PDA

View Full Version : Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?



Abdul Fattah
04-28-2005, 11:53 PM
Selam aleykum

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

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


For the eye to have been formed by natural selection, seems absurd in the highest degree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibn Syed
04-28-2005, 11:56 PM
:sl:
Darwin is some wierd evolution man who thinks we evolved from monkeys to humans.
:w:

Khattab
04-29-2005, 12:01 AM
Nice post

Ibn Syed
04-29-2005, 12:16 AM
:sl:
It is a great thread.
:w:

Lateralus63
04-29-2005, 10:23 AM
:sl:

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

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

root
04-30-2005, 03:07 PM
Hi All

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

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

Regards

Root

Uthman
04-30-2005, 03:11 PM
:sl:

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

:w:

Lateralus63
05-01-2005, 12:52 AM
Hi All

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

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

Regards

Root

Hi,


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

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

Abdul Fattah
05-01-2005, 01:05 AM
I have never been a fan of the method "cast doubt on an aspect of darwinsm to prove that creationist's must be right is bad science"

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

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-01-2005, 02:06 AM
I like how you've phrased that last bit, steve. That's a good point, because atheists try to use evolution as a means of disproving creationist arguments, so these rebuttals illustrate the evolution cannot disprove creation.

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

:w:

root
05-01-2005, 03:37 PM
so these rebuttals illustrate the evolution cannot disprove creation.

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

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

It always pays to read the small print.

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

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

Why are we here

Ibn Syed
05-01-2005, 07:32 PM
:sl:
To worship god. Follow the straight path, abstain from sinning. Listen to the prophets. Fear god. Get knowledge and do what you think is right. Do ritcheous things. I got more stuff but I am too lazy to write it all now.
:w:

Lateralus63
05-01-2005, 07:43 PM
:sl:

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

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

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

Abdul Fattah
05-02-2005, 12:38 AM
Fact & faith. Which is a difficult issue since the two will contradict each other. they always have and they always will. Evolution does not use faith, and it does not claim to know it all. Our level of understanding grows, and thier is little or no time for us to appreciate our simple narrow minded approach to the big question.

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

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

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-02-2005, 12:46 AM
Why Are We Here? (http://www.beconvinced.com/en/article.php?articleid=0166&subcatname=Selected%20Articles)

root
05-03-2005, 12:59 PM
Could you give an example on fact and faith contradicting? I haven't found any so far (well not in islam), but if you'r able to bring any up, I'd be happy to add my 2 cents on it.

Sure:

Noah & the great flood.

Interesting that before a time of Christianity the "Great Flood" story was already several hundred years old in & around the area described. All archeological evidence and other evidence does prove a mass flooding, the only problem is that all this "Evidence" is consistent with the forming of the Dead Sea & whilst it was a "Big Event" locally. On a Global event it was quite a minor affair.


Moses & the parting of the Sea.

Where are all the chariots. Strangely enough they have never been found where this event supposadly occured, recent archeological discoveries that would fit the picture has been located and all religions are looking into yet another mis interpretation in that archeological evidence suggests that it occured at the "Reefs".

I also find it highly suspicious of "bethlehem" being a hotbed for Christianity when you consider the precise location of bethlehem compared with the great Roman Empire.

Abdul Fattah
05-03-2005, 02:15 PM
Noah & the great flood.

Interesting that before a time of Christianity the "Great Flood" story was already several hundred years old in & around the area described. All archeological evidence and other evidence does prove a mass flooding, the only problem is that all this "Evidence" is consistent with the forming of the Dead Sea & whilst it was a "Big Event" locally. On a Global event it was quite a minor affair.


So basicly, there's an event that could represent the one refured to in the scriptures, but you find it not to be fitting the relative word "big"?
Lets just assume that this wasn't the big flood, now that doesn't mean it didn't happen then wright?



Moses & the parting of the Sea.

Where are all the chariots. Strangely enough they have never been found where this event supposadly occured, recent archeological discoveries that would fit the picture has been located and all religions are looking into yet another mis interpretation in that archeological evidence suggests that it occured at the "Reefs".

I dunno but wooden chariots from over 2000 years ago laying at the bottom of a sea, something tells me hey haven't survived this long, and even if there are some iron part they could have drifted away with the current, gotten buried at the bottem, etc.....


