with evolution.

Thanks
Nimrod

[afriend]

Hmm.....

FAKE!!!!!

:sl:

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

[Islamicboy]

So what you are the types of people that believe a rock blew up all of a sudden world came and some how humans are the only smart one. Man can you even see how stupid that sounds. Besides fossils can be misleading at times.. Also if you were to reject God then answer this howcome Prophet Muhammed S.A.W knew what will happen in the future. Howcome An illiterate person can tell us the world is round and all the science that sciencetist have just found out ?

[afriend]

:sl:

EXACTLY!!!!!

It can't get any clearer than that!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

believe in a old dusty rock but not trillions of people who say god exists and creatd everything? LOL
man i think i'll go believe bush ova my mum next LOL LLOL ;D

[Skillganon]

Hey, when was that pundlished. Is that the Fish claim they made, where they found a fossil saying it is intermediar, but it happened that someone caught their intermediary species in the sea, it just a fish!!!

[Islamicboy]

Yes that sounds really stupid, probably why your ignorance has led you to not even understand what evolution represents and what it does not......

Think about it next time b4 u rush in again and spout your nonsense.......

Root I did take my time to learn about evolution. Those who follow evolution are racist because they believe blacks are not fully developed meaning whites are superior. Those who reject god tend to do evil as good came from god without gods rule which rule do we have????? Where did all these human rights, freedom of speech, jailing a person who commits a crime. Humans would not come up with these rules why should they care about others after death they got nothing. As we go into a world where atheist are taking over American and many western countries we can see the affects it’s having on the society. Homosexuals are being accepted as if its ok to be homosexual, at war times soldiers are cold hearted they will rape women also kill them even kids. I live in Canada and a man use to live couple of streets away from mine he raped his 6 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER I can see he does not believe in god. Of course because in gods rule its clearly forbidden. So before you reject God take your time to realize why whenever a person rejects god he tends to do evil acts which were not introduced to the society before. Clearly when the evolutionist came they destroyed the society as they came along Astagfurillaah May Allaah Protect us from this evil ideology And May Allaah Guide these lost people Ameen!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.

Root, you should at least try to maintain some consistency. If we accept your claim that creationism is not a scientific theory, then no amount of evidence will ever deal a blow to creationism; no amount of 'transitional forms' will ever weaken creationism. It only would if creationism was a falsifiable scientific theory.

As for the discovery itself, this is nothing new and hardly differs from other species such as Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Panderichthys, etc. - evidence which 'creationists' have already examined (eg.).

Regards

[PrIM3]

well I don't think evolutionist have proven it yet though they boast about it.. I seem to look more to the logical side of the story more than what they seem to want to do which is mislead people.. have they not forgotten that this is a fossil? a bonethat has not been around for awhile.. even snakes had legs where they could walk but the Bible teaches us that God took their legs away.. the evidence for that hip bone is even in the biology books.

God created many types of animals not just 1 or 2 or 3 and then leave.. oh no.. and well they say its a fossil in meaning that this guy was already dead...well it could have been another species of animal that died out.. now even the Bible talks about dinosours in it if you read Job 40-41 it talks about the Behoimoth ( spelling )...

in the Bible

Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

[i_m_tipu]

Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.

i wonder why there is no such change in creation
or some people produce fake pic or convey fake message to make their leader's believe stronger

some believe man (earlier version of man ; accroding to their believe)had a wish of being man and they converted into a man.

how stupid

i strongly believe man had wish of bird lot more than anything
why he not converted into bird??


peace...

[Trumble]

Root I did take my time to learn about evolution. Those who follow evolution are racist because they believe blacks are not fully developed meaning whites are superior.

Complete rubbish. Evolutionary theory was distorted and mis-used to justify racism by the Nazis and others in the first half of the last century, but what you say has no relevance whatsoever to current neo-Darwinism.

I could never understand how creationism survived, let alone has something of a comeback. What is described is all major religious works are so obviously just myths, and the evidence from the fossil record indisputable by anyone who looks at it with anything even approaching objectivity.

I think the reason it puzzles me so much is that it doesn't even really effect religion (debunking of those creation stories aside). The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with evolution at all, they just assume a dualist view of the body and soul and the problem goes away. Surely a God who designed the whole process of evolution is just as impressive (if that's the right word) as the God of Genesis?

[Muslim Soldier]

THE PROBLEM IS NOT JUST WITH EVOLUTION
IF YOU STUDY THE THOERY OF EVOLUTION you will see that it is a thoery of racialism, hate murder

visit this site

[Trumble]

THE PROBLEM IS NOT JUST WITH EVOLUTION
IF YOU STUDY THE THOERY OF EVOLUTION you will see that it is a thoery of racialism, hate murder

visit this site

Good grief. "Study" involves examining all the evidence objectively and reaching your own view. That site just peddles creationist propaganda that would convince nobody who didn't believe it before.

[root]

Oh boy the old "Darwin was a racist" accusation. Virtually all Englishmen in Darwins time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually different. some men at this time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species.

The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.

The mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. To say your DNA differs from mine does not make me a racist.

Here is a quote from Charles darwin:

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place."

Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313

Does that sound racist to you?

Finally, on racism & evolution. There is nothing inherent in evolutionary theory (which is not a "philosophy") that is racist; in fact, everything we know from evolutionary theory leads to the opposite conclusion, that what we call "races" do not differ biologically in any significant way. And unless you're willing to blame the KKK on Christianity, trying to blame the misuse of evolution to justify racism is hypocritical at best, downright idiotic at worst.

Ansar - Root, you should at least try to maintain some consistency. If we accept your claim that creationism is not a scientific theory

Wrong. It's not "my" claim at all, it's a fact that Creationism/ID is not a theory because it consistently fails to validate itself as such.

Ansar - no amount of 'transitional forms' will ever weaken creationism. It only would if creationism was a falsifiable scientific theory.

Wrong. You keep misusing the word "theory", how can creationism be a falsifiable theory if it is not a theory to begin with.

Ansar - As for the discovery itself, this is nothing new and hardly differs from other species such as Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Panderichthys,

Wrong. It differs greatly because it is a fish showing transitional traits to tetrapod and does differ from all other species during this period that we currently know about within this period of time.

[HeiGou]

FAKE!!!!!

Ahhh, I am begining to understand how it must feel to be a Muslim.....

Poor you, poor blind you, poor blind Iqram who has such a narrow view and closed mind and so misses the wonder and glory of the Universe!

Isn't the Universe so much more rich and amazing with such creatures having been in it than with them being fakes?

[------]

Ahhh, I am begining to understand how it must feel to be a Muslim.....

How do u mean...:?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I think evolution does exist in certain places.

However, to extend that to humans, i disagree. One of the main sources of humans evolution was ape, yet the ape is still around last time i watched the discovery channel.

Perhaps, evolution occurs only in certain species?

[HeiGou]

I think evolution does exist in certain animals.

However, to extend that to humans, i disagree. One of the main sources of humans evolution was ape, yet the ape is still around last time i watched the discovery channel.

Perhaps, evolution occurs only in certain species?

You are thinking of evolution as linear progress. Everything changes all the time. So the apes we see today are the descendents of apes that lived a long time ago. And at some point our family tree joined their family tree and we had a common ancestor. Don't think of the apes as your Grandfather, but as your cousins. We have a common Grandfather, but that does not mean we do not have cousins too.

Darwin's theory rests on three fundamental propositions

1. The Earth and all that is on it have been around for a long time.
2. Children inherit their looks and stuff from their parents.
3. The better adapted any individuals are to their environment the more children they will have.

Do you think that all of the above apply to humans? If so I do not see how you can deny evolution in humans.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Oh cool!

You are thinking of evolution as linear progress. Everything changes all the time. So the apes we see today are the descendents of apes that lived a long time ago. And at some point our family tree joined their family tree and we had a common ancestor. Don't think of the apes as your Grandfather, but as your cousins. We have a common Grandfather, but that does not mean we do not have cousins too.

Ah I see where you're coming from.

Darwin's theory rests on three fundamental propositions

1. The Earth and all that is on it have been around for a long time.
2. Children inherit their looks and stuff from their parents.
3. The better adapted any individuals are to their environment the more children they will have.

Do you think that all of the above apply to humans? If so I do not see how you can deny evolution in humans.

Yeah it can apply to humans. Is there any scientific evidence, however, of the pre-ape beings that would, if what you say is true about humans and ape being cousin-like, have been alive before the cave-man era? Perhaps this answer would help me understand better.

One last question: are humans the last in the chain of evolution?

p.s:That's some interesting information, much appreciated.

[HeiGou]

Is there any scientific evidence, however, of the pre-ape beings that would, if what you say is true about humans and ape being cousin-like, have been alive before the cave-man era? Perhaps this answer would help me understand better.

One last question: are humans the last in the chain of evolution?

Well we are here. So we are the final product I guess. Humans and apes diverged a long time ago and there have been a lot of intermediate steps involving species now extinct,

You might be interested in this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Or this on the larger family to which we belong,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

As discussed above, hominoid taxonomy has undergone several changes. Current understanding is that the apes diverged from the Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago. The lesser and greater apes split about 18 mya, and the hominid splits happen 14 mya (Pongo), 7 mya (Gorilla), and 3-5 mya (Homo & Pan)

p.s:That's some interesting information, much appreciated.

Thanks. Do my best.

[root]

One of the main sources of humans evolution was ape, yet the ape is still around last time i watched the discovery channel.

OMG, such remarkable display of ignorance.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Those who reject god tend to do evil as good came from god without gods rule which rule do we have?????

What a ludicrous generalisation. Do you think all agnostics, atheists and Buddhists are therefore evil?

Where did all these human rights, freedom of speech, jailing a person who commits a crime. Humans would not come up with these rules why should they care about others after death they got nothing.

How do you know humans wouldn't come up with morality? Moral systems throughout history have essentially been the same, whether the society was religious or not.

As we go into a world where atheist are taking over American and many western countries we can see the affects it’s having on the society.

I'd say fundamentalist Christians have got a pretty strong foothold in America just now.

Homosexuals are being accepted as if its ok to be homosexual

There's nothing wrong with being homosexual. It's not my own orientation, but I see no reason to denigrate gay people. Have you suffered great evil at the hands of a gay person or something?

at war times soldiers are cold hearted they will rape women also kill them even kids.

True - war can be exceptionally brutal. But what does this have to do with people who reject god? Religious people in war can be very brutal as well.

I live in Canada and a man use to live couple of streets away from mine he raped his 6 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER I can see he does not believe in god.

Do you think that he did that because he doesn't believe in god, or just because he was a nasty piece of work in general?

Of course because in gods rule its clearly forbidden.

It's forbidden in every moral code I can think of, whether religious or non-religious.

Clearly when the evolutionist came they destroyed the society as they came along

How have evolutionists destroyed society? Has the massive expansion of modern biology really been such a malign influence?

Peace

[HeiGou]

OMG, such remarkable display of ignorance.

He's young, he's learning. Help him up. Don't put him down.

Two seconds of typing without two minutes thought can hurt!

[root]

One last question: are humans the last in the chain of evolution?

Definately not. Evolution has no "end game" and followed no specific course and life continually adapts as evolutionary history has shown us. Evolution never began with a pre determined plan to have a "Human" as the end product.

He's young, he's learning. Help him up. Don't put him down.

Two seconds of typing without two minutes thought can hurt!

Point taken. I offer my apologies, I get a little frustrated the ammount of time people qoute:

"If we came from apes how comes apes still exist"

Once again, apologies dude.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
That's a lot of info HeiGou, it'll take me a while to read it all so i'd best start now. Thanks for the late Eid present. :).

OMG, such remarkable display of ignorance.

It seems the world is not ready for my sense of humour. Back to Oz i guess. Come now toto, much reading to be done.

[Muslim Soldier]

Let us talk logic

Human beings evolved according to your claims. From what did they evoleve?
I need an answer please

[aamirsaab]

Definately not. Evolution has no "end game" and followed no specific course and life continually adapts as evolutionary history has shown us. Evolution never began with a pre determined plan to have a "Human" as the end product.

Ok, cool. So, what exactly is the next stage of evolution? What are the "disadvantages" of our current stage of evolution?

Point taken. I offer my apologies, I get a little frustrated the ammount of time people qoute:

"If we came from apes how comes apes still exist"

Once again, apologies dude.

Accidents happen :), apology accepted.

[HeiGou]

Ok, cool. So, what exactly is the next stage of evolution? What are the "disadvantages" of our current stage of evolution?

Well one thing is that modern medical science has taken the pressure off the human race so in many ways we are getting "worse". It is a good thing to have a big head for instance, and humans already have disproportionately large heads. Giving birth is much harder for humans than almost any other species because babies' heads just don't fit that well. In the past a lot of mothers and babies would have died keeping head size down. They do not any more because the mothers all have medical intervention. So expect human heads to get a bit bigger.

Another thing is Tay-Sacks disease which strikes down otherwise normal children between the ages of two and five. This affects mainly Jews of Eastern European origin. A Rabbi called Josef Ekstein started an organisation called Dor Yeshorim after losing four children to Tay-Sacks. It tests for the genes for Tay-Sacks and advises some marriages to go ahead and some not to. This has cut the number of cases in the Orthodox Jewish community down to lower levels than the mainstream American population. But the down side is that it is spreading the genes for Tay-Sacks into the wider community and so making more people carry the gene. Evolution is action.

[Muslim Soldier]

come on answer my quesion

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Let us talk logic

Human beings evolved according to your claims. From what did they evoleve?
I need an answer please

This link, posted by HeiGou earlier, answers your question quite comprehensively.

Peace

[Muslim Soldier]

I dont want my question to be answered by that.
I want to discuss
Are you ready?

[root]

Human beings evolved according to your claims. From what did they evoleve? I need an answer please

Your answer is primitive single cells. Remember "Evolution" is only the theory of how life emerged from an already existing cell. IT DOES NOT cover how the very first life arose. (A big misconception peddled by creationsits)

Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).

Ok, cool. So, what exactly is the next stage of evolution? What are the "disadvantages" of our current stage of evolution?

Evolution is comparable to history so to suggest a future path of evolution is no more accurate than predicting the future of our cultural and social future. Both Evolutionary history and human social history have not followed a set pattern nor will they both in the future.

Some instances of future evolvement and evolution currently active are as follows:

Lactose tolerence in humans: Physiological and, to a large extent, the subsequent psychological evolution of humankind is based on the continuing changes in the common genetic composition of the species. In turn, anthropologists have found, this evolutionary trend in genetic composition of humans has been continuously influenced by certain factors within the cultural environment to which humans, as an animal species, are more susceptible to than any other animal species, including the ones closest to the human species – the great apes. There is also considerable variance in genetic composition among different human population groups generated by many factors, including cultural ones. One such variance is ability to digest milk

Additionally, 12% of Europeans are actually immune to AIDS and this is due to a "mutated gene" in response to the numerous plagues that swept europe during the middle ages. Chance has it that this mutation also protects the body from HIV. predators force are a big evolutionary force and disease whilst not really qualified as a predator to us is undoubtly another reason why we continually evolve.

Finally, a cautionary note. Evolution does not specifically care for the preservation of any given species and evolutionary history teaches us that us "Humans" will face mass extinction at some point and evolution will continue to move forward without us clearing the way for the next dominant species to take our place.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Wrong. It's not "my" claim at all, it's a fact that Creationism/ID is not a theory because it consistently fails to validate itself as such.

Like I said, you claim that it is a fact that creationism is not a theory. Thank you for supporting my point. Now would you mind answering it? If you claim that creationism is not a theory then no amount of evidence will ever deal a blow to creationism. Hence your entire post here is off-target, beginning with the title.

Wrong. You keep misusing the word "theory", how can creationism be a falsifiable theory if it is not a theory to begin with.

Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?

Wrong. It differs greatly because it is a fish showing transitional traits to tetrapod and does differ from all other species during this period that we currently know about within this period of time.

So it differs 'greatly; because
1. because it is a transition to a tetrapod
2. and because it differs greatly

Wonderful demonstration of logic, root. It differs greatly because it differs greatly. And maybe you should learn about the other species I mentioned because they were also labeled as transitional forms from fish to tetrapod.

Regards

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

in fact, everything we know from evolutionary theory leads to the opposite conclusion, that what we call "races" do not differ biologically in any significant way.

Yet another inaccuracy in your post:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives...on_revisit.php

In June, Mr. Rushton and University of California psychology professor Arthur Jensen published a 60-page study in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association. In it, the scholars presented 10 categories of evidence, including military and academic tests, brain size and adoption studies, to support their contention that East Asians as a group enjoy an evolutionary advantage over whites, and whites over blacks, that has contributed to measurable intelligence gaps between them.

“Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause,” the authors wrote.

The cause of that difference is contentious. Some blame the tests, arguing that they measure a narrow, western notion of intelligence. Others say intelligence is primarily determined not by genetics but by environmental factors: poverty, nutrition, parental education, discrimination, the quality of local schools.

But Mr. Rushton and Mr. Jensen posit that 50 to 80 per cent of the IQ gaps between racial groups can be explained by genetics, by the gift of inherited intelligence.

...In other words, those who design social policy should not seek to create equality between racial groups—an impossible outcome in Mr. Rushton’s mind—but learn to live with the statistical differences.

...They argue that their research is important because “we will never make progress in race relations if we operate on the belief that one segment of society is responsible for the plight of another segment and that belief is false.”

They suggest that policy-makers and judges have mistakenly ascribed “the underachievement of black people to prejudice and discrimination by white people,” rather than to genetic disadvantages. Mr. Rushton and Mr. Jensen then cite the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which outlawed racial segregation in schools, as an example of a decision based on just such a wrong-headed assumption.

[HeiGou]

Yet another inaccuracy in your post:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives...on_revisit.php
[indent]In June, Mr. Rushton and University of California psychology professor Arthur Jensen published a 60-page study in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

That is not a fair criticism. The fact that you can find a neo-Nazi website and quote it is not an inaccuracy on the part of Root. Nor is the fact that Professor Jensen, a long-time advocate of racism and, it has been suggested, a fabricator of evidence and Mr Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund, hold a view proof of anything much.

In this science agrees with Islam - race is not important and all men are brothers.

[Islamicboy]

Greetings,
What a ludicrous generalisation. Do you think all agnostics, atheists and Buddhists are therefore evil?

How do you know humans wouldn't come up with morality? Moral systems throughout history have essentially been the same, whether the society was religious or not.

I'd say fundamentalist Christians have got a pretty strong foothold in America just now.


There's nothing wrong with being homosexual. It's not my own orientation, but I see no reason to denigrate gay people. Have you suffered great evil at the hands of a gay person or something?



True - war can be exceptionally brutal. But what does this have to do with people who reject god? Religious people in war can be very brutal as well.



Do you think that he did that because he doesn't believe in god, or just because he was a nasty piece of work in general?



It's forbidden in every moral code I can think of, whether religious or non-religious.



How have evolutionists destroyed society? Has the massive expansion of modern biology really been such a malign influence?

Peace

Yes Majority of atheist and people who reject god are evil for me i dont know about you.
Why would humans ban for themselves the things that they will like such as marriage why get married. Majority Genva conventions laws come from religion specally Islam.
Because of Homosexuals we have aids today and because of people going around sleeping around its spreading.
people who reject god dont have the same morals and values as a person who believes in god.
If a person feared gods wrath they would never do such evil crimes i believe those who dont have strong faith in god such as him.
There is no law and order in people who dont have Religion if people were to fornicate on the streets the people who believe in god dont care.
People who believe in evolution are the ones who said Blacks are animals thats how slavery worked even at that time black people use to be put in cage and researched astagfurillaah. Many more evils happen because of people like you becuase this is the life you have to live. If there is no God what do u have after this life nothing thats why if a theist wants money they will rob they hate someone they can kill them there is nothing going to happen to him. look at the majority cases in america like the BTK killer do u think he had faith in god ?? I highly dought it. People with faith will treat this life as temporary and the next life as everything. so money, cars, etc.. dont matter to them as much.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Please, let's keep this thread on evolution and not atheism, morality, homosexuality or any of those other topics which have numerous other threads on the forum.