I also find it highly suspicious of "bethlehem" being a hotbed for Christianity when you consider the precise location of bethlehem compared with the great Roman Empire.

I have absolutely no idea wath you mean by this :-[
sorry, could you perhaps explain that one a lil' more?

Any other contradictions or are these the only one?

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-03-2005, 05:33 PM
Noah & the great flood.

Interesting that before a time of Christianity the "Great Flood" story was already several hundred years old in & around the area described. All archeological evidence and other evidence does prove a mass flooding, the only problem is that all this "Evidence" is consistent with the forming of the Dead Sea & whilst it was a "Big Event" locally. On a Global event it was quite a minor affair.
You can read the following link in response:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2002/10/article07.shtml


Moses & the parting of the Sea.

Where are all the chariots. Strangely enough they have never been found where this event supposadly occured, recent archeological discoveries that would fit the picture has been located and all religions are looking into yet another mis interpretation in that archeological evidence suggests that it occured at the "Reefs".
Interesting question, but I don't find it strong enough to be considered a contradiction of fact and faith.

:w:

root
05-03-2005, 06:25 PM
So basicly, there's an event that could represent the one refured to in the scriptures, but you find it not to be fitting the relative word "big"?

Of course not. The event happened a long time before it is being claimed and has absolutely nothing to do with a geezer called Noah?


Interesting question, but I don't find it strong enough to be considered a contradiction of fact and faith.

Well, given time. Remember where you heard it first? They said that BSE and crossing over to Humans was "not strong enough evidence". Some is better than none eh?

Abdul Fattah
05-04-2005, 12:51 AM
Of course not. The event happened a long time before it is being claimed and has absolutely nothing to do with a geezer called Noah?

By what reason do you state such things are the contradiction between religion and facts? there personal disbeliefs, and have nothing to do with science contradicting religion.


Well, given time. Remember where you heard it first? They said that BSE and crossing over to Humans was "not strong enough evidence". Some is better than none eh?

So basicly one should make decisions that effect not only this life but the next as well based on assumptions because they "could just be truth". Quite frankly, I think you WANT it to be the truth, You want it to be truth so badly you'll bend over backwards to prove it. But eventually you'll have to admit: although there might not be any direct fysical evidence proving our religion (at least none you 'd consider), there is also none contradicting it!

Tell me Root, when you are in love with someone, can you prove you love her to me? No, you just know it because everything tells you you do. Yet if you sound sincere I'll take you on your word. We have so mush more then just our "word" ,
Yet you refuse to listen...

root
05-04-2005, 12:36 PM
Tell me Root, when you are in love with someone, can you prove you love her to me?

hhhmmm, If I said. "I am in love, I will do anything for her etc etc" then maybe.

If I say "I am in love, I got wed after 5 days of knowing her have been married to her since I was 17 and have two great teenage children and every year grows stronger and better". I would hope that I have sufficient grounds to prove my case of love.

It's not what one says but how one support's ones statement.

Fossils illuminate fish evolution

"The fossil record confirms that the evolution of fish was a step-wise event," explained Professor Aldridge. "The various characters that make up a fish, or a vertebrate, didn't all appear at once - they were added one-by-one through evolutionary time.

"These [new] fossils help fill in this pattern of how early vertebrate evolution began."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4498049.stm

Abdul Fattah
05-04-2005, 05:40 PM
So basically that prooves that fish, as we currently know it, evolved from a more "primitive fish" right?

Abdul Fattah
05-05-2005, 07:07 AM
hhhmmm, If I said. "I am in love, I will do anything for her etc etc" then maybe.

If I say "I am in love, I got wed after 5 days of knowing her have been married to her since I was 17 and have two great teenage children and every year grows stronger and better". I would hope that I have sufficient grounds to prove my case of love.

It's not what one says but how one support's ones statement.


Well actually that wouldn't prove it, I could argue that you'r just acting out of stupidity, or that you stay with her for the kid's sake, or maybe she's rich and you'r after her money.
Hope you don't take this personal, it's all just for the sake of discussion. I'm not insinuating you would actually act on sush motivations ;)

But then again if I'd make sush assumptions, you -hopelessly in love- would think I'm stupid for not believing this since I have no good reasons to. As you said It's not what one says but how one supports his statements.

Now if I was to tell you that I studied science (as an atheist) and that this actually led me to religion. That now on reading the qur'an I stopped smoking, drinking, goin' out, started praying 5 times a day, stop eating haram meat....

If I told you I'm more certain of this then certain of love, if I testefied to have "felt" my soul and heart to find peace would you give me the benefith of the doubt or think of me as a fool?

root
05-05-2005, 06:16 PM
would you give me the benefith of the doubt or think of me as a fool?

I would never judge you as a fool or anyone else for that matter who choose to follow a religion.


Now if I was to tell you that I studied science (as an atheist) and that this actually led me to religion. That now on reading the qur'an I stopped smoking, drinking, goin' out, started praying 5 times a day, stop eating haram meat....

This is a typical echo of any faith albeit founded or not or based obn Islam or not & would show how people can use thier faith for goodness.

Regards

Root


Steve - So basically that prooves that fish, as we currently know it, evolved from a more "primitive fish" right?

I think you may unintentionally be-little the importance of a "Boneless & toothless" fish.

Abdul Fattah
05-31-2005, 02:14 PM
Selam aleykum
I'd like to correct something, I posted earlyer:

I have absolutely no idea what Darwin actually believed. Some say he became atheistic because of his findings; some say he was catholic but wanted to change the dogmatic regime, some say he was simply agnostiastic. Here’s an interesting qoute by Darwin:
For the eye to have been formed by natural selection, seems absurd in the highest degree. This suggests he wasn’t a complete atheist.
On closer inspection, I've seem to have ripped that quote out of it's contect, I've read the whole text where hat quote comes from and it is as following:

On the Origin of Species - Chapter VI Difficulties of the Theory
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

Meaning that my assumptions on Darwin's believes could very well been wrong.
This being said, I'd like to stress that this of changes nothing to the arguments I posted. I just wanted to correct the disinformation.

root
05-31-2005, 06:57 PM
Hi Steve

Your respect has increased in my eye's already albeit intelligent design or evolution. You are correct of course and the sentence often taken out of context by pro-creationists is "The eye is so complex that it's evolution by natural selection seems "Absurd".

You have quite rightly included that Darwin argued the key to the puzzle was to find "eyes" of intermediate complexity within the animal kingdom which could demonstrate a possible path from simple to complicated.

An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

imaad_udeen
05-31-2005, 11:37 PM
I'm no scientist, I wouldn't be able to tell you anything ground-breaking. It's worth studying and being debated. But it is God's will. I don't think his methods need to be understood to understand ourselves and our relationship to him.

We are here because He wants us to be here.

MHO, of course....

Abdul Fattah
06-01-2005, 10:39 PM
An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

Well that sure suggest an evolution, but that doesn't nececairly make it so. First of al looking to probability's of evolution one needs to focus on the form of the DNA, and not the form OF the body since the mutation actually happens in the DNA and not in the body. The body is "deformed" (sometimes in an advantagabel way) due to the mutation in DNA. Even if there would be a species with these primitive eye's, the sudden forming of lenzes and other parts needed to form a "vision" from light, simultanious with a different way of recepting this light and transforming it to electrical signals, and again simultainious with the different way of interpreting the signals in the brain all due to a mutation in DNA still seems absurd to me. again these 3 steps should have gone simultainouisly, because otherwise the mutation would have been a disadvantage, and the creater would have lesser survival chanses then his fellowoffspring. Especially in the case of fish where life is mush more basic and these fysical atributes are hence more important.

Muhammad
06-01-2005, 11:29 PM
:sl:

There are many physical proofs for our religion...if you want to consider in terms of historical events, then as mentioned in the book 'Perished Nations' much evidence has been found supporting the stories mentioned in the scriptures - (check this out http://www.perishednations.com/)...I mean the finding of the people who carved houses in the mountains, the remains of the People of Lot, the dead sea existing in the place where the People of Lot lived, the preservation of Pharoah himself - are these not anough historical evidences? I am sure there are many more...

The thing Ive been wondering is how does darwin or anyone else for that matter explain the beginning of creation...ie before the big bang? Where did chemicals and gases come from? Where did the smallest particles come from? Surely there must have been some beginning and if there was, they could not just have arisen out of nothing by themselves...
Have a look at www.harunyahya.com - it has free literature and movies to illustrate so many arguments.

Khattab
06-01-2005, 11:49 PM
:sl:


True I have been wondering that too, Root I would apprecite your view on it, the big bang didnt just come about from nothingness, even if one says gases etc they dont come from nothing, the same way if I have an empty box with nothing in it, seeds wont suddenly appear from nothing and apples start growing in the box?