:w:

[Muslim Soldier]

Your answer is primitive single cells. Remember "Evolution" is only the theory of how life emerged from an already existing cell. IT DOES NOT cover how the very first life arose. (A big misconception peddled by creationsits)

can you explain onething?
Since you claim that humans originated from apes, why is it that humans walk on two legs while apes on four? Since having four legs makes one more stable, why has evoultion undergone negative development?

[root]

Ansar - Like I said, you claim that it is a fact that creationism is not a theory. Thank you for supporting my point. Now would you mind answering it? If you claim that creationism is not a theory then no amount of evidence will ever deal a blow to creationism. Hence your entire post here is off-target, beginning with the title.

I fail to see how I have supported your point when you have claimed creationist theory status to which I am simply saying your point here is "wrong". Since creationism has no supporting evidence other than using "faith", creationism/ID attempts to validate itself by attempting to discredit evolution. Hence, one of the criticisms from creationists to evolutionists is the lack of transitional fossils, they claim teir are none. This post shows that to be a false accusation with this recent discovery so how it is "off-target" defies belief.

Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?

For the same reason I just gave. Cretionism/ID does not bring any supporting scientific nce one exists, creationism/ID seeks to discredit evolution in trying to validate itself. I say "wrong" simply on the basis you are wrong

Then if it is not a theory then how can you claim it was 'dealt a blow'?! That could only be the case if it was a falsifiable theory. Did you even bother to think over what I wrote or did you think you could get away by simply responding with "wrong" ?

yes I did, I even had a ponder on your paradox of a falsafiable theory for something that is not a theory. remember, creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.

So it differs 'greatly; because
1. because it is a transition to a tetrapod
2. and because it differs greatly from all other species during this period that we currently know about within this period of time.

Wonderful demonstration of logic root. It differs greatly because it differs greatly. And maybe you should learn about the other species I mentioned because they were also labeled as transitional forms from fish to tetrapod.

Yes, I did say I disiked the word "transitional". However, the species you talk about are known as ancestors the same as the species uncovered in this thread. However, none of the species you mention contained transitional bone structure making this species very different.

I have bolded in black what you have left out from my original post, it makes more sense if you include the full sentence eh?

[HeiGou]

There is no law and order in people who dont have Religion if people were to fornicate on the streets the people who believe in god dont care.

As traditional China shows so well.

People who believe in evolution are the ones who said Blacks are animals thats how slavery worked even at that time black people use to be put in cage and researched astagfurillaah.

When were Blacks ever put in cages and "researched"? And African slavery pre-dates evolution by about 2000 years. Nor did a lack of belief in evolution stop Muslims enslaving Blacks.

If there is no God what do u have after this life nothing thats why if a theist wants money they will rob they hate someone they can kill them there is nothing going to happen to him.

Well in Indonesia and other places, if a Theist wants money they will rob a Chinese person, and they can kill them too, because some how they have an idea in their head that Buddhists are evil people who will go to Hell. How could they have got that idea do you think?

look at the majority cases in america like the BTK killer do u think he had faith in god ?? I highly dought it.

Actually he did. For some reason he seemed to think that the women he killed in this life would be his sex slaves in Heaven. The guy was so screwed up it is a wonder he could operate in normal society.

People with faith will treat this life as temporary and the next life as everything. so money, cars, etc.. dont matter to them as much.

And hence some small number of them do not mind getting on buses in London and blowing themselves up.

Find me an atheist who has ever done that.

[------]

And hence some small number of them do not mind getting on buses in London and blowing themselves up.

Thats pathetic that...

[HeiGou]

can you explain onething?
Since you claim that humans originated from apes, why is it that humans walk on two legs while apes on four? Since having four legs makes one more stable, why has evoultion undergone negative development?

What makes you think it is a negative development? Presumably at some time in the past, our ancestor found it was an advantage to walk on two legs instead of four and so freed our hands for using tools and writing and typing on this key board. The latest theory is that when our ancestors came out of the forests and into the hot plains, standing upright allowed us to see further over the grass (for lions for instance) and kept us much cooler.

But who knows?

[HeiGou]

Thats pathetic that...

Well it is a cheap shot and a low blow, but it is not pathetic. It is too sad for that.

Like I said, show me an atheist who has done that.

[Trumble]

:sl:

One last question: are humans the last in the chain of evolution?

What you accept as an answer to that may well depend on your own religious beliefs - even if you accept neo-Darwinism and evolution as, at least, the best theory. (It can never be "proven" - any more than any other scientific theory can).

If you didn't believe in a God at all, there would be no reason to think evolution would stop with man. Why should it? Its easy to concieve of another species that might evolve from us that at some stage would replace us, just as homo sapiens (us) replaced other hominids. It might be smarter - smart enough not to destroy itself, or it might have a characteristic currently impossible to predict that would help it survive some global catastrophe.

If you believe in God (one that designed the workings of the universe, not a Genesis style "creator"), you might think the same. Why not - why should we be the end of the line? That doesn't mean such a God would love us any the less. Take a look at the world from what you see in newspapers, TV or what you read here. Is it so hard to imagine that mankind may have some way to go before he reaches God's final blueprint? Alternatively, you may think God intended to end up with us, or that there was no evolution at all. Personally, I find that unbelievably arrogant. As a species, we are just so imperfect. We kill, cheat, lie, build atom bombs, destroy other species and ruin the beautiful planet around us. What's so great about us? We squabble over nothing, sometimes under the banner of religion but can that really be what an all knowing, all powerful, loving God had in mind?

[Muslim Soldier]

from what I know, apes can stand on two legs when they need to.
Explain why humans who evolved from apes need two legs

[cleo]

There is the option of knowing the truth from a fiction idea, but you need to decide which one you believe?

[HeiGou]

There is the option of knowing the truth from a fiction idea, but you need to decide which one you believe?

Indeed. What test would you perform to distinguish a fiction from the Truth?

[HeiGou]

from what I know, apes can stand on two legs when they need to.
Explain why humans who evolved from apes need two legs

Because they would look silly with none.

I have replied to this before haven't I?

Meerkats also tend to stand upright a lot.

[Muslim Soldier]

how come apes have 48 chromosomes but humans have 46

[root]

can you explain onething?
Since you claim that humans originated from apes, why is it that humans walk on two legs while apes on four? Since having four legs makes one more stable, why has evoultion undergone negative development?

Humans walk on two legs (Bipedal) because humans have always walked Bipedal! If your asking why "pre-human" species took to bipedal then any one single answer is not easy and often evolutionary change soes not come about by a single event, please allow me to explain.

Bipediality is not disadvantages.

Early primates evolved at a time when most of the planet was deep jungle/forest terrain. It makes sense that primates evolved to a life in the tree's as a good means of avoiding predators as no natural predators existed for them whilst in the safety of the canopy. Primates ruled this period of time as the most prominent species.

Geologically, around the same time that we find the first evidences of bipediality the earth was going through major enivronmental climate changes in that the planet became drier and open planes developed. Selection pressures would follow to this newly developing environmental and climate change. Many advantages are to be gained as early Homo moved to exploit new niches and adapt to the new environment.

A good (quick) read for more detail can be found here:
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bipedalism.html

It explains better the thermoregulatory advantages of bipedal and explains better the selection pressures that primates and early homo experienced.

[HeiGou]

how come apes have 48 chromosomes but humans have 46

Apes and humans diverged a while ago. Plenty of time for changes to have occurred. But this may not be such a big change. Why do you think it is important?

The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae are not clear, but the family generally includes those species who share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language and for simple cultures beyond the family or band. The theory of mind, providing the capacity to lie convincingly, is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age, whereas the bonobo, gorilla and chimpanzee never seem to do so.

[root]

how come apes have 48 chromosomes but humans have 46

Chromosomes are a poor guide to common ancestory, some species have differing chromosomes numbers within thier own species. Chromosomes are the packaging for DNA and all life has approxomately 300,000 DNA strings.

[Muslim Soldier]

you say evolution took place where is the fossil evidence?

[root]

you say evolution took place where is the fossil evidence?

Remember that evolution is not supported only through fossils but go back to the first post! or alternatively:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

"As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications."

Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species, p. 171

[Abu Omar]

Who cares about this? Is this more "evidence" than any other fossile? For almost every single fossile found the evolutionists are quick to interpret it into their chains of evolution. Evolutionists are scared of their theory being questioned. I've heard that once, Richard Milton, a science journalist (and a non-creationist) wrote a book which shows that the earth could be as young as 175.000 years. But when Richard Dawkins, a militant atheist, reviewed it he was filled with hate and accused the author of being mentally ill!

Not that the age of the earth matters to me as a Muslim, but this truly shows that something sacred to him was being violated...

Atheists often label themselves as critics and sceptics, presumably doubting what they hear and investigate it. And when it comes to religion, they indeed do that. The atheists' main competitor in history is Christianity. And indeed atheists often find a lot of faults in Christianity, tearing some aspects of it into pieces, but are unable to recognize a single fault when it comes to evolution. Indeed, when it comes to evolution most atheists for some reason feel that there is no reason to being sceptical to what is presentated, they just blindly accept it and all kind of scepticism or investigation ceases when it comes to evolution.

So the "sceptics" turned out to be not so sceptical after all, when it comes to the bulk of their ideology...

[Muslim Soldier]

what i dont understand is that why is this theory accepted when charles darwin himself said on many occassion that his thoery would not be right

[Muslim Soldier]

and what about the cambium explosion?

[root]

Who cares about this? Is this more "evidence" than any other fossile?

Actually it is more evidence. Those who want the truth care me thinks which says a lot about you.

[Muslim Soldier]

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php

[root]

Qoute from harun Yahya - Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.

Taken from the first part of the "evidence" against evolution from the Harun Yahya site. So he thinks that no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes have been completed.

Well, he is wrong the full genome of Human and Ape has been decoded.

Scientists unleashed a torrent of studies comparing the genetic coding for humans and chimpanzees on Wednesday, reporting that 96 percent of our DNA sequences are identical. Even more intriguingly, the other 4 percent appears to contain clues to how we became different from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, they said.

Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9136200/

And you would be well advised to further consider that your DNA will not match my DNA 100%.

What a load of misrepresented gibberish that site is, his first point is already proven wrong.

Among the highlights from the analyses:

Small but crucial differences:

The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness.

Six new genetic frontiers:

Scientists identified six regions of our DNA that appear to have evolved dramatically over the past 250,000 years — including a "gene desert" that may play a role in nervous system development and also has been linked to obesity. They said a seventh region that showed notable change contains the FOXP2 gene, which already has been linked to speech in humans.

Brain genes key:

A comparison of gene expression in various tissues indicated that most of the genetic changes occurring during the evolution of chimps and humans had neither a positive nor a negative effect. However, the testes in the males of both species showed strong evidence of a positive effect. Also, genes active in the brain showed much more accumulated change in humans than in chimps — suggesting that those genes played a special role in human evolution.

Primates' risky business:

Scientists compared the chimp and human genomes with those of mice and rats, and found that both primates carried a greater amount of potentially harmful genetic coding. They speculated that such coding may have made primates more prone to genetic diseases, but also more adaptable to environmental changes.

Clues to diseases:

The genomes contained hints that the chimpanzee genetic code has been attacked more frequently than humans by retroviral elements — such as those present in the HIV virus. Scientists also noted key differences between the genomes that may affect susceptibility to viruses, the workings of the immune system and the progression of diabetes and Alzheimer's disease in humans.

[HeiGou]

you say evolution took place where is the fossil evidence?

Fossil evidence for what? Do you agree that there was a time when there were no dinosaurs that could fly? Do you agree that the world now is full of bird species that can fly? Would you agree that the fossils of the dinosaurs they find in China with feathers show a transition from non-flying dinosaurs to flying dinosaurs and hence birds?

[HeiGou]

Who cares about this? Is this more "evidence" than any other fossile? For almost every single fossile found the evolutionists are quick to interpret it into their chains of evolution.

Of course, they do their job which is to interpet the evidence in the light of modern science. As opposed to Theists who do what? Deny that these fossils exist?

Evolutionists are scared of their theory being questioned. I've heard that once, Richard Milton, a science journalist (and a non-creationist) wrote a book which shows that the earth could be as young as 175.000 years. But when Richard Dawkins, a militant atheist, reviewed it he was filled with hate and accused the author of being mentally ill!

Well Dawkins is a little combative but most scientists love a god debate and have no problems with questions. Ask a few.

Atheists often label themselves as critics and sceptics, presumably doubting what they hear and investigate it. And when it comes to religion, they indeed do that. The atheists' main competitor in history is Christianity. And indeed atheists often find a lot of faults in Christianity, tearing some aspects of it into pieces, but are unable to recognize a single fault when it comes to evolution. Indeed, when it comes to evolution most atheists for some reason feel that there is no reason to being sceptical to what is presentated, they just blindly accept it and all kind of scepticism or investigation ceases when it comes to evolution.

So the "sceptics" turned out to be not so sceptical after all, when it comes to the bulk of their ideology...

Care to give an example of this that you have not cut and pasted from the internet? There is no good evidence to suggest that evolution is wrong. If there were I am sure that everyone would love to see it, talk about it, debate it. This is what scientists do for a living.

[HeiGou]

what i dont understand is that why is this theory accepted when charles darwin himself said on many occassion that his thoery would not be right

Where did Charles Darwin say his theory would not be right? Darwin was a modest man and a man of science. He did not go about boasting much or claiming more than his evidence would support.

[Muslim Soldier]

Do you agree that the world now is full of bird species that can fly? Would you agree that the fossils of the dinosaurs they find in China with feathers show a transition from non-flying dinosaurs to flying dinosaurs and hence birds?

Read what I write clearly!
The same way the first dinosaurs appeared, is the same way the other species appeared.

the theory of organic evolution can not explain where the first cells came from. When you explain to me how that happened is the time I will believe your crap!

[Muslim Soldier]

Darwin was a modest man and a man of science.

I would advise you to read History before posting nonsence. Yes you read right nonsense

Darwin was an ametuer "biologist" and suddenly on one of his trips he thought hey how about this!
And that is evolution. It came out of the blue

[HeiGou]

Read what I write clearly!

I did.

The same way the first dinosaurs appeared, is the same way the other species appeared.

But in the meantime would you agree that the fossil record shows a long time ago there were no invertebrates that could fly properly. Then some dinosaurs developed feathers and wings, and then there was an abundance of bird species? Is this, in fact, what the fossil record shows no matter what the cause is?

the theory of organic evolution can not explain where the first cells came from. When you explain to me how that happened is the time I will believe your crap!

Evolution can't but science is working on it. For instance,

Experimental demonstration

In the early 1950s at the University of Chicago Stanley Miller demonstrated the primeval soup model for the origin of life on Earth. He passed a spark of electricity through a glass chamber filled with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen (meant to simulate conditions on the young earth). A week later, paper chromatography showed several amino acids and other organic molecules had formed. The model for the origin of life said these molecules were formed in the atomosphere, rained into the ocean, then combined to make proteins, nucleic acids and the other molecules of life.

The early atmosphere of the Earth, before life evolved, was thought to be made up of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. It was hot. If there was a lot of lightening around, conditions in Miller's lab would have looked a lot like the early Earth.

[HeiGou]

I would advise you to read History before posting nonsence. Yes you read right nonsense

I think it is likely to be a mistake to lecture me on my ignorance of any historical subject or any branch of science except Islam unless I admit to being ignorant. Even then I think the clever thing would be to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Darwin was an ametuer "biologist" and suddenly on one of his trips he thought hey how about this!
And that is evolution. It came out of the blue

Indeed. What is your problem with that?

[Muslim Soldier]

I did.




Experimental demonstration

In the early 1950s at the University of Chicago Stanley Miller demonstrated the primeval soup model for the origin of life on Earth. He passed a spark of electricity through a glass chamber filled with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen (meant to simulate conditions on the young earth). A week later, paper chromatography showed several amino acids and other organic molecules had formed. The model for the origin of life said these molecules were formed in the atomosphere, rained into the ocean, then combined to make proteins, nucleic acids and the other molecules of life.[/indent]

The early atmosphere of the Earth, before life evolved, was thought to be made up of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. It was hot. If there was a lot of lightening around, conditions in Miller's lab would have looked a lot like the early Earth.

for the record, Miller didn't get any meaningful amini acids. All he got were useless strands!

And later on Miller's experiment was considered to be noid due to the fact that with the water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, Miller also put a strand of amino acid ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Trumble]

the theory of organic evolution can not explain where the first cells came from. When you explain to me how that happened is the time I will believe your crap!

It neither has to explain where life originated, nor does it attempt to explain it. A great many people, including several of the most prominent believers in "intelligent design" believe it originated with God. That has no relevance to subsequent evolution, the whole process of which (they would say) is designed by God too.

Darwin was an ametuer "biologist" and suddenly on one of his trips he thought hey how about this!
And that is evolution. It came out of the blue

More or less. What's your point? He came up with the original theory of evolution by natural selection based on the evidence he saw on his travels. The very fact that it is still around, albeit in a rather different form, demonstrates the man's genius. I'm not sure what the "amateur" has to do with it. Descartes was an "amateur" mathematician and philosopher... Cartesian co-ordinates cane "out of the blue". Newton was an "amateur" physicist and mathematician. The Newtonian laws of motion (including gravity) "came out of the blue". At the time of his most significant work Albert Einstein was working as a patents clerk.. the Special Theory of Relativity came "out of the blue". A collection of college degrees is no substitute for genius.

[HeiGou]

for the record, Miller didn't get any meaningful amini acids. All he got were useless strands!

It took the Earth 4.5 billion years to come up with what it has got. It took a billion years or so for the first life to appear. You expect Miller to do that well in a few days? Come on, give the guy a break. That he got amino acids at all was impressive.

And later on Miller's experiment was considered to be noid due to the fact that with the water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, Miller also put a strand of amino acid ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Says who?

Anyone can repeat this experient. People have. It works sort of.

[Muslim Soldier]

The very fact that it is still around, albeit in a rather different form, demonstrates the man's genius.

The theory remains because it denies the existence of Allah (swt) hence people can do what they like. the theory is against religion! people with religions should not accept this theory!

[HeiGou]

The theory remains because it denies the existence of Allah (swt) hence people can do what they like. the theory is against religion! people with religions should not accept this theory!

How does it deny the existence of God? Darwin, a former student for the priesthood, did not believe much himself, but I don't think he ever came out and denied the existence of God. Besides, science should be followed wherever it goes. So you can't say "If it does not agree with my Beliefs it is wrong". You have to say "If it is true then God wanted it that way".

Besides, Darwinian theory rests on the same three basic premises:

1. The Earth is very old
2. Children look like their parents.
3. Those that do better in the world are more likely to have more children.

Which is these three do you refuse to accept is true?

[------]

and what about the cambium explosion?

Come again...:?

[HeiGou]

Come again...:?

The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of complex multi-cellular macroscopic organisms between roughly 542 and 530 million years ago (mya). This period marks a sharp transition in the fossil record with the appearance of the earliest members of many phyla of metazoans (multicellular animals). The "explosive" appearance of this adaptive radiation results both from rapid evolutionary change and the limits of previous technology to appreciate microfossils which formed the foundation of the fossil record before this time.

Causes of the Cambrian explosion

There is no universally accepted cause, and the matter is the subject of ongoing debate within the scientific community. A wide range of biological and geological factors have been proposed as possible triggers for the explosion. These range from ecological competition, hox genes and the breakup of Rodinia. Recently scientists have suggested major climatic changes, including a near-global glaciation, may have played a role.

The Cambrian explosion may have been precipitated by several environmental changes occurring in and just before this period. First the Varangian glaciation gave rise to a Snowball Earth in which all, or nearly all, of the oceans are covered entirely with ice. This was followed by a deglaciation and rapid global warming just before the beginning of the explosion itself. In modern Arctic environments, single-celled organisms often form mats on the underside of ice sheets in order to maximize their exposure to sunlight. It is possible that adaptations useful to the maintenance of such colonies also assisted in the formation of the first triploblastic animals estimated to be 570 million years of age (Xiao et al. 1998). In addition, the Snowball Earth environment would have given rise to relatively few ecological niches, so the subsequent deglaciation and global warming may have provided an impetus for rapid evolution to fill many new environments.