:w:

root
06-14-2005, 01:46 PM
Hi Guys

Been away for a while as I get frustrated with other posts on this board, however I do enjoy such debates as these:


Steve - Well that sure suggest an evolution, but that doesn't nececairly make it so. First of al looking to probability's of evolution one needs to focus on the form of the DNA, and not the form OF the body since the mutation actually happens in the DNA and not in the body. The body is "deformed" (sometimes in an advantagabel way) due to the mutation in DNA.

In principal and for the sake of agruement I can accept your point here and support it. Let's not debate the fact that the Human body is "deformed" from it's origins and I am not being critical of you.


Steve - Even if there would be a species with these primitive eye's, the sudden forming of lenzes and other parts needed to form a "vision" from light

I am interested why you seem to use a "sudden" change in evolution. Why is this? I think this is a very common error and a flawed human attribute that we simply cannot comprehend THE VERY ESSENCE OF "Time". Sure, we undertsand in relation to time what 1 year is like, probably undertsand what 10 years is like. (Just). We struggle to guage in real time what 100 years is like. With evolution we are talking at the moment 3.5 BILLion years ago, and Geologists seem to accept that beyond this point conditions on earth were so brutal that even solid rock stood no chance of survival... (and just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, Geologists have discovered fragments of the early earth that casts doubt on the currently accepted date that the earth could support life by adding another Billion years. Zircons are tiny but tough crystals of zirconium silicate that are the oldest objects on earth. Zircons can survive being baked upto 1600 Degrees and can be washed down the course of an entire river without chipping or eroding, they can withstand the pressure under tonnes of sediment and nothing else not even a diamond can survive such punsisment as a Zircon despite being harder but chemically less stable. Early earth was supposed to be a seething inferno of molton magma. So how come a bunch of crystals are telling us the planet was right for life perhaps as much as a Billion years earlier than thought.) Can you really comprehend how long 4.1 Billion years actually is, and bear in mind also that if DNA life was brought to the Universe via meteorites/comets then what of the evolutionary time scale would we be having to understand then in Billions of years evoultionary paths. Everyone knows that simple bacteriums (incidently has been scientificly proven to be able to cross the dark cold vacuum of space) multiply every 20 minutes. Their is nothing "Sudden" about evolution............. A mutated cell sensitive to light is not a "watch in the sand" comparative. However, such a mutation is very much within the bounds of probability as much as antibiotic resistent bacteria is. Most Evolutionary theory is supported and proved within the microbial world. Only "time" prevents actual proof in the Macro-species world. Light sesnsitive cells would offer a distinct survival aspect, time will then evolve this "advantage"


simultanious with a different way of recepting this light and transforming it to electrical signals, and again simultainious with the different way of interpreting the signals in the brain all due to a mutation in DNA still seems absurd to me.

This is "Branching" and evolution within our natural environment would bring about different ways of recepting light amongst different species. It's only a question of time coupled with the survival of the fittest luckiest and adaptive species. of course some species will never evolve eyes in the first place & Darwin also concluded that some species will change little since their environment changes little which was also supported with the recent find of a fish thought to be extinct deep on the ocean floor where it has no natural predators and it was an excellent reference to how accurate science was at recreating a species based on fossils which was showed to be very accurate using this "thought" to be extinct fish. As for evolutionary adaptation to our environment this also is well understood and proven within primate species too. (Hobit-man).


again these 3 steps should have gone simultainouisly, because otherwise the mutation would have been a disadvantage,

I don't think you can support this. Your trying to bind light sensitive cells with a "vision" i.e seeing. Light sensitive cells would not produce a "vision" but would cause a "pain" stimuli which in turn would force a species to stay in "dark" areas and this for many a species would bring massive advantages even with basic steps such as only coming out in the dark, one could consider thousands of advantages inadvertantly gained through pain stimuli brought about by light sensitive cells.....


Khattab True I have been wondering that too, Root I would apprecite your view on it, the big bang didnt just come about from nothingness,

I am comfortable with "Nothingness" otherwise refered to as "Nothing". And by this you must agree that the "Universe" is expanding, and it expands into "Nothing". For if you travel to the end of the universe would see nothing for light & matter has not expanded, it would not be a physical barrier such as matter can produce (i.e a brick wall)!!!!!