Rising levels of atmospheric oxygen during the Ediacaran may have played a role in the emergence of large metazoans which require oxygen for respiration. Recent work has linked this increase in atmospheric oxygen to changes in global soil weathering patterns following the Cryogenian and the possible emergence of a primitive terrestrial Biota (Kennedy et al. 2006).
[edit]

Diversification

Of the 20 metazoan phyla with extensive fossil records, at least 11 first appeared in the Cambrian. Of the remainder, 1 is known to Precambrian and the other 8 first appear more recently (Collins 1994). An additional 12 soft-bodied phyla have poorly defined fossil records, but it is speculated that a significant number of these may also be Cambrian in origin.

Though this period is definitely of special significance in terms of rapid diversification and the emergence of new forms, some of that significance is likely to be overstated by the focus on macroscopic forms in the ways phyla are observed and defined. Molecular evidence suggests that at least six animal phyla had established themselves as distinct evolutionary paths during the Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999).

The sheer variety of forms found in the Burgess shale and other sites, has made some skeptical that single period of ~10-15 million years could have been long enough to give rise to such diversity. An emerging view is that the Cambrian explosion is the macroscopic conclusion to a prolonged period of evolution begun ~30 million years earlier with the innovation of multi-cellular organisms.

[root]

I am sure he means "The Cambrian Period":

The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears around 543 to 490 MYA

[Trumble]

The theory remains because it denies the existence of Allah (swt) hence people can do what they like.

As HeiGou said it does absolutely nothing of the sort. It remains because it, or at least its modern equivalent, is the theory that still best fits the facts.

the theory is against religion! people with religions should not accept this theory!

Again, not true. It is just not compatible with the creation myths that the majority (but by no means all, granted) of Christians and Jews (I don't know abourt muslims) accept are just that - myths. As I said before, the Catholic Church, among others, accepts evolution, which hardly suggests it denies the existence of God! The conflict you suggest just doesn't exist.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I fail to see how I have supported your point when you have claimed creationist theory status to which I am simply saying your point here is "wrong". Since creationism has no supporting evidence other than using "faith", creationism/ID attempts to validate itself by attempting to discredit evolution. Hence, one of the criticisms from creationists to evolutionists is the lack of transitional fossils, they claim teir are none. This post shows that to be a false accusation with this recent discovery so how it is "off-target" defies belief.

Second time around and you still don't get it. I'm not arguing over whether creationism is theory or not - my point is that if you claim it is NOT a theory, then no amount of evidence can falsify it. Evidence only supports or falsifies scientific theories.

yes I did, I even had a ponder on your paradox of a falsafiable theory for something that is not a theory. remember, creationism/ID is not a scientific theory.

In which case your entire post is off-target; evidence for evolution is not evidence against creationism, unless you consider both to be scientific theories.

[Trumble]

In which case your entire post is off-target; evidence for evolution is not evidence against creationism, unless you consider both to be scientific theories.

That simply doesn't follow. Evidence for a scientific theory or explanation is frequently evidence against a non-scientific explanation. Sufficient weight of evidence may even result in what was once a "scientific" theory no longer being one - such as believing the Sun circles a stationary Earth, or that the Earth is flat.

Creationism is not a scientific explanation for how we came to be here, but it is nonetheless an explanation. Evidence supporting a mutually contradictory explanation must therefore be evidence against it.

I'd point out, again, that creationism and "intelligent design" are NOT one and the same thing, however much some people may wish they were. It is perfectly possible to "believe" in both ID and evolution, and indeed many people do.

[Abu Omar]

Actually it is more evidence. Those who want the truth care me thinks which says a lot about you.

Well, much of these fossile record seems as interpretation. Actually, Harun Yahya showed an example of how evolutionists were able to get three different apes from one fossile. As you know, we find only the bones, but a body is much more than that, so there's a lot of room for interpretation.

Btw why did you ignore the rest of my post?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Trumble,
Thank you for your post.

That simply doesn't follow. Evidence for a scientific theory or explanation is frequently evidence against a non-scientific explanation.

Only if the unscientific explanation is taken as a falsifiable theory. Let's use the examples you have given...

Sufficient weight of evidence may even result in what was once a "scientific" theory no longer being one - such as believing the Sun circles a stationary Earth, or that the Earth is flat.

Geocentricity was falsified when examined as a theory, as was the theory of a flat earth. Look at it this way - if creationism is not a scientific theory then it is not affected by scientific evidence; scientific evidence doesn't make creationism any more likely or unlikely. Finding what evolutionists call 'transitional forms' may support the theory of evolution but they won't falsify creationism because it doesn't contradict creationism. These species can just as easily be looked at as independent species which died out as they can be looked at as transitional forms.

Another example - solipsism is not a scientific theory, hence it cannot be falsified.

Evidence supporting a mutually contradictory explanation must therefore be evidence against it.

What do you feel is 'mutually contradictory' about creationism?

[sumay28]

You can show me the complete fossil records all the way from the very first cell all the way to the human being, without a single missing link, and I'll still believe in God.

[root]

Second time around and you still don't get it. I'm not arguing over whether creationism is theory or not - my point is that if you claim it is NOT a theory, then no amount of evidence can falsify it. Evidence only supports or falsifies scientific theories.

I sure wish you would stop using the term "creation theory" then.

Creationism/ID as a theory is not falsifiable and unscientific. However, Creationism/ID not being correct is scientific and falsifiable. All you have to do is prove creationism/ID.

Another way to look at it is thus:

In contrast, the theory that the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).

You still keep stating that "I claim" that creationism is not a theory instead of just saying creationism is not a theory, why is that!

Theory or no theory, creationists like to suppport thier belief by trying to disprove evolution to which they cite no transitional fossils, again this thread puts an end to such creationist claims.

[cool_jannah]

[BANANA]hey[/BANANA]...
If evolutionaists want to believe their fore fathers were a bunch of chimps and monkeys...they are free to do so. Don't spread the lie around trying to covince the believers of the same.

[HeiGou]

You can show me the complete fossil records all the way from the very first cell all the way to the human being, without a single missing link, and I'll still believe in God.

I wouldn't want you to do otherwise. But would you accept that evolution would be a reasonable explanation for how God created the diversity of modern life, assuming I could show you a complete fossil record all the way back to the first cell?

[sumay28]

I wouldn't want you to do otherwise. But would you accept that evolution would be a reasonable explanation for how God created the diversity of modern life, assuming I could show you a complete fossil record all the way back to the first cell?

Well I would need to see the fossil record, first of all. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I don't believe we evolved from chimps. But the Title of the thread was "Creationists dealt a blow". My point was that fossil records don't disprove a creator.

[HeiGou]

If evolutionaists want to believe their fore fathers were a bunch of chimps and monkeys...they are free to do so. Don't spread the lie around trying to covince the believers of the same.

May I ask why you think that? And what you think the appropriate response would be if I tried to convince a Muslim, here, that evolution was true?

[HeiGou]

Well I would need to see the fossil record, first of all. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Seems reasonable to me. Do you accept my point about the emergence of bird fossils - that there were none, then there were some, and gradually there were a lot?

I don't believe we evolved from chimps.

Would you accept that we share a lot with chimpanzees in terms of DNA and body structure? In fact would you accept that the skeletons of most mammals, even whales, show strong similarities to humans?

But the Title of the thread was "Creationists dealt a blow". My point was that fossil records don't disprove a creator.

True, but it is a problem for some types of Creationist. They either have to claim that the fossils are fakes, or put their by God for some reason, or accept that God utilises evolution in His plan. May I ask what you think?

[Muslim Soldier]

[indent]

Causes of the Cambrian explosion

There is no universally accepted cause, and the matter is the subject of ongoing debate within the scientific community.

How about God as a cause?

[Muslim Soldier]

Before going deep into the lies of evolution, let us define evolution.
Evolution is a gradual change in the structure of the organism to bring about new species.

Darwin himseld said that his theory could be proved otherwise if there were no intermediate forms.

If one looks at the fossil record, one sees that new species appear suddenly. There arent any intermediate forms, hence Darwins theory collapses

[czgibson]

Evolution is a gradual change in the structure of the organism to bring about new species.

OK, specifically change in the genetic composition of a population acted on by natural selection.

Darwin himseld said that his theory could be proved otherwise if there were no intermediate forms.

If one looks at the fossil record, one sees that new species appear suddenly. There arent any intermediate forms, hence Darwins theory collapses

What about Tiktaalik?

Peace

[HeiGou]

How about God as a cause?

How about God as a cause? Very difficult to test. Not very interesting from a scientific point of view if true. But possible.

There are people who believe in Evolution and God - most Christians in fact.

[HeiGou]

Before going deep into the lies of evolution, let us define evolution.
Evolution is a gradual change in the structure of the organism to bring about new species.

Becuase of problems with definitions of "species" most scientists say these days that it is a change in the frequency of genes in the gene pool over time.

Darwin himseld said that his theory could be proved otherwise if there were no intermediate forms.

If one looks at the fossil record, one sees that new species appear suddenly. There arent any intermediate forms, hence Darwins theory collapses

Well that depends what you mean by an intermediate form. Usually any possible intermediate forms are given new names as a new species. But there are forms between what we have now and what we find back then. Again I point to the dinosaurs from China with feathers. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs and tell me there are no intermedia forms between birds and dinosaurs.

Again, there are three basic premises to Darwin's Theory:

1. Deep time: the Earth is very old.
2. Inherited Features: offspring look like their parents.
3. Selection: the better adapted at any one time have more successful children.

If you accept these you must accept change in the gene pool over time and hence Darwinism. Which of the three do you reject?

[QURBAN]

Peace to Those Who Follow the Guidance!

Looks like I need to start devoting some time learning more about the evolution theory it’s quite a hot topic-

I must admit my knowledge on this is quite poor! I studied Biology “A” Levels for two years, and evolution and other related subject never interested me-

When the time came to take the exam, would you know it, their was a huge section on Evolution, worth 10 -20 percent of the total mark- and all I wrote on the answer sheet-

"I don’t believe in it”

Any way I have an analogy , if you look at computer software industry- day by day its evolving , as Computer Hardware’s become more powerful, software developers are coding newer programs / upgrading older programs to complement it and vice versa –

To summarise computer software programs are evolving-

BUT NOT by Chance (the codes just don’t come together and upgrade or create a program)


A programmer is still required to CODE it-

Kind Regards

Qurban

[j4763]

Peace to Those Who Follow the Guidance!

Looks like I need to start devoting some time learning more about the evolution theory it’s quite a hot topic-

I must admit my knowledge on this is quite poor! I studied Biology “A” Levels for two years, and evolution and other related subject never interested me-

When the time came to take the exam, would you know it, their was a huge section on Evolution, worth 10 -20 percent of the total mark- and all I wrote on the answer sheet-

"I don’t believe in it”

Any way I have an analogy , if you look at computer software industry- day by day its evolving , as Computer Hardware’s become more powerful, software developers are coding newer programs / upgrading older programs to complement it and vice versa –

To summarise computer software programs are evolving-

BUT NOT by Chance (the codes just don’t come together and upgrade or create a program)


A programmer is still required to CODE it-

Kind Regards

Qurban

Bit different that. Computers cant regenerate cells nor are they “living”, just cant compare the two.

[------]

Bit different that. Computers cant regenerate cells nor are they “living”, just cant compare the two.

Mate. How would YOU describe Who/What created us then?

[QURBAN]

Bit different that. Computers cant regenerate cells nor are they “living”, just cant compare the two.

thats my que to start learning more about evolution-

Take care

Kind Regards

Qurban

[HeiGou]

When the time came to take the exam, would you know it, their was a huge section on Evolution, worth 10 -20 percent of the total mark- and all I wrote on the answer sheet-

"I don’t believe in it”

I guess you did not do very well?

Any way I have an analogy , if you look at computer software industry- day by day its evolving , as Computer Hardware’s become more powerful, software developers are coding newer programs / upgrading older programs to complement it and vice versa –

To summarise computer software programs are evolving-

BUT NOT by Chance(the codes just don’t come together and upgrade or create a program)

A programmer is still required to CODE it

That is a common used argument - Paley's Watch argument in fact. But there is a difference between computer code and life. Computer code tends to be a logical development of one mind or at least a team. It should be trim and taught with no wasted lines or material (and Microsoft aside it often is). Life does not displays signs of that over-arching Mind that designs things in a taught logical sensible manner. For instance, the human eye is a very interesting design, but the nerve endings are on the inside of the eye thus blocking a proportion on the in-coming light and given Humans a blind spot. A sensible design would be like the octopus and put those ending on the outside of the eye. Evolution does not find the "best" solution, it finds the best local solution and often that can result in a mess.

And of course there is still the basic problem - if the Universe is so complex you need a Coder, who coded the Coder?

[j4763]

Mate. How would YOU describe Who/What created us then?

EVOLUTION :p

Yes, who coded the coder!!!!

[------]

EVOLUTION :p

Yes, who coded the coder!!!!

Yh but how did the "Monkeys" get on earth in the first place?

Who created them? :heated:

[QURBAN]

I guess you did not do very well?

Could of done better! LOL

[------]

And of course there is still the basic problem - if the Universe is so complex you need a Coder, who coded the Coder?

No one. The Coder is the Almighty and Omniscient and Omnipotent.

[HeiGou]

Yh but how did the "Monkeys" get on earth in the first place?

Who created them? :heated:

Why heated? Monkeys evolved from earlier proto-simians. In fact the simian family (the correct term for monkeys, apes and humans and all out relatives) shows evolution very well in that there are surviving species that have not changed that much from earliest times.

ORDER PRIMATES

* Suborder Strepsirrhini: non-tarsier prosimians
* Suborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
o Infraorder Tarsiiformes
+ Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers
o Infraorder Simiiformes: simians
+ Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
# Family Cebidae: marmosets, tamarins, capuchins and squirrel monkeys
# Family Aotidae: night monkeys, owl monkeys, douroucoulis
# Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris
# Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys
+ Catarrhini
# Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
* Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys
# Superfamily Hominoidea: apes
* Family Hylobatidae: gibbons ("lesser apes")
* Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes

[Muslim Soldier]

you talk of evolution from a prejudiced point of view. let go of your prejudices and then lets discuss things intelligently instead of emotionally. so lets talk of evolution.

lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate? everything is an effect of its preceding cause, which itself is an effect of another cause. follow the causal chain far back in time. either there is a cause who is not an effect, or there is no beginning of time. we discard the latter choice in light of the big bang theory, which shows that the universe- and thus, time- had a beginning. this Ultimate Cause who is not the effect of any other is whom we call God.

if you have studied science, even at a very elementary level, you must have heard of the second law of thermodynamics. in layman's terms, 'all systems tend to move from order to disorder unless enery is expended to keep them in order'. apply it to evolution. how did life start? how did ordered lifeforms come from disorder, chaos? if order came from disorder4 only one conclusion can be reached- that energy was used. this energy could not have come from the sun or from lightening (these are mere excuses from evolutionists). put whatever you desire in a swimming pool. whatever you think necessary for the origin of life. sterilize it. then heat it . treat it with any form of energy that you wish. keep doing it for as long as you want. then tell me if you got even a single, perfectly-functioning living cell out of it. try it and tell me if it works. i assure you it wont. if you (using your brain) are not able to do it, what makes you think trillions of species, all with an uncounted number of members, totalling up to only-God-knows how many cells, came about by mere Chance. if chance is able to do so, it must be more intelligent than you. if you can accept chance as an intelligent Being, why do you have trouble accepting God?

i am sorry, but i have to go now. will continue this tomorrow.

[HeiGou]

No one. The Coder is the Almighty and Omniscient and Omnipotent.

From the philosophical or logical point of view then, your argument goes, "The Universe is so big and complex that it must have been created by an even Bigger and More Complex Deity". To which the obvious question is, Who created the even bigger and more complex Diety? No one is not a proper answer because if the Universe is too complex, then God and the Universe is even more complex. Why not simplify it and remove God? If God does not need a Creator, why does the Universe?

Of course from a religious point of view you could say that the Quran tells you and I won't complain. But if you want to make an argument based on logic it has to explain why God should exist logically.

[HeiGou]

you talk of evolution from a prejudiced point of view. let go of your prejudices and then lets discuss things intelligently instead of emotionally. so lets talk of evolution.

Why prejudices am I showing?

lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate? everything is an effect of its preceding cause, which itself is an effect of another cause. follow the causal chain far back in time. either there is a cause who is not an effect, or there is no beginning of time. we discard the latter choice in light of the big bang theory, which shows that the universe- and thus, time- had a beginning. this Ultimate Cause who is not the effect of any other is whom we call God.

Ahh, an oldie but a goodie - Aristotle used this argument. If everything had a Cause, what Caused God? You can define God as the Ultimate Cause but that leaves you with several problems. How do you know this Ultimate Cause is your God as opposed to, say, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It is not enough for you to prove a God, yo need to prove your God. Second, why make it all so complicated? If there is an Ultimate Cause, why not assume the least complex Ultimate Cause and say it was the Big Bang? After the Big Bang do you need God in any sense to shape the Universe as we know it until, say, Abraham?

if you have studied science, even at a very elementary level, you must have heard of the second law of thermodynamics. in layman's terms, 'all systems tend to move from order to disorder unless enery is expended to keep them in order'.

Oh excellent. Entropy. I do admire someone who can cover all the major bad arguments against evolution. OK. Let's go with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

apply it to evolution. how did life start? how did ordered lifeforms come from disorder, chaos? if order came from disorder4 only one conclusion can be reached- that energy was used. this energy could not have come from the sun or from lightening (these are mere excuses from evolutionists). put whatever you desire in a swimming pool.

Why couldn't it have come from the Sun? Evolution would claim not to reduce entropy, in the sense of reducing chaos, in the Universe as a whole, just locally. So energy comes from the Sun, builds organisms here, but the over-all impact to the Solar System is an increase in disorder even though the local effect might be an increase in order.

whatever you think necessary for the origin of life. sterilize it. then heat it . treat it with any form of energy that you wish. keep doing it for as long as you want. then tell me if you got even a single, perfectly-functioning living cell out of it. try it and tell me if it works. i assure you it wont.

The Earth took a laboratory the size of the Earth about a billion years to come up with the first living celled creatures. Of course we can't do that in an afternoon. But the Miller experiment proved we can get some of the way and we can build semi-plausible models of how the process worked.

if you (using your brain) are not able to do it, what makes you think trillions of species, all with an uncounted number of species totalling up to only-God-knows how many cells came about by chance. if chance is able to do so, it must be more intelligent than you. if you can accept chance as an intelligent Being, why do you have trouble accepting God?

Again you are misusing the word chance. Evolution is not a random process. The "strong" survive, the "weak" die. On average. Evolution does not need intelligence at all. And the problem would remain - who designed the intelligent Being you need for your theory? If He could have arisen without a designer, why not the inifinitely less complex and more simple Universe?

[root]

so lets talk of evolution.

OK, lets.

lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate?

We grind to a halt already. What has this to do with evolution?

Looks to me you want to discuss the "Theory of Abiogenesis" and not the "Theory of Evolution"

[------]

No one is not a proper answer because if the Universe is too complex, then God and the Universe is even more complex. Why not simplify it and remove God? If God does not need a Creator, why does the Universe?

Whats ur point?

[Abu Omar]

I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.

And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened. Else it is simply invalid. Let's take a parable.

Consider the pagan Arabs' belief that the sky rested on mountains. Now lets say that someone works out a theory about exactly how they rest on mountains. Then someone points out "Do you have any evidence that the sky rests on mountains?". Is it a valid answer to say "My theory doesn't deals with that, it deals with how the sky rests on mountains!".

Obviously if the foundation of the theory is lacking, then it is invalid.

[root]

I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.

Supression of which theories do you refer to?

And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened. Else it is simply invalid. Let's take a parable.

Here is the dictionary explanation of "Evolution":

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Here is the scientific interpretation of "Evolution":

The change in allele frequency in a population over time

I think the problem you have is that creationists consider Evolution

Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god.

No disrespect, but I think the "average" person would consider the dictionary or scientific term for "Evolution". Perhaps, some could say that evolution must explain the creation of the universe to fully validate evolution which clearly is nonsense

[------]

Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god.

The bit that makes any sense in that... please point it out to me.

Peace :peace:

[HeiGou]

I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.

Evolution is supported by more people than atheists. But it is a scientific theory. Which means that no one ought to accept it as Truth in the sense that religions teach Truths. It needs to be tested. It needs to be able to explain the evidence. It needs to provide a logical and coherent explanation of the process. It has and still is. It does. Which alternative do you think works better? What do you think has been "suppressed"?

And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened.

Which they do. Evolution provides a pretty good explanation. Again evolution rests on three basic premises
1. Deep Time - the Earth is very old
2. Hereditary - children inherit characteristics from their parents
3. Selection - those "better" adapted at any one time have more offspring than those that are not.

Which of these do you think is wrong? If you do not think any of them are wrong, why don't you believe in Evolution?

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

If these three points brought up by the Evolution-worshippers were correct, why aren't all creatures human?

[HeiGou]

:sl: to the Muslims

Nice.

If these three points brought up by the Evolution-worshippers were correct, why aren't all creatures human?

Why on Earth would they be? The smart question would be why any creatures human at all but perhaps not. Think about it - some animal can make a neat living by eating grass on the plains of Africa, and another can by hunting krill in the Antartic Ocean, and another by sucking up ants in Argentina. Why would they evolve to look like us?

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

^

Because human beings are the pinnacle of all creatures in the known universe, all evolution should lead to creatures becoming human-like.

And why have some species not "evolved themselves out of existence" in the few millenia we have kept track of them?

[HeiGou]

:sl: to the Muslims

Still charmed.

Because human beings are the pinnacle of all creatures in the known universe, all evolution should lead to creatures becoming human-like.

What on Earth makes you think that? God can create creatures as He likes, but evolution has to work with what it has - both in terms of creatures that exist already and the environment they fit into. Even if humans were somehow so very special, and there is no evidence for it I can see, evolution can only produce what is better locally - so a better ant-eater, not a better pinnacle of all creatures.

And why have some species not "evolved themselves out of existence" in the few millenia we have kept track of them?

Some species have evolved themselves out of existence. Extinction, usually with the help of a lot of humans, is well documented.

[root]

Originally Posted by Muslim Soldier
How about God as a cause?

Yes, what about God, A great hypothosis.

The theory of Evolution is not concerned about how the very first cells came to be, this is still a great scientific mystery. Evolution only describes how life evolved from the first primitive cells.

If you want to use the hypothosis that "God" created the first living cells then that would be for yourself. The fact that "God" created the first cells hypothosis has no bearing on evolution. Thus belief in creation (of the first cells) and Evolution can and does not conflict with God. This is why many religous people aspire to evolution and retain faith.

By being dogmatic in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and if you don't mind me saying "ignorant" to the theory of evolution & science itself we as man risk being held in the dark ages controlled by myth and superstition and ultimately turning a blind eye to what we know to be the truth.

Evolution does not disprove God or religions, it forces us to face the truth in regard to how "man" came to be...............

And why have some species not "evolved themselves out of existence" in the few millenia we have kept track of them?

I don't quite get that. Evolutionary forces acting upon any species is survival of the fittest/luckiest and adaptive. Many species have simply died out because they could not adapt or were not lucky enough, this is why so many gaps exist in transitional forms.

Some species don't change at all over long time because they don't need to, evolution predicted that such life exists remained unchanged from the dawn of origins because thioer environment will hardy change, thus the evolutionary forces don't act strongly against such species.

Because human beings are the pinnacle of all creatures in the known universe, all evolution should lead to creatures becoming human-like.

Hardly the universe. Our planet is all we know about currently, however the Dinasaurs were far more succesful than us currently since the lifespan that these guys dominated the planet is considerably longer than ours. Survival of the luckiest (their luck ran out when the comet that created the KT Boundary smashed into the planet). This changed the course of evolutionary history and mammals were able to exploit new niche markets and quickly mammals became the next dominant force that ultimately lead to "man". Again, mass extinctions (of which the earth has had several) can easily put an end to the human being the "Pinnacle" of evolution.

[HeiGou]

Evolution is the process whereby humans came from nothingness, without the aid of a god.

The bit that makes any sense in that... please point it out to me.

Little in that makes sense. Evolution does not deal with Ultimate Questions. Although it does provide a coherent possible explanation for the origins of life, it does not insist on the lack of any aid from God. Nor does it start from nothing. It works with what is available in small steps.

[Soldier2000]

heigou said

Evolution does not deal with Ultimate Questions. Although it does provide a coherent possible explanation for the origins of life, it does not insist on the lack of any aid from God. Nor does it start from nothing. It works with what is available in small steps.

which makes no logical sense whatsoever!

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what you’re saying, the evolution theory does not eliminate God-

It does not insist on the lack of any aid from God?

So from what you are saying that believers of evolution cannot eliminate God, hence chance that God might exists-

Which gives you two solutions?

A = God Doesn’t exists

B = God Exists


A

If God exists = what revelations has be sent to mankind- is the revelation consistent with what your saying? I.e. that he created the primitive cell, and then humans evolved from it-

B

If he doesn’t exists then you’re unable to solve the great scientific mystery – how the first primitive cell came into existence?

[HeiGou]

which makes no logical sense whatsoever!

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what you’re saying, the evolution theory does not eliminate God-

Well no. It can be used to argue that we have a good idea of how life and especially humans evolved, but it does not have to. You can argue that God exists and evolution is true. Some people do.

So from what you are saying that believers of evolution cannot eliminate God, hence chance that God might exists-

Actually no. I am saying that evolution, as it stands, does not demand the non-existence of God. But God has no obvious role in Evolution. Believers in Evolution can use evolution to argue that a mechanism exists to explain how humans came to be here and so God is unnecessarily, but Evolution does not demand that position.

Which gives you two solutions?

A = God Doesn’t exists

B = God Exists

A

If God exists = what revelations has be sent to mankind- is the revelation consistent with what your saying? I.e. that he created the primitive cell, and then humans evolved from it-

Well you are saying "God exists" but not "which God eixsts?" It is possible to argue that God has shaped and directed human evolution over the past 4.5 billion years or so and that evolution is the tool which He uses. Some people do. I don't myself.

B

If he doesn’t exists then you’re unable to solve the great scientific mystery – how the first primitive cell came into existence?

Well no there are good theories on that too except they are different theories and not part of evolution as such.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

What Heigou said to my response makes no sense whatsoever !!!

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species, and that it will change the species, regradless of environment in many cases. If it all about luck, then why are there no species higher than us living on the planet or anywhere on the universe??? (Highly unlikely we would be the best if it were not for Allah (SWT)).

Dinosaurs could not be said to be successful in any sense. If they were really able to dominate for so long, then why didn't evolution make them much more able to adapt to the effects of a huge catastrophe (I am sure we humans would be able to make plans on what to do if there were to be an impact from an asteroid, etc., on earth and we would be able to survive, same for dinosaurs who should have been able to evolve to a high degree... why couldn't the dinosaurs do the same??? Please do not say it is luck, that is very hillarious).

[root]

What Heigou said to my response makes no sense whatsoever !!!

It was not Heigou it was myself.

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species,

I am sorry but it is quite obviouse that your sources used to bring you to understand the theory of evolution has been the Harun Hanya site or you truly lack any assetive knowledge on evolution.

Firstly, Evolution is driven by part from Luck, you cannot avoid that aspect. Mutations are not that important, yes they can and do bring about evolutionary change but in the main most evolutionary changes have not been because of mutational change. Forces bacting upon evolutionary change include:

1. Environmental and geographical changes.
2. Exploitation to new niche markets.
3. Predator avoidence.
3. Mutational change.
4. Luck

If it all about luck, then why are there no species higher than us living on the planet or anywhere on the universe??? (Highly unlikely we would be the best if it were not for Allah (SWT)).

It's not all about luck but luck plays it's part to. The reason why there are no higher species than us is simply because we are the dominant species of today on this planet. What stopped neanderthal man reaching where we are now since neandertols were not human (most probably). As for the universe we just don't know and I personally would doubt we are top species in the universe.

Dinosaurs could not be said to be successful in any sense. If they were really able to dominate for so long, then why didn't evolution make them much more able to adapt to the effects of a huge catastrophe (I am sure we humans would be able to make plans on what to do if there were to be an impact from an asteroid, etc., on earth and we would be able to survive, same for dinosaurs who should have been able to evolve to a high degree... why couldn't the dinosaurs do the same??? Please do not say it is luck, that is very hillarious).

Firstly, species are in the business of survival and it is survival that drives evolution. So the guage to a succesful species is the length of time it survived. Dinosaurs ruled for over 200 million years where Humans have ruled 2 million so far and counting.

As for mass extinctions, we statistically will not see a mass extinction event from a comet/meteorite strike because we would already be extinct! However, I am afraid i don't share your confidence in the ability to detect early enough and then avoid a cataclysmic event such as a massive strike that killed the dinosaurs along with 95% of all the species at that time. Diseases can also cause extinction and Humans are the number one target to infect. A gamma ray burst within our own galaxy will destroy 99.9% of all life too in a mass extinction event. Today the number of past mass extinctions are placed between 5 to 20 seperate mass extinctions.

You may find the concept of "luck" funny, but it really is no luaghing matter.

[HeiGou]

:sl: to the Muslims

Neat.

What Heigou said to my response makes no sense whatsoever !!!

Sre you sure?

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species, and that it will change the species, regradless of environment in many cases.

But genetic mutations are not certain. They are random events. And most of them do not work out - the mutant dies without producing offspring.

If it all about luck, then why are there no species higher than us living on the planet or anywhere on the universe??? (Highly unlikely we would be the best if it were not for Allah (SWT)).

What do you mean by "higher"? This is not a useful concept in evolution.

Dinosaurs could not be said to be successful in any sense. If they were really able to dominate for so long, then why didn't evolution make them much more able to adapt to the effects of a huge catastrophe

Because evolution is blind, not like God. It cannot forsee what is going to happen. Animals that are good at what they do produce offspring which in turn produce more offspring. If conditions change suddenly, they are not well adapted to the new conditions and will likely become extinct - dinosaurs were highly successful animals dominating the planet for several hundred million years.

[j4763]

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species, and that it will change the species, regradless of environment in many cases.

But genetic mutations are not certain. They are random events. And most of them do not work out - the mutant dies without producing offspring.

This is true. if a Lion and Tiger mate (which they can) there offspring will be infertile.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

First of all, luck is funny, and exteremely so. I do not need a very extreme understanding of science to know the lousiness of the claims of the Evolution worshippers.

Having said that, human beings can and they would avoid any all sorts of mass extinction scares (this is if I believe the Evolution worshippers, since humans are quite advanced in this respect).. why couldn't the other animals do the same in their so called process of evolution ?

Humans have the abillity to detect and avoid the extinction of their species by infection, I do not see why other species through eveolutionw ould not be able to do so.

[HeiGou]

Having said that, human beings can and they would avoid any all sorts of mass extinction scares (this is if I believe the Evolution worshippers, since humans are quite advanced in this respect).. why couldn't the other animals do the same in their so called process of evolution ?

But you do not follow - crocodiles are wonderfully adapted. They have existed for a long time. But how would they know if an asteroid was hurtling towards the Earth? Until 50 years ago no humans would. Even today only the Americans and Europeans have the ability of desire to detect such things. Evolution can only work in small steps - if something massive happens, creatures cannot adapt quick enough.

Humans have the abillity to detect and avoid the extinction of their species by infection, I do not see why other species through eveolutionw ould not be able to do so.

I question whether they do as it happens. STDs were reducing the human population of many places before pennicillin came along - including many Muslim populations.

[root]

First of all, luck is funny, and exteremely so. I do not need a very extreme understanding of science to know the lousiness of the claims of the Evolution worshippers.

I never claimed you needed a greater understanding of science, though I feel you do when it comes to Evolution.

Having said that, human beings can and they would avoid any all sorts of mass extinction scares (this is if I believe the Evolution worshippers, since humans are quite advanced in this respect).. why couldn't the other animals do the same in their so called process of evolution ?

No offence, but if and when a mass extinction event was to come you would probably consider it "Judgement Day" and thus the work of god and I definately do NOT share your confidence in mankind's ability to avoid extinction events.

Humans have the abillity to detect and avoid the extinction of their species by infection, I do not see why other species through eveolutionw ould not be able to do so.

They have a "limited" ability to do this I agree, extinction due to viral infection could and has in the past put man onto the brink of extinction.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways :)

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction. They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

[root]

The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways

I rest my case........

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction. They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

I don't see how believing evolution disproves God, and really we are not that advanced to avoid mass extinctions (as I repeatedly claim). The difference between you and I is thus. The Tsunami of last year was an unpredicted natural disaster, you may well claim it was God's work but it really makes no difference. It happens does happen and can be far more severely

[Knut Hamsun]

:sl: to the Muslims

The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways :)

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction. They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

Do you actually read your opponent's posts'? Accepting evolution DOES NOT preclude the possibility of a creator. Warn people before conversing if you are sure that the last word is going to end up being "The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways"... It will save everybody a bunch of time!

[HeiGou]

The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways :)

Evolution has nothing to do with the Day of Judgement.

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction.

I do not disbelieve in much. You have to stop assuming everything is yes or no, black or white. I do not believe Humanity is guaranteed to escape destruction. But I do not believe they are guaranteed to not either. It is, like so much, indeterminate.

They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

No they are smart. Which is not the same as being highly evolved. In fact "highly evolved" is a nonsense. Everything is equally evolved. Crocodiles have been around for 220 million years. Humans for about 100,000. When we have survive 2000 times as long as we have so far, I think we can start to lecture other species on how well-adapted they are.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

Evolution is in its core atheistic and bigotted, beacuse it says that human beings came out of nothing and goes against the Scriptures of all religions. I have yet to hear of an ideology that ascribes or even hints to humans coming from a single-celled creature or any other like-minded hallucination.

About the tsunami it was undountedly the work of Allah, but if we want tos ee it from a bigootted eVolution worshipping viewpoint, how can we call the death of 0.03 % of the world's population a "mass extinction" ???!!! Besides, there was no total deaths even in the seeverly affected areas !!!

[root]

Evolution is in its core atheistic and bigotted, beacuse it says that human beings came out of nothing

You try the patience of a saint. Evolution says no such thing, why am I bothering to respond when you so obvously don't read it......................

goes against the Scriptures of all religions.

http://www.2think.org/pope.shtml

Read that article and see how single minded and isolated your statement is.

I have yet to hear of an ideology that ascribes or even hints to humans coming from a single-celled creature or any other like-minded hallucination.

Ideology has no place in evolution.

About the tsunami it was undountedly the work of Allah, but if we want tos ee it from a bigootted eVolution worshipping viewpoint, how can we call the death of 0.03 % of the world's population a "mass extinction" ???!!! Besides, there was no total deaths even in the seeverly affected areas !!!

Nobody ever claimed it as a mass extinction. So why are you claimiming the contrary.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

I asked Catholics about this statement of the Pope. They have flatly denied the "Pope believing in evolution" as a total misrepresentation of his views by part of the Evolutionists. I repeat again, evolution is an atheistic ideology, and iot can never be anything other than an atheistic ideology.

I am not so isolated after all, I guess !!! :giggling:

[jello]

Sorry, double post

[root]

I asked Catholics about this statement of the Pope. They have flatly denied the "Pope believing in evolution" as a total misrepresentation of his views by part of the Evolutionists. I repeat again, evolution is an atheistic ideology, and iot can never be anything other than an atheistic ideology.

Would it not have been better to read what the pope said for yourself:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

Pope John Paul II

Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996

To the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences taking part in the Plenary Assembly

With great pleasure I address cordial greetings to you, Mr President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's Senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, n. 1, 28 October 1986, L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 24 November 1986, p. 22).

Science at the dawn of the third millennium

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.

During this plenary session' you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium", starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will. be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 [1993] pp. 764-772; Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 23 April 1993, announcing the document on The interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 [1994] pp. 232-243).

Evolution and the Church's Magisterium

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

We are called to enter eternal life

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the Encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely Evangelium vitae.

It is significant that in St John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude.

To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3, cf. Mt 4:4).

Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

From the Vatican, 22 October 1996.

[Trumble]

I repeat again, evolution is an atheistic ideology, and iot can never be anything other than an atheistic ideology.

You are as wrong as you were last time.

The important distinction about the mainstream Catholic view is that it is essentially dualistic. While evolution is accepted, that is evolution of the bodily form, not of the soul. Their argument is that the soul - the essence of man, and what makes man different from the other animals - is a creation of God, and not of the evolutionary process. The evolutionary process itself, of course, was designed by God.

It's a position that fairly neatly reconciles traditional monotheistic theology and the empirical evidence of science. Most intellectual opposition to it (from those others than pure creationists) is on philosophical grounds, dualism being rather unpopular in philosophical circles these days. That lengthy quote makes the position quite clear;

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations.

"Evolution" is not disputed, but the mechanisms and the philosophy behind various alternatives is. The Church favours a spiritualist interpretation, and not a materialist/reductionist (go look those terms up if you don't know them) one, which would be incompatable with their doctrine.

Evolution in itself is NOT an "atheistic" theory (its not an "ideology" at all), and there is no reason somebody with strong religious views cannot also accept it.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

What about this portion?

The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

It first talks about "theories" of evolution, and then goes on to negate the evolution theory that is taught as fact in science circles as degrading to mankind. Of course that is of no consequence for the likes of root and his peers, for whom humans are just another animal like pigs or dogs and religion is a mere matter of chance due to advanced human intellect...

Of course as a Muslim, I do not really care for what the Pope or Christians say, but it is worth noting they are not as much in agreement with the Evolution worshippers as they would like them to be with them on this matter.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It first talks about "theories" of evolution, and then goes on to negate the evolution theory that is taught as fact in science circles as degrading to mankind.

You've misunderstood the text you've quoted, and this has caused you to misrepresent what it says. The text does not "negate the evolution theory", it simply opposes those interpretations of it which contradict the Catholic Church's dualistic understanding of body and soul. See Trumble's post for a statement on the Church's view.

Peace

[root]

It first talks about "theories" of evolution, and then goes on to negate the evolution theory

You mean he talks about the conflict between the religous belief and the fact that "man" in a biblical sense was to be "pure" in creation which as he states:

the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument,

He then talks about mans mind and intellect, which I don't have any beef with.

that is taught as fact in science circles as degrading to mankind. Of course that is of no consequence for the likes of root and his peers, for whom humans are just another animal like pigs or dogs and religion is a mere matter of chance due to advanced human intellect...

Your sailing close to the wind my friend, be careful. To suggest I akin humans to that of pigs and dogs is verging on offensive. Should I walk around claiming that the like of you and your peers are just suicide bombers and terrorists looking for any excuse to kill indescriminately until you yourself have been killed! would you not call that arrogant. Far from it, however I don't place the human species as being a divine creation nor a product of pure creation?

I think if you read it objectively he refers to the spiritual and concious side of man. Not the physical form and how out of matter we formed!

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

For all the arrogant Evolution worshippers, please tell me just one of the "evolution theories" which is consistent with the Chruch's idea that man was created in the form and shape of God Allmighty (this is not a Muslim belief, but a christian one, however we have to go with the flow).

and yes, Evolution worshippers like root and cz do contend that we are nothing but animals.. Alas, they grudgingly admit that equating us with such animals is an insult to humanity and its dignity, but they cannot escape the consequences of the Evolutionist religion they worship, which puts us all, humans pigs dogs and chimps, on the same pedestal, differntiated only by chance and luck.

To the Evolution worhsippers: You can try to claim whatever you wish about Evolution not being offensive to humans, but the truth of the Evolution hallucination points the other way.

[root]

For all the arrogant Evolution worshippers,

Not a good start.

please tell me just one of the "evolution theories" which is consistent with the Chruch's idea that man was created in the form and shape of God Allmighty (this is not a Muslim belief, but a christian one, however we have to go with the flow).

I was born into a christianity society and had a mild christian up bringing. I think moderate christians don't see evolution as a relegous issue. Further, moderate christians view evolution as the work of god? Indeed some muslims also are starting to adopt this attitude:

At least in the West, some Muslims allow for belief in theistic evolution. Iqbal Hossain, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake said: "If you believe in God and in the Qur'an, you have to believe that everything that was in the universe was created by God. "If there was an evolutionary process, that process was created and put in place by God." However, others totally attack evolution.

and yes, Evolution worshippers like root and cz do contend that we are nothing but animals..