As for the big bang, I agree with the current understanding of the big bang in that their was a "Big bang" a literally big noise that we can still see and hear of it's echo today even from the distance of this planet. As for the cause, no one can yet say and it goes into the realm of science fiction. I will say this, we once beleived their was only one planet (ours). We now know they are of infinate number, we said the same for our local star (The sun) we know an infinate number of them too. Same can be said for Solar syatem, Galaxy, etc etc we always thought they were singular objects until we discovered they are of infinate numbers. Why do we still expect only a single universe!!!!!!!!!!!

The "Big Bang" may be a single point of inflation connecting universes together and exchanging matter from one universe to another, or it could even be that the universe collided with another universe. Nobody knows (YET)!!!!!!!! We only know of a large explosion we call the "Big bang"!

That's just my opinion.

Regards All

Root

Muhammad
06-14-2005, 02:17 PM
I am comfortable with "Nothingness" otherwise refered to as "Nothing". And by this you must agree that the "Universe" is expanding, and it expands into "Nothing". For if you travel to the end of the universe would see nothing for light & matter has not expanded, it would not be a physical barrier such as matter can produce (i.e a brick wall)!!!!!

As for the big bang, I agree with the current understanding of the big bang in that their was a "Big bang" a literally big noise that we can still see and hear of it's echo today even from the distance of this planet. As for the cause, no one can yet say and it goes into the realm of science fiction. I will say this, we once beleived their was only one planet (ours). We now know they are of infinate number, we said the same for our local star (The sun) we know an infinate number of them too. Same can be said for Solar syatem, Galaxy, etc etc we always thought they were singular objects until we discovered they are of infinate numbers. Why do we still expect only a single universe!!!!!!!!!!!

The "Big Bang" may be a single point of inflation connecting universes together and exchanging matter from one universe to another, or it could even be that the universe collided with another universe. Nobody knows (YET)!!!!!!!! We only know of a large explosion we call the "Big bang"!

Root
Hello Root,

You mentioned that the Universe is expanding into nothingness, which means that before it began expanding there was also nothingness.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang theory suggests something along the lines of the fact that once all the substance of the Universe was concentrated at one place, and then it was so dense and so hot that it exploded? If that is true, then where did this Hydrogen gas - which is thought to be the main substance present at that time - and any other particle of matter, come from?

Everything must have a beginning according to logic, so all these universes and planets must have come from somewhere. It doesnt make sense to me that there were planets or universes already existing and then they collided to make more? Perhaps this is not what you meant so feel free to explain, I am just interested in your view of what happened.

root
06-14-2005, 03:34 PM
You mentioned that the Universe is expanding into nothingness, which means that before it began expanding there was also nothingness

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. Not before!


Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang theory suggests something along the lines of the fact that once all the substance of the Universe was concentrated at one place, and then it was so dense and so hot that it exploded?

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know


If that is true, then where did this Hydrogen gas - which is thought to be the main substance present at that time - and any other particle of matter, come from?

We don't know, thought the two core "constants" are Hydrogen & Helium


Everything must have a beginning according to logic, so all these universes and planets must have come from somewhere. It doesnt make sense to me that there were planets or universes already existing and then they collided to make more? Perhaps this is not what you meant so feel free to explain, I am just interested in your view of what happened.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

I agree that it is logical for everything to have a beginning. I don't consider it logic to consider the beginning of our universe as the beginning of our origin!

Hope this helps

Muhammad
06-14-2005, 07:12 PM
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. Not before!

Thankyou for that explanation, it helped to clarify some points. First of all, yes I agree with you that the Big Bang theory does not explain what happened before the event. I was merely saying that Nothing existed, and was implying that something could not arise from nothing.




According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

We don't know, thought the two core "constants" are Hydrogen & Helium
I do find it quite strange how you said that our Universe suddenly "sprang" into existence, and furthermore you said that singularities arise in the centre of black holes. Perhaps they can arise otherwise, yet what would then be the reason for the infinitely small size, temperature and density? In other words, where is all this pressure coming from and what caused it initially? You said you don't know... well science may not be able to explain the Big Bang fully, but religion can, or at least enlighten us as to some of the stages that creation went through...

First of all, the Universe was created:
"The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: 'Be!' - and it is." [2:117]

The initial concentration of the substance if the Universe at one place is confirmed by the Qur'an in the following terms:
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them?" [21:30]

About the Universe having once been filled with hydrogen gas, it is stated in the Qur'an:
"Then He rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly." [41:11]

The creation of the Universe is mentioned in the Qur'an many times, and even more detailed conclusions can be obtained by studying its numerous verses about this subject. It is quite amazing how it agrees with scientific suggestions and evidences, and where science cannot, the Qur'an can. Some people may believe there to be contradictions etc. in the Qur'an, on the basis of scientific findings, yet in all these cases, either there is a misinterpretation of the Qur'an, or our understanding of science is wrong. It makes sense that if the Qur'an has indeed confirmed so many scientific facts, some of which are present day breakthroughs, then it is also to be trusted and given a fair say in those issues that man has not yet fully comprehended.




Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

I agree that it is logical for everything to have a beginning. I don't consider it logic to consider the beginning of our universe as the beginning of our origin!


I believe the concept of expansion you mentioned, as opposed to explosion can be interpreted from the verse [21:30] above, or even understood from the following verse:
"With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof." [51:47]

You also mentioned that space, time, matter and energy all had a finite beginning according to the calculations of three astrophysicists, in other words, you are implying they were created. If there was no space for the singularity to appear in, then how could it have appeared at all? It seems impossible that something can exist in a spaceless place! Science cannot explain where this singularity came from as you said, and at one time it didnt exist. It therefore seems quite reasonable that if it is impossible for something to appear on its own when it didn't exist, then something must have caused it to appear i.e. it must have been created. No metaphysical force known to man could make such a thing happen, thus some kind of Divine entity must have been the cause.

Furthermore, if such a 'theory' as the Big Bang cannot even be explained from the onset, then I don't see how it can explain the creation of the rest of the Universe, from the formation of the earth to the life on it today. You said yourself:


Because science can only explain such things that are supported by supportive scientific experimentation & understanding. One must learn what a "theory" is for God is an "Hypothosis" and not a "theory"
A theory that can neither be proven in logical or scientific terms should be rendered false, hence it is a hypothesis if anything. The concept of God is at least logically plausible and the very fact that we are alive today is ample evidence that He exists.

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-14-2005, 08:07 PM
:sl:

A theory that can neither be proven in logical or scientific terms should be rendered false, hence it is a hypothesis if anything. The concept of God is at least logically plausible and the very fact that we are alive today is ample evidence that He exists.
Interesting discussion here. I find it strange that atheists seem to think that theists must offer evidence to prove the existence of God, yet the atheist's proof of God's non-existence is only to debate the proof offered by the theist! Therefore, the atheists himself can bring no evidence to support his position. Atheism relies solely on faith, backed up by no evidence. An atheist pretty much has a vaccuum of evidence, only arguing the proofs for the existence of God, but never providing any proof for the non-existence of God. Therefore, atheism is a very difficult position to support.

With regards to evolution of the eye, I would like to present the following article on Irreducible Complexity:

It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as "primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive-that is, they need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals; a nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge; and a visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to propose that all of these things came about by chance, at the same time, and in the same living thing. In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), which he wrote to defend the theory of evolution, the evolutionist writer Cemal Yildirim admits this fact in this way:


A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight: As well as the eye and the mechanisms inside it, we can mention the links between special centers in the brain and the eye. How did this complex system-creation come about? According to biologists, the first step in the emergence of the eye during the evolutionary process was taken with the appearance of a small, light-sensitive area on the skin of some primitive living things. But what advantage could such a minute development on its own confer on a living thing in natural selection? As well as this, there needs to be a visual center formed in the brain and a nerve system linked to it. As long as these rather complicated mechanisms are not linked to one another, then we cannot expect what we call "sight" to emerge. Darwin believed that variations emerged by chance. If that were the case, would not the appearance of all the many variations that sight requires in various places in the organism at the same time and their working together turn into a mystical puzzle?… However, a number of complementary changes working together in harmony and cooperation are needed for sight… Some molluscs' eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens of cellulose tissue just like ours. Now, how can we explain the evolutionary processes of these two very different types requiring a string of chance events just by natural selection? It is a matter for debate whether Darwinists have been able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question…352

This problem is so great from the evolutionist point of view that the closer we look at the details, the worse the quandary the theory finds itself in. One important "detail" which needs to be looked at is the claim about "the cell which came to be sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss this over by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becoming sensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposed to have had?