I can't speak for CZ, but ultimately yes I do see mankind as an animal species.

Alas, they grudgingly admit that equating us with such animals is an insult to humanity and its dignity,

Humanity & compassion is definately a human trait, none of that is taken away on the premis we have evolved over time to gain such fine qualities.

but they cannot escape the consequences of the Evolutionist religion they worship, which puts us all, humans pigs dogs and chimps, on the same pedestal,

We cannot bury our heads in the sand and blindly ignore some home truths, though you are doing a fine job.

differntiated only by chance and luck.

You really should stop being indoctrinated so much, it really is effecting your ability to think outside the box indapendantly and perverts your understanding of evolution, perhaps that is why your hostility to it is such.

[QURBAN]

Peace to Those Who Follow the Guidance!

I need help understanding the following- if any one can contribute it would be much appreciated-


-Does Evolution theory support the idea that all living organisms (including Humans) evolved from some form of a primitive cell?

-Is it correct to surmise that it’s still a “scientific mystery” how this cell came into existence!

-If it is still a mystery, why is it a mystery?

-Taking constituents of a simple cell, (i.e. the proteins- amino acids etc) into account and the complexity of the cell itself, what is the probability of these constituents coming together by chance to construct the cell?

Kind Regards

Qurban

:)

[czgibson]

Greetings Jello,

For all the arrogant Evolution worshippers,

Please don't describe someone you disagree with as being arrogant. It's a weak debating tactic, also known as the ad hominem fallacy.

please tell me just one of the "evolution theories" which is consistent with the Chruch's idea that man was created in the form and shape of God Allmighty (this is not a Muslim belief, but a christian one, however we have to go with the flow).

The existence or non-existence of god has nothing to do with evolution. If Christians want to adopt belief in evolution as part of their world-view, then that is a question they would have to ask themselves, since god is part of their way of understanding things. This may or may not be the case among evolutionists.

and yes, Evolution worshippers like root and cz do contend that we are nothing but animals.

Correct. I agree with this, and root says he does too.

Alas, they grudgingly admit that equating us with such animals is an insult to humanity and its dignity

Incorrect. On the contrary, I think claiming that we somehow have more "dignity" than other animals is essentially a meaningless assertion.

but they cannot escape the consequences of the Evolutionist religion they worship,

What beings do evolutionists worship?
What rituals and traditions do evolutionists follow?
What moral system is instantiated among believers in evolution?

In what way is evolution a religion?

which puts us all, humans pigs dogs and chimps, on the same pedestal, differntiated only by chance and luck.

'Putting something on a pedestal' implies semi-worship. Is that what you intended here?

To the Evolution worhsippers: You can try to claim whatever you wish about Evolution not being offensive to humans, but the truth of the Evolution hallucination points the other way.

First of all, I don't worship evolution. Things that I believe to be true are important to me, yes - but that hardly constitutes worship.

Secondly, if you believe evolution is insulting to humans, that's fine. You're free to believe whatever you want. Howewer, if you were to study some of the many questions of modern biology without an evolutionary background, you'd find that saying "well, that's just the way god made things" gets you nowhere as an explanatory hypothesis.

Jello, the fact that you know very little about evolution shines through every one of your posts. Don't you think it would be better to study the theory first, and then decide whether or not you agree with it?

Peace

[root]

-Does Evolution theory support the idea that all living organisms (including Humans) evolved from some form of a primitive cell?

Yes.

-Is it correct to surmise that it’s still a “scientific mystery” how this cell came into existence!

Yes.

-If it is still a mystery, why is it a mystery?

Because it origins are not yet know, ranging from simple protobionts forming from a primordial soup on earth to organic material coming from space to my favourite "Panspermia". It's not that we don't understand how the first cells formed we don't know where and why?

-Taking constituents of a simple cell, (i.e. the proteins- amino acids etc) into account and the complexity of the cell itself, what is the probability of these constituents coming together by chance to construct the cell?

I don't buy the complexity, but this is a thread on evolution and in this Islamic forum it's been a battle just to seperate abiogenesis (the formation of the first living cells) and Evolution (the change to species over time from the first simple cesll).

Perhaps we should start a thread on Abiogenesis..............

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
How does DNA fit into evolution theories? What does it have to say on DNA?

[Trumble]

and yes, Evolution worshippers like root and cz do contend that we are nothing but animals..

I can't speak for CZ, but ultimately yes I do see mankind as an animal species.

Man is an animal species, but that of course just depends on how you define "animal".

Alas, they grudgingly admit that equating us with such animals is an insult to humanity and its dignity

Humanity & compassion is definately a human trait, none of that is taken away on the premis we have evolved over time to gain such fine qualities.

A couple of points. Firstly what's so bad or degrading about being compared to (other) animals? How many wars have dolphins started? How many chimpanzees torture fellow chimpanzees? How much pollution have ants unleashed on the environment? In many ways, my friends, humanity sucks - big time.

Secondly, I been pushing the Catholic view on this (even if it isn't my own) to try and demonstrate that "man is just an animal" is NOT a necessary consequence of accepting evolution. They hold that man is unique, because only man has a soul, given by God. That particular distinction between man and animal, incidently, was first made by the Church long before Darwin was born. Because they take a dualist approach, distinguishing between mind/soul and body, that view is perfectly reconcilable with evolution by natural selection. Many evolutionists, of course are materialists and reductions who do not accept that, by nonetheless the two are not synonymous.

:sl:
How does DNA fit into evolution theories? What does it have to say on DNA?

It's all very complicated - I don't mean that in patronizing fashion, it really is! The best thing to do would be to get some books, or do some internet research yourself, so the authors you are reading are rather more knowledgeable than anyone here (I suspect!)

There are three main mechanisms of evolution. The first is "natural selection" (the only one of these three processes understood in Darwin's time), in which traits that tend to provide a reproductive advantage increase in frequency in a given population over time. Assuming that some mechanism of heredity exists (remember Darwin knew nothing about DNA), that reason for that is pretty obvious.

The second is "genetic drift" in which the frequencies of existing genes in a population change over time by chance. The gene strands are carried within the DNA molecule.

The last is mutation, a change in the genes (within the DNA) themselves which can be caused by such things as viral infections, radiation (background radiation is quite sufficient) or chemical agents (again, naturally occuring ones will do).

[nimrod]

Trumble "A couple of points. Firstly what's so bad or degrading about being compared to (other) animals? How many wars have dolphins started? How many chimpanzees torture fellow chimpanzees? How much pollution have ants unleashed on the environment?".

You sure that you want to stick by all of that?

Wouldn't it be kind of like the question "How many Honey Bees have started a war?"

Thanks
Nimrod

[mujahedeen2087]

if evolution is true they should have found countless numbers of transitional fossils

[Trumble]

You sure that you want to stick by all of that?

Wouldn't it be kind of like the question "How many Honey Bees have started a war?"

Thanks
Nimrod

I take your point, but it hardly damages my argument. ;)

if evolution is true they should have found countless numbers of transitional fossils

Large numbers have been found. The idea that there are none is perhaps the biggest creationist myth, at least when talking about evolution.

It simply isn't true. The only reason that 'argument' keeps getting peddled by creationists is that without it, their 'scientific' case is non-existent.

[root]

How does DNA fit into evolution theories? What does it have to say on DNA?

Fossils like archeological specimens are more or less direct relics of the past. DNA is another method termed "renewed relics". For historians renewed relics could mean eyewitness accounts handed down by oral or written documents. We cannot ask any living witnesses what life was like to live in the 14th century, but we know about it thanks to written documents.

Written documents in turn are more reliable than oral tradition by a disconcerting margin. frustratingly, oral tradition peters out almost immediately unless preserved by the decaying of the facts and amazingly after just a few generations historical facts about real history rapidly degenerates (or blossoms, depending on your taste) into myths about demigods, devils and fire breathing dragons. Oral traditions and it's vulnerability is well explained by "chinese whispers", a game I use to play as a child and at school if anything to demonstrate the fallability of oral tradition compounded further by a great example from world war 1 within the british forces and I think it is well worth telling:

A message to be passed on orally back to headquarters from the front line was a simple one

"Bring reinforcements we are going to advance"

This message seems simple enough, however as the message was passed orally through a chain of people finally the commanders at the headquarters recieved the message:

Bring three and four pence we are going to a dance

What use is this information to the commanders. I need not go on about oral tradition but will return to it shortly besides the theory of evolution has no equivelant to oral traditions.

Writing is a huge improvement, paper papyrus or even stone tablets may wear out and decay but written records have the potential to be copied accurately for an indefinate numer of generations. This is good in theory but not in practice, if you was to write a letter to me 10 generations ago and asked each generation to write it down, if you write it down with painstaking accuracy being very careful of your writing style, it has a good chance of reaching me accurately. However, if through the generations the letter was go through language changes such as from English to French then you start to get something similar to "chinese whispers". For example, there exists a consonant sound between the English hard c and g (it is the French hard c in comme) but nobody would attempt to represent this sound by writing a character which looks intermediate between c and g.

We have today an accurate account of the destruction of Pompeii in 79AD because a witness, Pliny wrote down what he saw. The accuracy is retained firstly because it is his writing and his words, secondly it was not subjected to oral tradition before being committed to text.

It is only a theoretical ideal that copying retains perfect accuracy. In practice scribes are fallable and not above massaging their copy to make it say things that they think (no doubt sincerely) the original document ought to have said. Made worse if such a documents source goes back to oral tradition. Afterall writing cannot take us beyond the point of it's invention which was only about 5,000 years ago. Identification symbols counting marks and pictures can take us back further perhaps some tens of thousands of years. But such time scales are mere chicken feed when looking into the history of evolution.

Fortunately, when we turn to evolution their is another kind of duplicated information which goes back an almost unimaginable large number of copying generations precisely because unlike modern to old or differing languages it has a "self normalisation", in other words the written text of DNA information in all living creatures has been handed down from remote ancestors hundreds of millions years ago with awesome accuracy.

DNA messages are written in a true alphabet like the Roman Greek or Cyrillic.
(If you found a civilisation that existed 1 million years ago who used Roman true alphabet in written documents would you not conclude they were Roman ancestors or conclude they have nothing to do with the romans and were a seperate civilisation). A powerful suggestion when you consider the alphabet of DNA has never been observed "different" from any species where DNA has been extracted.

The DNA alphabet is a strictly limited repetoire of symbols with no self evident meaning. Arbitrary symbols are chosen and combined to make meaningful messages of complexity and size. Where English has 26 letters to the alphabet and Greek 24 the DNA alphabet only has 4. Most useful DNA spells out three letter words from a dictionary limited to just 64 words, each word called a "codon". The dictionary maps 64 code words (codons) onto 21 meanings (the 20 biological amino acids plus one all purpose comma) Human languages are numerous and always changing and contain tens of thousands of distinct words, but the 64-word DNA dictionary is universal and unchanged. The 20 amino acids are strung into sequences of typically a few hundred , each sequence a particular protien molecule. Whereas the number of letters is limited to four and the codons to 64, there is no theoretical limit to the number of protiens that can be spelled out by different sequences of codons. A "sentence" of codons specifying one protien molecule is an identifiable unit often called a gene.

Understood this way, the DNA record is an almost unbelievably rich gift which every individula species carries and has had passed down since life first began almost like a "Genetic Book of the Dead". A descriptive record of ancestoral worlds including it's body form, it's inherited behaviour and the chemistry of it's cells. The food they sought, the predators they escaped, the climates they endured. The message is ultimately scripted in the DNA that fell through the succession of sieves that is "natural Selection"...........

Finally, to finish on a little point. DNA also brings with it some truths which identifies past mistakes within even taxonomy. It was believed that the Hippopotomas and Pig shared a common ancestor, DNA showed us that it;s closest living ancestor (like chimps are the closest common ancestor to man) is not a pig at all, it's the Whale........... Go figure hu :-)

I have to stop my fingers ache.......

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

I do not need to study evolution to know it is false. Allah the AllMighty has already told me that we do not come from some animal or single cell, this is all I need to know. Since the Evolution Worshippers do not generally accept God in any form or way or try to make excuses to fool the unwary about how Evolution and God may go hand-in-hand,that is their problem to answer on Judgemnet Day.

What beings do evolutionists worship?
What rituals and traditions do evolutionists follow?
What moral system is instantiated among believers in evolution?

In what way is evolution a religion?

Evoltutionits worship their own whims and the so called scientific method, a method that leads nowhere but Hellfire, as Allah has told us about those who take their whims and desires as their gods. Intersting that He (SWT) says that people like root and cz and other atheists are less than cattle, don't you think???

Not following rituals and traditions is a ritual in and of itself. The desire to reduce everything to science and experimentation is a religion with its own set of morals and values, even if it only means carrying out tests and making silly hypothesis like evolution.

Of course, the arrogants Evolution worshippers will not accept this, will keep on saying that humans are not debased by talk of evolution, andthat it does not contardict divine belief,but everything is clear cut for the true believer.

[Trumble]

I do not need to study evolution to know it is false. .

And you claim that its the "evolution worshippers" who are arrogant?!

[czgibson]

Greetings Jello,

I do not need to study evolution to know it is false.

How do you ever expect to educate yourself on any subject with that attitude?

Allah the AllMighty has already told me that we do not come from some animal or single cell, this is all I need to know.

Has Allah explicitly stated that evolution is not true? Where does Allah talk about single cells?

Since the Evolution Worshippers do not generally accept God in any form or way or try to make excuses to fool the unwary about how Evolution and God may go hand-in-hand,that is their problem to answer on Judgemnet Day.

Some evolutionists believe in god, some don't. If you don't want to believe this, that's up to you, but the facts are clearly against you in this case.

Evoltutionits worship their own whims and the so called scientific method, a method that leads nowhere but Hellfire, as Allah has told us about those who take their whims and desires as their gods.

What do you mean by "the so called scientific method"? What do you know about the scientific method, exactly?

If the scientific method leads to Hellfire, then I presume that Muslims would be well advised to avoid using any of the inventions that have come about as a result of it. Mobile phones, medicines and even the Internet, among many other things, have all been created by scientists. If you think they are connected in some way with Hellfire, I'd be surprised if you condoned their use by believers.

Your point about evolutionists following their own whims is weak. Scientists believe what the evidence tells them - not simply what they want to believe.

Intersting that He (SWT) says that people like root and cz and other atheists are less than cattle, don't you think???

What about our "humanity and dignity"? You've changed your position there.

Not following rituals and traditions is a ritual in and of itself.

Surely you can see the contradiction there?

The desire to reduce everything to science and experimentation is a religion with its own set of morals and values, even if it only means carrying out tests and making silly hypothesis like evolution.

Who wants to "reduce everything to science"? What moral code does this entail? You seem to have no compunction about making huge generalisations with no supporting evidence.

Of course, the arrogants Evolution worshippers will not accept this, will keep on saying that humans are not debased by talk of evolution, andthat it does not contardict divine belief,but everything is clear cut for the true believer.

That old ad hominem attack again - trust me, calling your opponent arrogant will do nothing to convince them.

"Everything is clear cut for the true believer." So you never have questions in your life? You understand everything already? Wow! Next time I've got a question about anything I'll ask you, since you see everything so clearly. On second thoughts, perhaps not.

Peace

[wilberhum]

Religion should lead us to god and help up become better people. I think god would conceder it an insult to use religion to stifle knowledge and understanding.

[nimrod]

"I do not need to study evolution to know it is false".
Wow, what a concept.

Good grief.

Thanks
Nimrod

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims

Even though i know i will be labeled as arrogant and undisciplined, let us see what Pope benedict ctually has to say about evolution..

In addition, Cardinal Schonborn is recognized as a close friend and supporter of Pope Benedict XVI and is thought to have been among the new pope's strongest advocates in the last papal election. Schonborn then goes on to clarify some remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) last year.

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." (what else could the Evolutionists ask for in terms of clarification from the Pope!!!)


Of course, the arrogant Evolutionists will simply keep on spewing out their propaganda and say that every thinking person accepts evolution and those who do not (including us Muslims) are deluded and do not have any sense in us. That is their problem, not mine...

[Trumble]

Of course, the arrogant Evolutionists will simply keep on spewing out their propaganda and say that every thinking person accepts evolution and those who do not (including us Muslims) are deluded and do not have any sense in us. That is their problem, not mine...

It has repeatedly been explained to you - at some length - why Catholic doctrine, and indeed those comments from Pope Benedict, do not represent a rejection of evolution. What they reject are materialist/reductionist explanations of evolution that deny a dualistic separation of body and soul, and the particular role of mankind in God's design.

You don't even bother reading what you quote yourself, which makes that absolutely clear;

"the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

"Arrogant" ? I don't think so; I'd put that down to the strength of your faith which is commendable as far as it goes. "Undisciplined"? Yes. You do not help your case by repeatedly misinterpreting things to say what you would like them to say even when it is clear they do not actually say it, or being rude to others simply because they hold a view as strongly as you your own.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims, Hello to the non-Muslims

or a brief Islmic perspective on "evolution of man" as far as Islam is concerned, I would like to quote the following from shaykh keller..

As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.

now, about the statement from the pope, I would like to ask again.. "Could somone tell me which are the theories of evolution that grant humanity the special and dignified status he enjoys according to all world religions"

How many "theories of evolution" exist , that the Church is denying some and accepting others...

finally, if we human beings were to pause and use our "highly evolved brain" for once to study the implications of the theory of evolution, we would immeditely see that it holds man as the creator of God, not God as the creator of man. This is very transparent to anyone who thinks for a moment about the implications of the theory.

I would also like to know how a buddhist like member "trumble" can accept this theory, when it clearly leaves no room for soul, and meditation and truth are reduced to abstract concepts of the human mind...

[Trumble]

now, about the statement from the pope, I would like to ask again.. "Could somone tell me which are the theories of evolution that grant humanity the special and dignified status he enjoys according to all world religions"

I already have, twice. The Catholic Church takes precisely such a view.

How many "theories of evolution" exist , that the Church is denying some and accepting others...

You need to be very careful here not to mix scientific theories with philosophical and theological ones any more than is necessary (although to some extent it possibly is). I've been banging on about materialism/reductionism and dualism, and it seems a little explanation may be in order. Generally, materialists take the sort of view you have been suggesting about man being "just an animal". They do not believe in a mind or soul as being distinct from the brain (and electro-chemical activity within it), and their aim is to "reduce" the first to terms fully describable by the latter.

Dualists, however, disagree. They believe the mind or soul completely different from the material body that hosts it, and that the two can be seperated - usually after bodily death. That is much the same position as the Church still holds. Many dualists believe that things are that way because the possession of an immortal soul is the thing that seperates man from the animals; it is the creation and gift of God.

I would also like to know how a buddhist like member "trumble" can accept this theory, when it clearly leaves no room for soul, and meditation and truth are reduced to abstract concepts of the human mind...

Firstly, as I have explained, it DOES leave room for a "soul" if you want one. The Buddhist take on that is actually rather more complicated than a brief look at concepts like re-incarnation may suggest (personally I do not believe in the "soul", just a continuous and inevitable sequence of causes and effects).

Secondly, I do not believe there was a creator God, at least as monotheists would understand that phrase.

Thirdly I don't have any problem with 'truth' being an abstract truth of the human mind, or at least the truths my mind can comfortably handle intellectually. For anything beyond that - 'ultimate truths' if you like - the general Buddhist belief would be that they can only be directly experienced. Meditation is a way of attempting to do that, and accepting evolutionary theory - at least until something better comes along - doesn't stop anybody from meditating!

Or, in short, there is no real contradiction between accepting evolutionary theory, and Buddhism, that I am aware of.

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims,hello to the non-Muslims

Still the question about the "theories of evolution" that do not contradict the teaching of the revealed religions is in order. Is it too much to ask for a listing of the "different theories of evolution" as stated by Evolutionist scientists so that we can separate the "acceptable" from the "unacceptable" ones, like the statement of the Church is making us infer? (About Islam I hope the matter is clear that we totally reject outright any reference to our coming from other non-human life forms...)

(I personally think the Catholic Church is not calling evolution an outright lie because many of its members are deeply secularist in outlook and only have a shell of catholicism left in them. Leaving it in vague terms and giving contradictory statements makes everyone, the hardliners and the secularists fall under the same Church. I do not know whether this will last for too long, though).