352 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), Bilgi Publications, January 1989, pp. 58-59. (emphasis added)

:w:

root
06-14-2005, 08:35 PM
A theory that can neither be proven in logical or scientific terms should be rendered false,

I think you should understand better what an actual theory is.


yet the atheist's proof of God's non-existence

And the creationists proof of God's existence is every bit as lacking. True Their are only 2 origins of the Universe:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Random Construction

I read your points, but alas you have no more to bring to the table than I. I do not move to disprove God, you move to prove god by disproving me. It's a cycle (and a rarther boring one at that).


It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as "primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance.

So light sensitive cells giving painful stimuli can never be explained as chance with greater than 4 Billionyears evolution, I think you are on shaky ground indeed.


A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight:

Disagree mutated light sensitive cells will not be that complex with pain as the stimuli


sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss this over by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becoming sensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposed to have had?

Your material is very much "Out-Of-date" in 1989, they new nothing of our latest discoveries including light sensitive cells for eyes as described earlier on in this forum

"Muhammed" I read yopur post thanks, but I have to say I find it "Ambiguos" to say the least. Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures. Some even claim the prediction of "Hitler" is encoded into the bible, and he would argue his point until he was blue in the tooth.......... My point is, Science at least can say "We just don't know yet". Religion, however seems to know everything yet as time goes on we seem to disprove so much of it that you end up with an inconsistent set of "Writings"


Atheism relies solely on faith, backed up by no evidence.

I don't mean to be offensive, but what you said is so typically a negative creationist view. I have said many times before, atheists do not need faith. When I drop a stone it falls to the ground. I know why this is and the theory of gravity tells me why. As for no evidence, most of evolutionary claims can be proven in the micro-species world. I have yet to see a new virus "Created" that does not come to be through evolutionary mutation. And yet you say backed by no evidence......... PMSL

Regards

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-14-2005, 10:13 PM
And the creationists proof of God's existence is every bit as lacking. True Their are only 2 origins of the Universe:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Random Construction
True, random construction is a possibility, just like it's possible that there is an invisible pink unicorn. To believe in random construction or the invisibly pink unicorn you need faith.


I do not move to disprove God, you move to prove god by disproving me. It's a cycle (and a rarther boring one at that).
I don't think its possible for me to convince an atheist on my own. I cannot guide anyone, it is only God who guides. And God only guides those who turn to Him. So, unfortunately, many atheists wait until they have a tragic experience before turning to God in for help. Its the choice of every human being: either be grateful to God now for the blessings He has given you, or wait for calamity to befall you before turning to God for help. God will only guide those who desire God's guidance and love.


So light sensitive cells giving painful stimuli can never be explained as chance with greater than 4 Billionyears evolution, I think you are on shaky ground indeed.
Your statement is answered by the very next sentence after the one you quoted.


Disagree mutated light sensitive cells will not be that complex with pain as the stimuli
Which is it? Light or pain as the stimuli?

If you mean light sensitivity in the simplest sense like a plant, then do plants have eyes? Can they evolve eyes? Why haven't they?


My point is, Science at least can say "We just don't know yet". Religion, however seems to know everything
Have you ever read a religious paper? Haven't you noticed that it always ends with "And Allah knows best"? Religion and Sceince are both tools/sources of knowledge. Neither of them claim to have uncovered all the knowledge. If you ask any Muslim scholar about the ruh (soul) they will say that the true knowledge about it is with Allah, and then proceed to explain our limited understanding.

yet as time goes on we seem to disprove so much of it that you end up with an inconsistent set of "Writings"
Science can disprove many things, so long as they are in the realm of science. Perhaps you would like to show me some of the incosistencies you have in mind?


I have said many times before, atheists do not need faith.
I know atheists will say this, because they are very scared to admit it. But you certainly have faith that there is no God. There is no evidence supporting your conclusion that there is no God, therefore you rely on faith.


When I drop a stone it falls to the ground. I know why this is and the theory of gravity tells me why.
Can you show me the relation between an observable truth and an abstract belief? How is your belief in the non-existence of God an observable truth?

As for no evidence, most of evolutionary claims can be proven in the micro-species world. I have yet to see a new virus "Created" that does not come to be through evolutionary mutation.
First of all, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Abiogenesis is more related.

Secondly, parts of the theory of evolution are undoubtedly true, while other parts are still very shaky, and this is something that is recognized by the scientific community.