[root]

Still the question about the "theories of evolution" that do not contradict the teaching of the revealed religions is in order.

But truly, only one is a scientific theory since philosophical & Theological are not compatible with the scientific theory? Thus the theory of evolution is defined as:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

[Trumble]

:sl: to the Muslims,hello to the non-Muslims

Still the question about the "theories of evolution" that do not contradict the teaching of the revealed religions is in order. Is it too much to ask for a listing of the "different theories of evolution" as stated by Evolutionist scientists so that we can separate the "acceptable" from the "unacceptable" ones, like the statement of the Church is making us infer? (About Islam I hope the matter is clear that we totally reject outright any reference to our coming from other non-human life forms...)

(I personally think the Catholic Church is not calling evolution an outright lie because many of its members are deeply secularist in outlook and only have a shell of catholicism left in them. Leaving it in vague terms and giving contradictory statements makes everyone, the hardliners and the secularists fall under the same Church. I do not know whether this will last for too long, though).

The science is pretty much variations on the same theory, so I can't give you a list of different and competing scientific theories, because there aren't any. Evolution is the accepted theory, and will remain so until a better (scientific) one comes along, if it ever does.

As I said before, the differences between different "theories" are primarily philosophical and theological, not scientific. I have already explained the differences.

They simply are not giving out "contradictory statements" in "vague terms". It just isn't the simple "evolution or God" argument you make it out to be. There is no necessary contradiction between the two. They are not calling it an "outright lie" because the Church itself (with a surprisingly long and distinguished scientific history) doesn't think it is.

[jello]

:sl: to the muslims, hello to the non-muslims,

So there is only one theory of evolution, as I had suspected. The rest is philosophical changes to try to make it look as if there were "different theories" which strikes me as odd to say the very least.

I yet have to see how many scientists actually believe that man was created from God rather than only materialistic. Even from this thread itself, we have three Atheist supporters of evolution theory, and one whose concept of "God" is :I do not believe there was a creator God, at least as monotheists would understand that phrase.

At least as far as Islam is concerned, the question is either that Allah created man vs. Evolution created man (i.e. Allah did not create man through evolution due to the evidence of the religious texts). As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I still see the so-so attitude as is evidenced by them talking about the different "theories of evolution" as if from a scientic viewpoint.

[czgibson]

Greetings Jello,

Evolution by natural selection is one theory, but there are other theoretical components within or around it, which amount to different interpretations of the basic theory or specific aspects of it, such as phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium and quantum evolution.

Why don't you actually learn about evolution before getting involved in a discussion about it? That might stop you from getting so confused all the time.

Peace

[jello]

:sl: to the Muslims, hello to the non-muslims,

Could I get a definition of these three terms by those supporting th eevolution tehiry. (Of course I could go to some site and get their meanings, but it is better if we work with the definitions given by Evolution supporters in this thread).

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Could I get a definition of these three terms by those supporting th eevolution tehiry. (Of course I could go to some site and get their meanings, but it is better if we work with the definitions given by Evolution supporters in this thread).

Why not look at a site? That's only what I'm going to link you to anyway! This is part of what I said earlier about educating yourself about evolution. Don't automatically trust anything I or someone else might tell you - find it out for yourself!

Here are the terms you've asked about:

Phyletic Gradualism

Punctuated Equilibrium

Quantum Evolution

Peace

[root]

Evolution = change in allele frequency in a population over time

Natural selection = differential propagation of genotypes (due to differences in ability to survive, resist disease, find mates, etc)

Sexual selection = differential success in acquiring fertilizations between genotypes (a sub-set of natural selection)

Genetic drift = the effects of random chance on evolution, mostly seen in small populations and on genes with low frequency

Founder effect / genetic bottleneck = the isolation of a small random or nearly-random sub-set of a population, resulting in alterations in gene frequency due to chance.

The modern technical definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time". In layman's terms, it defines evolution as genetic change in a population.

There are several consequences of this definition. One is that non-selective forces that affect gene frequency (often strongly) have been incorporated into evolution. This is fitting, since these forces have actually had great impact.

One is genetic drift, which is just the effects of random chance in a population. If you have two alleles, equally represented, but no selection acting on them, eventually one will vanish, just by chance, since animals die for non-selective reasons.

Another is the founder effect, aka genetic bottleneck, in which a small sample of a population survives a disaster or colonizes a new location. Because this sample is small, chances are that not all alleles will be represented and that the ratio will change. Think of it like having a bowl of red, yellow and blue marbles, where red and yellow are 48% each and blue is 4%. If you take a sample of 9, red and yellow probably won't be equal anymore, and you might lose blue entirely.

Then of course there's natural selection, the one we're all familiar with. However, it should be noted that it isn't progress towards perfection or even improvement in an absolute sense, but just adaptation to local conditions and selective pressures (environment, pathogens, parasites, etc). It can also prevent evolution. If you have a population with a bell-curve distribution of a trait, and the extremes are selected against, the mean value will never change.

There's also sexual selection, the competition for mates and fertilizations, which can actually run counter to natural selection.

[HeiGou]

I do not need to study evolution to know it is false.

May I ask you which part of Evolutionary Theory you think is false? Do you think that populations do not change over time? That some individuals are not more successful than others?

Allah the AllMighty has already told me that we do not come from some animal or single cell, this is all I need to know.

God told you personally? That sounds vaguely blasphemous in Islam. Is that your claim? Or did He tell you in the Quran? May I ask where and how He told you that Evolution was false?

Since the Evolution Worshippers do not generally accept God in any form or way or try to make excuses to fool the unwary about how Evolution and God may go hand-in-hand,that is their problem to answer on Judgemnet Day.

How can anyone worship Evolution?

Evoltutionits worship their own whims and the so called scientific method, a method that leads nowhere but Hellfire, as Allah has told us about those who take their whims and desires as their gods. Intersting that He (SWT) says that people like root and cz and other atheists are less than cattle, don't you think???

Well no. You would expect that. No Religious Authority, much less the Highest One, is going to tell anyone atheists are good people and to be admired.

Scientists should not worship, much less follow, their own whims. They need to follow the evidence. Pre-judgement makes for bad results and useless science.

Not following rituals and traditions is a ritual in and of itself. The desire to reduce everything to science and experimentation is a religion with its own set of morals and values, even if it only means carrying out tests and making silly hypothesis like evolution.

There is no reason to think that not follow a ritual is a ritual itself unless the person doing it thinks it is. And indeed that second bit sounds sensible. Why shouldn't we reduce everything to its basics and test it? Do you only want blind belief?

Of course, the arrogants Evolution worshippers will not accept this, will keep on saying that humans are not debased by talk of evolution, andthat it does not contardict divine belief,but everything is clear cut for the true believer.

I do, as it happens, think that humans are debased by Evolution. Freud would agree with me I think. But part of growing up is to accept that we are not as important to the rest of the world as we are to our Mothers, and also that we are not as important to the Rest of the Universe either. It is sad but it is true. That that truth is what is important. I also agree it can contradict a certain type of Divine belief, but not that it contradicts all possible forms of Divine belief.

[جوري]

Well one thing is that modern medical science has taken the pressure off the human race so in many ways we are getting "worse". It is a good thing to have a big head for instance, and humans already have disproportionately large heads. Giving birth is much harder for humans than almost any other species because babies' heads just don't fit that well. In the past a lot of mothers and babies would have died keeping head size down. They do not any more because the mothers all have medical intervention. So expect human heads to get a bit bigger.

Another thing is Tay-Sacks disease which strikes down otherwise normal children between the ages of two and five. This affects mainly Jews of Eastern European origin. A Rabbi called Josef Ekstein started an organisation called Dor Yeshorim after losing four children to Tay-Sacks. It tests for the genes for Tay-Sacks and advises some marriages to go ahead and some not to. This has cut the number of cases in the Orthodox Jewish community down to lower levels than the mainstream American population. But the down side is that it is spreading the genes for Tay-Sacks into the wider community and so making more people carry the gene. Evolution is action.

please bring some evidence from an esteemed journal as to your first claim
you can start with http://uptodate.com/
I can't believe the stuff you post here with such authority.. lol

also --"Tay-Sachs" disease is an autosomal recessive disease ( doesn't strike normal children) that is an oxymoron If I ever saw one in the making -- you need a copy of the defective gene from each parent for a child to be manifest with the disease! not unlike the process in cystic fibrosis-- and with a carrier rate is 1 in 25 in Ashkenazi Jewish population it is obviously more prevalent in them---Sickle cell disease affects blacks almost exclusively affecting 10% of their population---glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase affects mostly Mediterranean-- cystic fibrosis affects one in 3200 Whites....takayasu arteritis is most prevalent in Asians--Buerger's Disease affects mostly Jews from middle eastern origin... Some diseases are prevalent in certain regions and certain areas more than others... but it doesn't mean that others in the population at large aren't carriers or can't be affected by it if by mere chance they should meet with another unfortunate soul who is also a carrier of the defective gene.. So I am not sure what the point you are trying to make here? or does it make you feel proud to throw terms at people whose pathophysiology-- and I hazard state even spelling you can't muster?!

peace!

[root]

looks like some here like to take debates well off topic..........

[ranma1/2]

looks like some here like to take debates well off topic..........

Yes i have discovered that as well.

[Woodrow]

Must be the result of too many evolutionists on the thread. At this rate the off spring of this thread will soon have no resemblance to a thread and will become a new form of forum interaction. Possibly as some type of pattern recognition instead of typed words.

The big problem is there does not appear to be any general consensus as to what evolution is. Perhaps if an agreement can be made about that, then a valid debate can be made as to how and why it occurs.

Misunderstood debates only lead to further misunderstanding.

[MustafaMc]

My opinion on evolution is that it is purely a belief system based on the book by Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species , to explain away the existence of the Creator, the One God - Allah. In stark contrast, creationism is also a belief system based on the Bible, the Holy Quran and other religous texts to point to the very existence of the Creator and to establish our relationship with Him. Is it any more wonderous as to why one would work so hard to disprove something as to why others try to prove it?

You may say that creationism is unscientifically simplistic and that those things that can't be logically explained are attributed to a man-made concept of God. My premise is that atheists start with the basic belief that there is no God and that they look for evidence to disprove His existence.

As a cotton breeder/geneticist working to develop genetically engineered cotton varieties, I have some understanding of genetical and biological principles. My limited understanding of these principles dictates that I believe in a Creator. My amazement at the miracle of life makes it impossible for me to believe that life even began by mere chance at the most basic single cell level, much less that "evolution" explains how this supposed primal single cell "evolved" into the highest life form, humankind, by random chance mutations and by natural selection without a Higher Power guiding the process. With recent advances in knowledge of biology and genetics, man still cannot recreate under the most ideal conditions even a single celled organism from elemental components (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.)

For me, it makes no difference whether Allah literally fashioned the first man, Adam, from clay and breathed life into him, or whether this was a symbolic parable that Allah used to explain a more complicated process that He manipulated and continues to guide. I just can't understand how evolution without a guiding Higher Power can explain the origin of species through random genetic mutations and survival of the fittest. Fossil records of so-called bridging species means absolutely nothing regarding the existence of God. I believe in God and atheists disbelieve in Him and neither can convicingly scientifically "prove" his point to the other because evolution and creation are beliefs that have no proof either way.

[DAWUD_adnan]

its the THEORY of evolution not FACT....... ow,and evolutionism is racist ...lol

[Woodrow]

The difficulty I see is that non-biologists view evolution as a religious belief that explains creation.

I am very much a creationist. However, My past work involved a good deal of biology. to me evolution is simply the statement that the offspring will have a different genetic make up then the parents. Both Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. Both come from the same ancestors and both are still dogs. But a chihua looks more like a mouse and a Great Dane looks more like a horse. In a biological concept that is what evolution is. It is not a theory, it is a fact, offspring are going to often look different than the parents.

What seems to get confused and mistaken for evolution are the theories on how evolution occurs. the theories of evolution have nothing to do about the existance of evolution, they are theories as to how the changes occur. Creationism is just as much a valid "Theory of Evolution as is the theory of natural selection.

As A Creationist I believe that the evolution we see is the result of Divine Planning. My theory of how evolution occurs is that it is the handiwork and planning of Allah(swt)

[MustafaMc]

...to me evolution is simply the statement that the offspring will have a different genetic make up then the parents. Both Great Danes and Chihuahuas are dogs. Both come from the same ancestors and both are still dogs. But a chihua looks more like a mouse and a Great Dane looks more like a horse.

No, I respectfully disagree. What you just described is a basic genetic principle of inheritance not evolution. Evolution according to Wikipedia is defined as "...Over time, this process can result in varied adaptations to environmental conditions. As differences in and between populations accumulate, new species may evolve. All known species are descended from a single ancestral gene pool through this process of gradual divergence..."

In a biological concept that is what evolution is. It is not a theory, it is a fact, offspring are going to often look different than the parents.

Yes, offspring looking like their parents is a fact, but it is not a "fact" supporting evolution with random undirected mutations and natural selection to develop into a new species that is sexually incompatible with the first. Evolution without "Intelligent Design" is not a fact - it is a theory that some people believe in.

[AB517]

lol this argument (question) is funny.

When you ask about creation, which story do you want? Navaho have a great one, Christians aint to bad either (I am Christian); in fact I have not read one that I didn’t enjoy. They are all, how ever, at the present time, are un-testable. The physical laws that God created are testable. No scientist says that the present theory is any more than a theory. It is (as a matter of fact) the only one that is testable. Scientist love people to question and requestion. The beauty of scientist is that (we believing ones) feel that God wants us to keep growing, so no book has the total answer, how can it. We also feel that God would sing out in joy, and all the angles would trumpet if man became enlightened enough to understand how Allah did it, or at least how our meagerness’ could understand it.

The only question is “Do you believe in a higher power” The Bible, Koran, and all other great books try to show us how to love, respect, and honor each other. Math books do math, these mathematicians are also inspirited. Cook books do cooking. The rock record is incomplete; it does not prove or disprove anything.

2+2=4 Allah be praised.

AB

[Keltoi]

I'm a believer in evolution, and it isn't a threat to my religion. Anyone who has spent time observing nature understands that animals adapt to their environment. In snowy mountains you will see white rabbits. Why? Because the white rabbits have an advantage over brown rabbits in snow. Perhaps that is more an example of natural selection, but it is still part of the overall process.

This is my personal belief, but God gave man the ability reason and think. Scientists seek understanding of the Earth and natural processess. These natural processes were set in place by God. I know not all scientists will agree with that, but that isn't really the point. I believe in God, I believe that God created the Earth and all the complicated yet important processes that are involved. Scientists seeking knowledge on the reason and order of these processes doesn't threaten my faith.

[MustafaMc]

We also feel that God would sing out in joy, and all the angles would trumpet if man became enlightened enough to understand how Allah did it, or at least how our meagerness’ could understand it.

My sentiments exactly. I believe that this is the very point of Allah teaching Adam the "names" of things in Quran 2:31-33 He taught Adam the names of all things; then He presented the things to the angels and said: "Tell Me the names of those if what you say is true?" "Glory to You," they replied, "we have no knowledge except what You have taught us: in fact You are the One who is perfect in knowledge and wisdom." Allah said: "O Adam! Tell them the names." When Adam told them the names, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth and I know what you reveal and what you conceal?" For me, my scientific knowledge enhances my belief in the Creator. The very genetic principles that evolutionists combine with the theory of unguided evolution to "disprove" God's existence in fact enhances my belief in Him and His creativity.

The only question is “Do you believe in a higher power” The Bible, Koran, and all other great books try to show us how to love, respect, and honor each other.

That, my friend, is the central argument between classical evolutionists and creationists. It's all about our belief or lack of belief in the existence of God.

It is not contradictory for a theist to also believe in evolution (with "Intelligent Design") as a viable theory as to how "creation" happened and continues to happen. Neither is it unreasonable to believe that Allah fashioned man of clay straight away and then after a period of time breathed life into him. This is in fact is much easier for me to "swallow" than the ludicrous answers to questions such as, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

[root]

It is not contradictory for a theist to also believe in evolution (with "Intelligent Design") as a viable theory as to how "creation"

Again, those that simply do not understand the theory of evolution and are just against it because (everyone else is within thier social circles). I say this harshly or otherwise. Evolution DOES NOT seek to explain creation. The theory of evolution only concerns itself with how life evolves and not how it began.

[Woodrow]

Better check and see if the sky is falling.

I agree with Root, for probably the first time.

Evolution DOES NOT seek to explain creation.

In simplicity evolution is an explanation as to why some people have blue eyes, it is not an explanation as to how people came about.

[root]

Better check and see if the sky is falling.

I agree with Root, for probably the first time.

Excellent, however I am just about to disagree with you.....

Evolution DOES NOT seek to explain creation.

Correct, creation of first organic life.......

In simplicity evolution is an explanation as to why some people have blue eyes, it is not an explanation as to how people came about.

Evolution does seek to explain how people came about, it does not seek to explain how the first single celled life came to be.......

[MustafaMc]

Again, those that simply do not understand the theory of evolution and are just against it because (everyone else is within thier social circles). I say this harshly or otherwise. Evolution DOES NOT seek to explain creation. The theory of evolution only concerns itself with how life evolves and not how it began.

Since I apparently don't understand the theory of evolution, perhaps, you can explain how a single celled organism can evolve without a Higher Power through different progressively higher life forms into humans. An additional explanation is also required for how that primal single celled organism came into existence.

[MustafaMc]

It is not contradictory for a theist to also believe in evolution (with "Intelligent Design") as a viable theory as to how "creation" happened and continues to happen.

By creation, I didn't mean the original seminal event, rather the establishment of each uniquely sexually compatible species of higher living organisms that either presently exists or has since become extinct.

[Pygoscelis]

An additional explanation is also required for how that primal single celled organism came into existence.

Perhaps, but you'd then not be discussing evolution, as root and woodrow both just pointed out.

[ajazz]

Assalamalikum!

One question.

If we evolved from apes why do we still have apes????????


.

[Pygoscelis]

We don't have the same apes.

They too have changed.

[جوري]

Guess the ones that didn't make the full leap just couldn't get lucky...

[Malaikah]

Evolution does seek to explain how people came about, it does not seek to explain how the first single celled life came to be.......

Are you sure? This seems contrary to much of what I have studied at university.

Or are you implying that the question of where the first cell came from is a separate field to evolution?

By the way, the theory of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from apes, rather the theory claims they evolved from a common ancestor.

[Woodrow]

Are you sure? This seems contrary to much of what I have studied at university.

Or are you implying that the question of where the first cell came from is a separate field to evolution?

By the way, the theory of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from apes, rather the theory claims they evolved from a common ancestor.

Minor disagreement here. Semantics in recent years has really confused the definition of Evolution.

Evolution simply means things age and/or change.

Evolution=Change No explanation as to what or to how.

The various theories of evolution are not explanations or attempts at an explanation of the existance of Evolution. All theories about Evolution are an attempt to explain already observed facts.

They are explanations as to HOW evolution occurs, not if it occurs.

Changes in organisms do occur. Parents have children that grow taller or shorter. etc. If you Check into all religious scriptures, our ancient ancestors were different then us. They were not the same size, they did not have the same life expectancy, etc. These changes are EVOLUTION.

The question is how Evolution occurs and what was the true ancestor of what. Those explantaions are the "Theories of Evolution"

Us Theists believe that all evolutional changes are explained in our Scriptures. As a Muslim I believe the Qur'an and the Ahadith explain how evolutional changes occur.

Darwinian theory simply says that the changes were the result of natural selection. His work on the origin of species is based primarly on his observations of the Galapagos Island flora and fauna. The critters are no longer the same as their main land ancestors. That is no problem. They are still the same critters. The Marine Iguana of the Galapagos is still just as much of an Iguana as it's mainland relatives are. Yes, a new species, but not a new life form.

Now when people use the theories of Natural Selection and combine them with observable facts and come to the conclusion that Humans were once Apes, that is speculation. That is not EVOLUTION. If it could be proven to be a fact then it could be termed Evolution.

[MustafaMc]

My understanding of evolution, differing from the previous post, can be summarized below:

American Heritage Dictionary definition "ev·o·lu·tion NOUN: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The process of developing. Gradual development. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...cat01.html#Q01

"Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time..."

"A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time.."

"Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species...For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real."

[Malaikah]

Now when people use the theories of Natural Selection and combine them with observable facts and come to the conclusion that Humans were once Apes, that is speculation. That is not EVOLUTION. If it could be proven to be a fact then it could be termed Evolution.

But no scientists claim that humans evolved from apes... they claim humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor... that was my point...

Or have I still misunderstood your point? :?

[Woodrow]

My understanding of evolution, differing from the previous post, can be summarized below:

American Heritage Dictionary definition "ev·o·lu·tion NOUN: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The process of developing. Gradual development. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...cat01.html#Q01

"Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time..."

"A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time.."

"Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species...For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real."

Quite interesting. I must say the definition has changed very much since the 1950's. It appears the Darwinians have had influence on the Lexicologists.

Maybe I need to learn modern English and pass 1950 style English off as a foreign lanuage.

[Woodrow]

But no scientists claim that humans evolved from apes... they claim humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor... that was my point...

Or have I still misunderstood your point? :?

Minor difference in semantics. I said people not scientists, in other words I was addressing popular concepts and not scientific fact.

[ajazz]

We don't have the same apes.

They too have changed.

yes exactly !!!!!!!!

Apes after evolving still remain Apes




.

[wilberhum]

yes exactly !!!!!!!!

Apes after evolving still remain Apes




.

Stick around a couple million years and you will see the difference.

[root]

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
Evolution does seek to explain how people came about, it does not seek to explain how the first single celled life came to be.......

Are you sure? This seems contrary to much of what I have studied at university.

Yes, quite sure......

Or are you implying that the question of where the first cell came from is a separate field to evolution?

It's a completely different set of theories, the top two contenders being;

1. Abiogenesis
2. Panspermia

I personally suspect panpermia which only pushes the question back a little further. However, abiogenesis still remains a strong contender. As far as I am lead to believe creation from clay (once heralded by the creationists) has lost much of it's scientific weight. Recent findings of clay found on asteroids may bring it back a level, but since we also found amino acid structure, alcohol and even organic matter on asteroids it will take a major discovery for creation from clay to make a come back. we have to wait and see.

A lot of thi9s discussion is about people demanding proof, a theologist once said and I agree. You can hypothosise the world is only full of white rabbits, it does not matter how many white rabbits you find, you can never prove it, you can however disprove it by finding one black rabbit or a rabbit of a differing colour. This is known as falsifying, within evolution this has never been achieved, the theory has never been falsifiesd. Creationist scientists, seek to falsify it by finding irreducible complexity structures, claiming that such a structure\system is so complex it must have a designer. when they are proved wrong, they simply move to the next apparently complex structure, I think this is wrong, they have been wrong many times and simply move onto the next scientific mystery. If your happy that this is science you believe them when they say it coukld not happen by chance, and then have that opinion overturned, then continue to believe the next structure is complex etc etc, then I guess you are already use to being wrong most of the time.

To me, I think it is an illogical position to hold, but I am without religion and you are, we are all content with our lives when we can make sense of the world around us, it could be quite traumatic I guess, if u wake up and suddenly the world around u is not how u have been believing it to be.

By the way, the theory of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from apes, rather the theory claims they evolved from a common ancestor.

Agreed, we still have apes because they are perfectly evolved to live within the environment that apes live in, one of the reasons why I dislike the term "intermediate species", since in effect sny species at anytime is highly evolved for it's environment at any given time. The finches of the gallipoli island (darwins finches) recently split into two seperate sub species evolving differing beaks to cope with differing food types, recently one of the sub species has collapsed as the food source changed yet again. Evolution in action.
__________________

[ajazz]

Stick around a couple million years and you will see the difference.

so you mean to say apes are yet to evolve into humans and take couple of millions years ??????????

as such you have invalidated the Darwin's theory of evolution

congratulation !!!!!


.

[ajazz]

abiogenesis still remains a strong contender.

Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis



The Qur'an Leads the Way to Science


"The material universe, and predominantly, the Earth we live in, is specially designed to allow for human life. There is a certain purpose in the movements of stars and planets, in geographical landmarks, and in the properties of water or the atmosphere, that makes human life possible."


"Einstein also maintained that scientists must rely on religious sources when developing their objectives:

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion… I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."


"The Belgian scientist, Georges Lemaître, was the first to recognize the inaccuracy of the "infinite universe" model, and postulated a scientific alternative to it. Based on certain computations by the Russian scientist, Alexandre Friedmann, Lemaître declared that the universe actually had a beginning, and that it was expanding since that initial moment. He also asserted that it must be possible to detect the remnants of radiation from that initial moment."

" The Scandinavian scientist Søren Løvtrup makes the following remark in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary - 'adaptation', 'selection pressure', 'natural selection', etc. - thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science"

get rational get intelligent
read the full article here

http://www.harunyahya.com/the_Quran_..._science03.php


.

[root]

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
abiogenesis still remains a strong contender.

ajazz - Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

First, peeps here claim evolution is only a theory and not fact. Then theories as not being theories but an hypothosis. Typical of creationists in attempting to blow smoke screens. Abigenesis is a fact, abiogenesis is a working branch of science that states at one time life did not exist on the earth and then it did, simple. HOW that life began has a few working hypotheticals within the theory, creaation from clay, panspermia (which has a seperate theory also and I support) and the main abiogenesis hypothetesis of chemical origin from the young earth primordial soup.

ajazz - The Qur'an Leads the Way to Science

<SNIP>

can you please provide a scientific peer reviewed paper that directly cites the Quran as the source for any scientific discovery please, prity please :D

[Pygoscelis]

so you mean to say apes are yet to evolve into humans and take couple of millions years ??????????

as such you have invalidated the Darwin's theory of evolution

congratulation !!!!!


.

I suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse here.

[Fishman]

:sl:
Calm down, people. Numerous scholars of Islam have confirmed that whilst Islam denies that man evolved from apes, there is no problem with animals evolving from each other. Which would explain virtually everything that evolutionary evidence suggests, which is a lot better than just denouncing everything as fake without giving any evidence.
:w:

[Trumble]

" The Scandinavian scientist Søren Løvtrup makes the following remark in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary - 'adaptation', 'selection pressure', 'natural selection', etc. - thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science"

Hmmm... let's see what else the aforementioned Søren Løvtrup might have had to say in the same book;

"Indeed, the nature and the wealth of the corroborating evidence are such that the theory on the reality of evolution turns out to be one of the best substantiated theories in biology, perhaps in the natural sciences."

Oh, dear. Oddly, I don't see that in the article. I wonder why? :rollseyes

get rational get intelligent

To 'get' either you need to examine both sides of every story and treat biased/agenda-loaded/unqualified sources with the skepticism they (and this one in particular) usually deserve. There's a scholarly and agenda-free view HERE for anyone with a genuine interest in obtaining one, which takes account of trivial things such as 'context'. It also makes clear Løvtrup's objectives in writing the book. You will see that the distinction between "Darwinism" and "evolution" is fundamental here. Korthof and Løvtrup understand that difference. Yahya does not.

[Fishman]

so you mean to say apes are yet to evolve into humans and take couple of millions years ??????????

as such you have invalidated the Darwin's theory of evolution

congratulation !!!!!


.

:sl:
First, there are apes. Then some of the apes become more man-like. These in turn become even more man-like, until they look like neanderthals or something. Then Allaah Ceates Man via special Creation, a species similar to the humanoid apes, but superior to them in a number of ways. Man dominates over the neanderthals, and due to survival of the fittest they go extinct. Meanwhile, due to the lack of change in their environment, the other apes which did not become more humanoid stay largely the same, and become what we know as modern apes.
:w:

[ajazz]

can you please provide a scientific peer reviewed paper that directly cites the Quran as the source for any scientific discovery please, prity please :D

Keith L. Moore

"Dr. Moore was a former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists, and of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. He was honoured by the Canadian Association of Anatomists with the prestigious J.C.B. Grant Award and in 1994 he received the Honoured Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists "for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy."
"
"At a conference in Cairo he presented a research paper and stated:

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah." [1]"


E. Marshall Johnson


"Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, and Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA."



"...in summary, the Qur'an describes not only the development of external form, but emphasises also the internal stages, the stages inside the embryo, of its creation and development, emphasising major events recognised by contemporary science."

"As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can specifically see. I can understand embryology and developmental biology. I can understand the words that are translated to me from the Qur'an. As I gave the example before, if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I do today and describing things, I could not describe the things that were described...

I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place... so I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write..."



T.V.N. Persaud

"Professor of Anatomy, and Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada."


"It seems to me that Muhammad was a very ordinary man, he couldn't read, didn't know how to write, in fact he was an illiterate...

We're talking about 1400 years ago, you have some illiterate person making profound statements that are amazingly accurate, of a scientific nature...

I personally can't see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements.

Joe Leigh Simpson


Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.



He is the President of the American Fertility Society. He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Public Recognition Award in 1992. Like many others, Professor Simpson was taken by surprise when he discovered that the Qur'an and Hadith contain verses related to his specialised field of study. When he met with Sheikh Abdul-Majeed A.Zindani, he insisted on verifying the text presented to him from the Qur'an and Hadith.


"... these Hadiths (sayings of Muhammad) could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the 'writer'... It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (Islam) but in fact religion (Islam) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches... There exist statements in the Qur'an shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the Qur'an having been derived from God."


Gerald C. Goeringer

Professor and Co-ordinator of Medical Embryology in the Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.


"...In a relatively few ayahs (Qur'anic verses) is contained a rather comprehensive description of human development from the time of commingling of the gametes through organogenesis. No such distinct and complete record of human development such as classification, terminology, and description existed previously. In most, if not all instances, this description antedates by many centuries the recording of the various stages of human embryonic and fetal development recorded in the traditional scientific literature."



Alfred Kroner

Professor of the Department of Geosciences, University of Mainz, Germany.



Professor Kroner is one of the world's most famous geologists, becoming well known among his colleague scientists for his criticisms against the theories of some of the major scientists in his field. Sheikh cAbdul-Majeed A. Zindani met with him and presented several Qur'anic verses and Hadith which he studied and commented upon








"Thinking where Muhammad came from... I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years with very complicated and advanced technological methods that this is the case."

"Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics 1400 years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind for instance that the earth and the heavens had the same origin, or many others of the questions that we have discussed here...

If you combine all these and you combine all these statements that are being made in the Qur'an in terms that relate to the earth and the formation of the earth and science in general, you can basically say that statements made there in many ways are true, they can now be confirmed by scientific methods, and in a way, you can say that the Qur'an is a simple science text book for the simple man. And that many of the statements made in there at that time could not be proven, but that modern scientific methods are now in a position to prove what Muhammad said 1400 years ago."





Yushidi Kusan

Director of the Tokyo Observatory, Tokyo, Japan.


I say, I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in Qur'an, and for us modern astronomers have been studying very small piece of the universe. We have concentrated our efforts for understanding of very small part. Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts of the sky without thinking about the whole universe. So by reading Qur'an and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe


Tejatat Tejasen

Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and is the former Dean of the faculty of Medicine, University of Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, Thailand.


"In the last three years, I became interested in the Qur'an... From my studies and what I have learned throughout this conference, I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Qur'an fourteen hundred years ago must be the truth, that can be proved by the scientific means.

Since the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, Muhammad must be a messenger who relayed this truth which was revealed to him as an enlightenment by the one who is eligible creator. This creator must be God, or Allah.

I think this is the time to say La ilaha illa Allah, there is no god to worship except Allah (God), Muhammad rasoolu Allah, Muhammad is Messenger of Allah...

The most precious thing I have gained from coming to this conference is La ilaha illa Allah, and to have become Muslim."


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...cientists.html





Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which Allah sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding.
( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #164)


O mankind! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof (Prophet Muhammad SAW) from your Lord, and We sent down to you a manifest light (this Quran).
( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #174)



And those who have no knowledge say: "Why does not Allah speak to us (face to face) or why does not a sign come to us?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike, We have indeed made plain the signs for people who believe with certainty.
( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #118)






.

[AB517]

Assalamalikum!
One question.

If we evolved from apes why do we still have apes????????

.

Think of a tree trunk. If there are leaves, why do we still have a trunk.
this is just anology and can be picked apart. Point is ... two leaves next to each other may not be on the same branch.

To all others

EXACTLY!

If it started from a big bang .... it was God's firecracker
If it was single celled slime .... Slime is God's soup (as in Primordial soup that is)
If it was Adom ... Well, God did that too ... and as a point of fact I AM WRONG ... :)

AB

[Trumble]

Then Allaah Ceates Man via special Creation, a species similar to the humanoid apes, but superior to them in a number of ways. Man dominates over the neanderthals, and due to survival of the fittest they go extinct.

Sure, you could argue that man must have been 'the fittest' in some way or another otherwise the Neanderthal's would still be here and not us, but from what we know of the Neanderthals such differences in anything other than physical appearances were slight. For all we know it may simply have been that homo sapiens was the more aggressive species - a hypothesis that subsequent history goes a long way to support IMHO.

But what difference required that 'special' creation?

[AB517]

LOL . I should read the post more carefully.


"The Qur'an Leads the Way to Science"


What so scary about this statement ... Is that I as a Christian can say the exact same thing a about the Bible.

Let the rational side of God be handled by mathematicians’. Any enlightened person, be it a scientist or philosopher is wise. A theologian can understand math as easily as a scientist can a philosophers’ writings. A Scientist shows us the physical laws of God. The priest leads the way in prayer.

:rollseyes ... You have been told ... :rollseyes

Peace and praise for all of you.
AB

[ranma1/2]

Hi Mustafa,

My opinion on evolution is that it is purely a belief system based on the book by Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species , to explain away the existence of the Creator,
Actually evolution is a scientific theory that says nothing about a creator. As a matter of fact to my knowledge the majority of evolutionary scientists are christian i dont know how many are islamic.

the One God - Allah. In stark contrast, creationism is also a belief system based on the Bible, the Holy Quran and other religous texts to point to the very existence of the Creator and to establish our relationship with Him. Is it any more wonderous as to why one would work so hard to disprove something as to why others try to prove it?
Science just tries to discover the truth and the how and why.

You may say that creationism is unscientifically simplistic and that those things that can't be logically explained are attributed to a man-made concept of God.
Creationism isnt a science, a belief yes but not a science.
My premise is that atheists start with the basic belief that there is no God and that they look for evidence to disprove His existence.
True atheism is a belief and I would say that it depends on the atheist. Some like Dawkins is out there doing as you say. Others just look at things from their point of view and rather look for proof of no god, they find no proof of a god.
As a cotton breeder/geneticist working to develop genetically engineered cotton varieties, I have some understanding of genetical and biological principles.
You breed cotton? Cool. I actually grew up around many a cotten field.
My limited understanding of these principles dictates that I believe in a Creator.
How so?
My amazement at the miracle of life makes it impossible for me to believe that life even began by mere chance at the most basic single cell level, much less that "evolution" explains how this supposed primal single cell "evolved" into the highest life form, humankind, by random chance mutations and by natural selection without a Higher Power guiding the process.
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life but rather what happened after life was created or formed. All evo pretty much does is explain the variety of life and how it came to be.
With recent advances in knowledge of biology and genetics, man still cannot recreate under the most ideal conditions even a single celled organism from elemental components (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.)
True but that doesnt mean its impossible. It took us a good long time to learn how to fly. Creating life from jsut chemicals is a little tough.

For me, it makes no difference whether Allah literally fashioned the first man, Adam, from clay and breathed life into him, or whether this was a symbolic parable that Allah used to explain a more complicated process that He manipulated and continues to guide.
Cool, thats the view that many evo scientists hold.

I just can't understand how evolution without a guiding Higher Power can explain the origin of species through random genetic mutations and survival of the fittest.
I would recomend a website by berkley and of course wiki is a good resource.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Fossil records of so-called bridging species means absolutely nothing regarding the existence of God.
True.I believe in God and atheists disbelieve in Him and neither can convicingly scientifically "prove" his point to the other because evolution and creation are beliefs that have no proof either way.
True there is no proof but proof is only for math and beer.
However there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution plus it has been observed in plant, bacteria, and other life forms.

I enjoyed reading your posts and you seemed pretty clear in your belief.
I hope you check the berkley link I provided and maybe check wiki as well.
Have a good day.

[MustafaMc]

But no scientists claim that humans evolved from apes... they claim humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor... that was my point...

Yes, this is my understanding as well. This common ancestor can also be assumed to have had less survival capabilty than either apes or humans because this species apparently no longer exists. From my recollection scientists are still looking for that "missing link". Taken even further back, evolutionists claim that all life can ultimately be traced back through the phylogenetic tree to a common ancestor. Since the single cell bacteria is the lowest life form and since evolution is progressive and not regressive (leads to better, more fit species), then that seminal common ancestor is assumed to be a "miraculous" single-cell organism.

This theory (not fact) of evolution is different from the demonstrated, proven facts of natural genetic changes within species that occur through various means such as various mutations, genetic recombinations, natural selection, population isolation, etc, etc, etc. These changes over enough time may lead to new sexually incompatibile, albeit related species such as horses, donkeys, and zebras. One might could go so far as to even say apes and humans have evolved from a common ancestor.

I personally don't even care if all life ultimately traces back to a single living cell. My contention is that any life would not exist anywhere without a Creator and the theorized evolutionary changes to generate new orders, families, genera and species of living organisms from the "common ancestor" would not have happened without "Intelligent Design", or the One God directing the process.

How the Creator created the different life forms, and ultimately humans, does not affect my faith in Him. However, I choose to believe the Quran that Allah created the first man, Adam, from clay and breathed life into him. Quran 15:28-29 Remember when your Rabb said to the angels: "I am about to
create a man from sounding clay, black mud moulded into shape; when I complete his moulding and breath into him of My spirit, kneel down and prostrate before him." and Quran 17:61 Recall the occasion when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam." They all prostrated except Iblees (Shaitan), who replied: "Should I prostrate to the one whom You have created from clay?"

Whether this creation was literally or symbolically what happened is completely irrelevant. I believe that most people of faith would agree that Creationists were not dealt a blow as the beginning of this thread indicated.

[ranma1/2]

its the THEORY of evolution not FACT....... ow,and evolutionism is racist ...lol

True evo is a theory and not a fact, there are very few scientific facts.
Theory of gravity, theory of motion are also theories.
And evo is not racists. People do however try to use evo as a justifcation for there racists beliefs and actions.

[ranma1/2]

But no scientists claim that humans evolved from apes... they claim humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor... that was my point...

Or have I still misunderstood your point? :?

Many scientists claim that the human ape evolved from other apes.
Humans are classified as apes in biology.

Now we did not evolve from other apes that are around today but we do have a common ancestor with them.

[MustafaMc]

I enjoyed reading your posts and you seemed pretty clear in your belief.
I hope you check the berkley link I provided and maybe check wiki as well.
Have a good day.

Thanks, I stand corrected. God willing, I will check out the site.

[ajazz]

LOL . I should read the post more carefully.


"The Qur'an Leads the Way to Science"


What so scary about this statement ... Is that I as a Christian can say the exact same thing a about the Bible.

Let the rational side of God be handled by mathematicians’. Any enlightened person, be it a scientist or philosopher is wise. A theologian can understand math as easily as a scientist can a philosophers’ writings. A Scientist shows us the physical laws of God. The priest leads the way in prayer.

:rollseyes ... You have been told ... :rollseyes

Peace and praise for all of you.
AB

please visit the link to read the full article or at least read this post till the end


Dr. Jeffrey Lang (muslim revert) is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Kansas, one of the biggest universities in the United States.


http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/78/


Al-Khwarizmi ; A Forgotten Mathematician

This 5 page paper considers the background and contributions of Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, better known in the west as the founder of algorithms. The paper looks at the wide range of contributions made by this Muslim genius from the ninth century CE and the way they have been key to later mathematical and scientific developments of later years. The bibliography cites 3 sources.

http://www.termpapers-on-file.com/ca...s/136-000.html


Mediaeval Muslims made stunning math breakthrough

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Magnificently sophisticated geometric patterns in mediaeval Islamic architecture indicate their designers achieved a mathematical breakthrough 500 years earlier than Western scholars, scientists said on Thursday.

"Oh, it's absolutely stunning," Lu said in an interview. "They made tilings that reflect mathematics that were so sophisticated that we didn't figure it out until the last 20 or 30 years."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789584/posts


How Islamic inventors changed the world

From coffee to cheques and the three-course meal, the Muslim world has given us many innovations that we take for granted in daily life. As a new exhibition opens, Paul Vallely nominates 20 of the most influential- and identifies the men of genius behind them


Arab named Khalid boiled the berries to make the first coffee. Certainly the first record of the drink is of beans exported from Ethiopia to Yemen where Sufis drank it to stay awake all night to pray on special occasions


ancient Greeks thought our eyes emitted rays, like a laser, which enabled us to see. The first person to realise that light enters the eye, rather than leaving it, was the 10th-century Muslim mathematician, astronomer and physicist Ibn al-Haitham.He invented the first pin-hole camera


A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet, astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts.

Washing and bathing are religious requirements for Muslims, which is perhaps why they perfected the recipe for soap which we still use today.


Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed's Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV.

Distillation, the means of separating liquids through differences in their boiling points, was invented around the year 800 by Islam's foremost scientist, Jabir ibn Hayyan,


The crank-shaft is a device which translates rotary into linear motion and is central to much of the machinery in the modern world, not least the internal combustion engine. One of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind, it was created by an ingenious Muslim engineer called al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation.



The pointed arch so characteristic of Europe's Gothic cathedrals was an invention borrowed from Islamic architecture. It was much stronger than the rounded arch used by the Romans and Normans,

Many modern surgical instruments are of exactly the same design as those devised in the 10th century by a Muslim surgeon called al-Zahrawi. His scalpels, bone saws, forceps, fine scissors for eye surgery and many of the 200 instruments he devised are recognisable to a modern surgeon.

Muslim medic named Ibn Nafis described the circulation of the blood, 300 years before William Harvey discovered it. Muslims doctors also invented anaesthetics of opium and alcohol mixes and developed hollow needles to suck cataracts from eyes in a technique still used today.



The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph and was used to grind corn and draw up water for irrigation.

The technique of inoculation was not invented by Jenner and Pasteur but was devised in the Muslim world and brought to Europe from Turkey by the wife of the English ambassador to Istanbul in 1724


fountain pen was invented for the Sultan of Egypt in 953 after he demanded a pen which would not stain his hands or clothes.

The system of numbering in use all round the world is probably Indian in origin but the style of the numerals is Arabic and first appears in print in the work of the Muslim mathematicians


The work of Muslim maths scholars was imported into Europe 300 years later by the Italian mathematician Fibonacci. Algorithms and much of the theory of trigonometry came from the Muslim world. And Al-Kindi's discovery of frequency analysis rendered all the codes of the ancient world soluble and created the basis of modern cryptology.


modern cheque comes from the Arabic saqq, a written vow to pay for goods when they were delivered, to avoid money having to be transported across dangerous terrain.


By the 9th century, many Muslim scholars took it for granted that the Earth was a sphere. The proof, said astronomer Ibn Hazm, "is that the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth". It was 500 years before that realisation dawned on Galileo. The calculations of Muslim astronomers were so accurate that in the 9th century they reckoned the Earth's circumference to be 40,253.4km - less than 200km out. The scholar al-Idrisi took a globe depicting the world to the court of King Roger of Sicily in 1139.


Arabs who developed the idea of the garden as a place of beauty and meditation.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle350594.ece



Repaying the West's Debt to Islam
By Olga Pikovskaya

Science today wouldn't be as advanced without so many discoveries from the Muslim world. It's time to reach across today's hurtful barriers



Unless you're a history buff, it can be hard to believe how pivotal early Islamic civilization was in laying the foundations of modern science, mathematics,

contributions of early Islamic people are far too numerous to list.


In medicine, for example, Muslim scientists developed a hollow needle for removing cataracts from the eye by suction -- around 1,000 years ago. And mathematics was a Muslim forte, as seen in the creation of algebra and the Arabic number system that we use today.



List of Muslim mathematicians


Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi-10th century wrote about decimal notation

Ghiyath al-Kashi(1380 – 1429)-His calculation of pi is said to be more accurate than any before Ludolph van Ceulen

Abu Kamil,(c.850-930) - wrote on algebra[

Abu Nasr Mansur(c. 970 - 1036) - (Formulated a Law of sines)

Biruni-Contributions to Combinatorics, Rule of three, and geometry.

Lotfi Askar Zadeh, father of Fuzzy logic

Oveyssi-Shahmaghsoudi Sufi order, Mathematician, Physicist, inventor of Muon Radiation Therapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mathematicians

this list by no means ends here
please visit the links


Say: "Behold all that is in the heavens and the earth," but neither Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) nor warners benefit those who believe not.
(Yunus, Chapter #10, Verse #101


This (Quran) is a Message for mankind (and a clear proof against them), in order that they may be warned thereby, and that they may know that He is the only One Ilah (God - Allah) - (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and that men of understanding may take heed.
( Ibrahim, Chapter #14, Verse #52)


Verily, those who disbelieved, and died while they were disbelievers, the (whole) earth full of gold will not be accepted from anyone of them even if they offered it as a ransom. For them is a painful torment and they will have no helpers.
( Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #91)



:cry: ...you have been warned...:cry:




.

[ajazz]

Theory of gravity, theory of motion are also theories.

LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind: :blind:


LAW OF GRAVITY, LAW OF MOTION


+o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o( +o(
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!: :enough!:

[Pygoscelis]

Wow, calm down dude. You're going to pop a blood vessel.

[AB517]

Hey,

You changed my quotes, that aint right dude. I did not cap it, it makes it seem I yelled it and am making some kind of point you want.

Being muslem and math/science guy is way good. Some of the best math guys are of many religions and that is great. I just mean let preachers peach and math guys add. God speaks many lang. math is clearly one of them.

[Trumble]

LAW OF GRAVITY, LAW OF MOTION

Ranma1/2 knows rather more about science than you, I suspect.

Both "laws" (plural) are just series of mathematical equations that are derived from the respective theories. The "law" is only relevant within the context of the theory from which it is derived - it has no independent existence, and when the theory gets shelved the "law" goes with it. The phrases are still applied to the 'rules' derived from Newtonian theories which, as Einstein showed, are wrong (although they approximate those deriving from relativistic theories very closely in limited sets of circumstances).

[AB517]

Ranma1/2 knows rather more about science than you, I suspect.

Both "laws" (plural) are just series of mathematical equations that are derived from the respective theories. The "law" is only relevant within the context of the theory from which it is derived - it has no independent existence, and when the theory gets shelved the "law" goes with it. The phrases are still applied to the 'rules' derived from Newtonian theories which, as Einstein showed, are wrong (although they approximate those deriving from relativistic theories very closely in limited sets of circumstances).

We really must be careful when brining these guys up. Newton was not proven wrong. His laws break down at the very small and very massave. Einstein modified Newtons findings. The beutiful thing about science is it grows. Can you imagine the problems we would if science was stopped at 1400 years ago ... not to mention my religion stops at 2000 years ago.

well, anyway ... we must becareful when ya get to this level. Einstein, I could argue, was aslo limited. "God doesnt role dice" Both these guys were inspired by Allah just as the profits. WOW ... thank allah ARISTOTLE wasnt the last scientist ... although I knida like the robe look.

AB

[Trumble]

Newton was not proven wrong. His laws break down at the very small and very massave.

No, they are 'wrong', or to be precise incomplete, at every level. Laws, or the theories they derive from, cannot be 'right' if they break down anywhere, although that doesn't mean the 'wrong ones' cannot be very close approximations and hence of practical use in limited circumstances (Apollo got to the moon and back on the basis of purely Newtonian equations).

It is only at the very small and very massive ends where that difference is significant but nonetheless it is always there.

[AB517]

No, they are 'wrong', or to be precise incomplete, at every level. Laws, or the theories they derive from, cannot be 'right' if they break down anywhere, although that doesn't mean the 'wrong ones' cannot be very close approximations and hence of practical use in limited circumstances (Apollo got to the moon and back on the basis of purely Newtonian equations).

It is only at the very small and very massive ends where that difference is significant but nonetheless it is always there.

LOL whatever. This is why we shopuld stay out of this level.

Peace Out

[ranma1/2]

LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!!
...


LAW OF GRAVITY, LAW OF MOTION

Just for those with a sense of humor

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

[Trumble]

Just for those with a sense of humor

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

:lol:

[ajazz]

Just for those with a sense of humor

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

just for those whose sense has left their empty brains

what a sophomoric reading,

Isaac Newton must be turning in his grave and wanting to get out and get this
guy but i guess force of gravity is preventing him from getting out :D :D :D


this peace of scrap is not worth commenting but for the benefit of some shrimp
lovers oops!! i mean Schempp


Shrimp says:
can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day.



Mr shrimp you are a blot on physicists:

The moon’s gravity pulls on the earth, and pulls the water towards it. The water moves up into a slight bulge on the side of the earth that faces the moon. At the same time, there is a force pulling water out in the opposite direction of the moon. To understand this force, you need to picture the earth and the moon as one unit. Picture two unequal balls on the ends of a stick.

If you spin this stick around, you can imagine the force that a particle might feel if it were on the far end of either the moon or the earth. It would feel a force outward, away from the centre of the spin. This is due to inertia. The water on the far end of the earth, away from the moon is always being pulled out from the centre of the spinning earth-moon unit.

http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/tides/tides.html


Without getting too much into the technical details, there are two bulges because of the differential gravitational forces. The liquid at point A is closer to the Moon and experiences a larger gravitational force than the Earth at point B or the ocean at point C. Because it experiences a larger attraction, it is pulled away from the Earth, toward the Moon, thus producing the bulge on the right side. Loosely, we may think of the bulge on the left side as arising because the Earth is pulled away from the water on that side because the gravitational force exerted by the Moon at point B is larger than that exerted at point C. Then, as our idealized Earth rotates under these bulges, a given point on the surface will experience two high and two low tides for each rotation of the planet.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/tides.html


shrimp again:
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Yes, Jupiter does have rings. They are fainter than Saturn's rings, and most scientists did not believe they were there until they were directly observed by Voyager 1.

http://www.smplanet.com/science/answers.html

[ajazz]

Hey,

You changed my quotes, that aint right dude. I did not cap it, it makes it seem I yelled it and am making some kind of point you want.

Being muslem and math/science guy is way good. Some of the best math guys are of many religions and that is great. I just mean let preachers peach and math guys add. God speaks many lang. math is clearly one of them.

I'm sorry for changing your quote to bold, wont happen again
:-[




.

[AB517]

I'm sorry for changing your quote to bold, wont happen again
:-[


.

I feel your words are from the heart and I except them in the manor they were given.

Thank You

[Muezzin]

It's nice to see some positive stuff in here for a change, where members of different faiths aren't at each other's throats. Keep it up! :)

[Pygoscelis]

** Jumps at Muezzin's throat **

Raawr!

[Muezzin]

** Jumps at Muezzin's throat **

Raawr!

Thanks for straightening out my tie!

Anyway, we should let everyone believe what they want. I'm not too fond of this point-scoring between 'creationists' and 'evolution-ists' (I guess). I don't really see how the origin of human life affects our everyday lives, to be honest. I mean, when we go to work or school or college, is the first thing in our minds the issue of whether we share an ancestor with apes, unless of course we're writing a thesis or something about the subject?

[MustafaMc]

Anyway, we should let everyone believe what they want.

Everyone will believe what they want to anyway. Dialog is good to facilitate the learning (often 2-way) from others.

I have learned much from this thread. Some very good points (not in a keeping score kind of way) were made about how animals have evolved and continue to evlove through natural processes (Thanks Br. Woodrow). I have also learned that not all evolutists are staunch atheists that are striving to disprove God's existence as I have tended to over-generalize in the past (Thanks ranma1/2).

The theory of evolution for how all species have evolved from a common ancestor is reasonable to my mind only if there is a Higher Power directing the process. Others may be comfortable in believing that evolution starting from a common ancestor and leading to the origin of new species is more random that doesn't require God to take an active role. Others may believe that God individually created each species (e.g. humans) roughly in the form they are now, but that they have changed relatively minorly through adaptation over time.

As the thread started, however, it seems that the evolutionists were trying to discredit the creation stories held by Muslims, Christians and others. Live and let live is a great policy, but sometimes conflict can lead to mutual respect and understanding.

[Pygoscelis]

As the thread started, however, it seems that the evolutionists were trying to discredit the creation stories held by Muslims, Christians and others. Live and let live is a great policy, but sometimes conflict can lead to mutual respect and understanding.

I am not aware of a creation story, in any mythology, that doesn't involve a heavy dose of magic. Talking snakes, magic fruit, or what have you.

Evolution isn't going to disprove anything in these stories that common experience would not. Snakes do not nomally talk. Apples do not normally grant knowledge. If believers can use spiritual powers to explain the defiance of common experience they can use the same powers to explain away anything evolution comes up with.

[ranma1/2]

....
The theory of evolution for how all species have evolved from a common ancestor is reasonable to my mind only if there is a Higher Power directing the process. Others may be comfortable in believing that evolution starting from a common ancestor and leading to the origin of new species is more random that doesn't require God to take an active role. Others may believe that God individually created each species (e.g. humans) roughly in the form they are now, but that they have changed relatively minorly through adaptation over time. ........

The theory of evo has many parts that effect the selection part of evolution.
The most popular and supported theory is that of natural selection. Evolution does not however say thats the only action on selection, there is of course other factors and of course something with intellegence can cause a species to evolve in certain ways so if a god or similar being does exists it is possible that it could guide the process however that theory is currently unsupportable in science.

[جوري]

I am not aware of a creation story, in any mythology, that doesn't involve a heavy dose of magic. Talking snakes, magic fruit, or what have you.

Evolution isn't going to disprove anything in these stories that common experience would not. Snakes do not nomally talk. Apples do not normally grant knowledge. If believers can use spiritual powers to explain the defiance of common experience they can use the same powers to explain away anything evolution comes up with.

Taking an Ape and transforming him into a human takes a dose of magic too... even if put into eloquent words.. No different than a frog turning into a prince...

here here for fairy tales...

Peace!

[ajazz]

Taking an Ape and transforming him into a human takes a dose of magic too... even if put into eloquent words.. No different than a frog turning into a prince...

here here for fairy tales...

Peace!

[BANANA]
:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

[/BANANA]

[AB517]

[BANANA]
:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

[/BANANA]

Your right, Fairy tales do have a place. Science books have a place too. Why argue what is better.

God said LET THERE BE LIGHT. I am just trying to fingure out how it works, if I can.

Love the insight on both sides, making me think.

AB

[MustafaMc]

The theory of evo has many parts that effect the selection part of evolution.

Yes, and I agree that most of the theory is logical.

The most popular and supported theory is that of natural selection. Evolution does not however say thats the only action on selection, there is of course other factors and of course something with intellegence can cause a species to evolve in certain ways so if a god or similar being does exists it is possible that it could guide the process however that theory is currently unsupportable in science.

Yes, I agree again. That is where faith enters the picture.

[Mr. Baldy]

Yes that sounds really stupid, probably why your ignorance has led you to not even understand what evolution represents and what it does not......

Think about it next time b4 u rush in again and spout your nonsense.......

now thats not very nice is it? its no wonder you have no friends... maybe you can evolve one out of your elbow.

so they found one fish, theres still alot of missing evidence, key word is theory i.e it hasnt been proven, so id stop being so arrogant.

[MustafaMc]

I am not aware of a creation story, in any mythology, that doesn't involve a heavy dose of magic. Talking snakes, magic fruit, or what have you.

Evolution isn't going to disprove anything in these stories that common experience would not. Snakes do not nomally talk. Apples do not normally grant knowledge. If believers can use spiritual powers to explain the defiance of common experience they can use the same powers to explain away anything evolution comes up with.

I am not aware Quranic verses or hadith about Shaitan taking the form of a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve, but more knowledgeable brothers and sisters may point them out.

Quran 20:117-124 Then We said: "O Adam! This Shaitan is a real enemy to you and to your wife. Do not let him get you both out of Paradise and get you in trouble. Here in Paradise you shall go neither hungry nor naked; you shall neither suffer from thirst nor from the scorching heat." - But Shaitan seduced him saying: "O Adam! Should I show you the Tree of Immortality and an everlasting kingdom?" They both end up eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. As a result their private parts became apparent to them and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves from the Garden. Thus did Adam disobey His Rabb and go astray. Later on Adam repented and his Rabb chose him, accepted his repentance and gave him guidance, saying: "Get down from here all of you (Adam, Eve and Iblees); you will remain enemies to one another, whenever there comes to you guidance from Me and whosoever will follow My guidance will neither go astray nor get into trouble; but the one who will turn away from My reminder shall live a meager life and We shall raise him back to life as a blind person on the Day of Resurrection."

There is much in religion that defies logic. Perhaps the most illogical belief is that after we die, that each of us will be resurrected from the dead. It is a matter of faith that what the Quran says is true.

Quran 16:38-39 They solemnly swear their strongest oaths by Allah: "Allah will never raise the dead to life." Why not? It is a promise which He has made binding on Himself, though most among mankind may not know it. It will be fulfilled so that He may manifest to them the Truth about which they differ, and so that the rejecters of Truth may know that they were indeed liars.

[جوري]

now thats not very nice is it? its no wonder you have no friends... maybe you can evolve one out of your elbow.

so they found one fish, theres still alot of missing evidence, key word is theory i.e it hasnt been proven, so id stop being so arrogant.

I doubt he'll spout one-- he is so far up his own crypts of morgagni--

[ranma1/2]

..

so they found one fish, theres still alot of missing evidence, key word is theory i.e it hasnt been proven,.....

I would suggest learning more about what the word theory means in science.
theories can never be proven. We can be 99.9999 certain they are true but we can never prove a theory.

[root]

Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
now thats not very nice is it? its no wonder you have no friends... maybe you can evolve one out of your elbow.

so they found one fish, theres still alot of missing evidence, key word is theory i.e it hasnt been proven, so id stop being so arrogant.

I call a spade a spade. Some folks don't like it when they suddenly realise people have a different world view. I stand by my words, his responses were literally dumb. Nice to see this thread go so far off topic...........

BTW, Since I was not refering to you, why do you feel the need to defend the person in question. Surely he can speak for himself! Or is it in fact you with more than 1 ID?

[جوري]

I suppose for the same reasons that compelled you to speak for your fellow atheist under the "evolution" thread... or are you projecting?

[root]

I suppose for the same reasons that compelled you to speak for your fellow atheist under the "evolution" thread... or are you projecting?

Your in my Iggie List............... :X

[جوري]

Your in my Iggie List............... :X

Oh boohoo--I really care......:rollseyes

[Pygoscelis]

Taking an Ape and transforming him into a human takes a dose of magic too...

The vital difference here being that evolutionists attempt to research and explain away any such magic. They try to explain how this occured through strictly natural means, and not some hocus pocus of a God figure.

[جوري]

I haven't read of any "natural means" that were actually verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt... I have already stated my concerns on where exactly evolution fails me, and don't care to resurrect a line of conversation that is already foreclosed...
When it comes down to it, both parties come pretty evenly matched... It just depends on which piecemeal story suits your fancy best! I don't find anything illogical in the Quran about the story of creation or our existence, that remotely hints at fairy tales... further more as evident by this verse

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ {7}

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

That verse already speaks volumes to me, on what is a fundamental truth and what is meant in an allegorical sense..

A dear friend of mine is devoutly religious though not a Muslim-- and has a couple of doctorates, believes evolution to be the handy work of G-D-- I will not replace one gap with another on the account that it sounds better. To me the majority of evolutionists try by any means to disprove the existence of G-D.
If you put a couple of Apes to the back of us or in our future by some magic miracle it would still not explain away all this grandeur and intricacies... In its beginning and its end There will be Allah....
peace!

[lavikor201]

Oh boohoo--I really care......:rollseyes

Purest your hardcore! :p

The vital difference here being that evolutionists attempt to research and explain away any such magic. They try to explain how this occured through strictly natural means, and not some hocus pocus of a God figure.

Would you believe me if I told my iPod that I found was really formed after 1 billion years of evolution? I'm telling you, I found it in the middle of the desert! :p

[جوري]

Purest your hardcore! :p

Why, I thank you random kind stranger :-[