And yet you say backed by no evidence
Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of God's non-existence?

:w:

Muhammad
06-14-2005, 10:48 PM
I think you should understand better what an actual theory is.



A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
I wasn't aware of the fact that you have tested how something can come into existence from nothing! If so, why don't you do it again? Evolution is not widely accepted.

The dictionary also states that a theory is: "a set of ideas formulated (by reasoning from known facts) to explain something.

Perhaps you can enlighten me further because Im not quite sure if you know what a theory is yourself.



"Muhammed" I read yopur post thanks, but I have to say I find it "Ambiguos" to say the least. Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures. Some even claim the prediction of "Hitler" is encoded into the bible, and he would argue his point until he was blue in the tooth..........
The bible might be ambiguous but the Qur'an certainly isn't. Granted some people extract what they like, but some things are plain clear. Also bear in mind: we're not discussing the Bible.

root
06-14-2005, 11:18 PM
True, random construction is a possibility, just like it's possible that there is an invisible pink unicorn.

Correct, and one would argue that to beleive in a Religous Creationist view. And I do intently state "Religous Creationist" being the possibility of a big pink elephant on the moon. it's a paradox you cannot escape because everything you say is abscent of proof. I tend not to judge two sides by their "Hits". But by their misses.


I don't think its possible for me to convince an atheist on my own. I cannot guide anyone, it is only God who guides. And God only guides those who turn to Him. So, unfortunately, many atheists wait until they have a tragic experience before turning to God in for help. Its the choice of every human being: either be grateful to God now for the blessings He has given you, or wait for calamity to befall you before turning to God for help. God will only guide those who desire God's guidance and love.

You are correct, and Religion plays this role and is very good at it too. The only problem of course is that Science is uniformal in it's position on Death for example. Where as religion has many a story to tell and not one being the same, that places you in a terrible position that your very beleif (Islam) may actually be wrong when other religions will directly engage over "the Afterlife". Science is the only body to be uniformed in it's agreement over such issues............ I attended a Catholic school (long story and I was not a Catholic). The story of Noah they claim is a religous Myth, a story with a meaning. You would debate the real events where Science does not support the case, the only thing uniformal in religion is that you all state that you are the only true religion. Stranger still, that is Geographically related to where one was born and born under a set religion. Science is not.


Which is it? Light or pain as the stimuli?

Your getting desperate... Light is the cause fot the pain stimuli, I take it because you are muslim you will be absent of the sensation one suffers the next morning after a few too many pints!


If you mean light sensitivity in the simplest sense like a plant

Have you even read my post or just skimmed it, I stated some species will gain no advantage. Obviously one could conclude that light sensitive cells are more common in Nature than we give it credit for. Either way, it's irrelevent and far more at a complex stage. basically, I think it's an attempt to ridicule. A tree "Evolved" just likle us and it's atoms are no different to ours, only in the way the atoms have formed their pattern are they different from us.


Have you ever read a religious paper? Haven't you noticed that it always ends with "And Allah knows best"? Religion and Sceince are both tools/sources of knowledge. Neither of them claim to have uncovered all the knowledge. If you ask any Muslim scholar about the ruh (soul) they will say that the true knowledge about it is with Allah, and then proceed to explain our limited understanding.

Nah, but i have read about the physical restrictions of organic matter and the restrictions applied to it and the power that "cilicone" brings to break through the restrictions of physical matter and cary out super human mathmatical wonders. I am not defeatest the same way you have implied by proceeding to explain our "Limited" understanding. Why can't you think outside the box....


Can you show me the relation between an observable truth and an abstract belief? How is your belief in the non-existence of God an observable truth?

That is very specific. Please see above where I speak about "Hit's and misses"


First of all, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Abiogenesis is more related.

Your correct, some would say we are indeed created by intelligent design. Please don't make the mistake that they mean the "Allah" you talk about and that you claim as the Koran & the Bible as proof. For they do not. Evolution in the "Adaptation of life to it's environment" is real and evolution from primate to Human though some would not even make that assumption, well good news too. A new phrase has been coined this week it's called "Primatephobia", I feel it rartheer infectios upon you.


Secondly, parts of the theory of evolution are undoubtedly true, while other parts are still very shaky, and this is something that is recognized by the scientific community.

I agree, and brought about by the fact that Science is on a learning curve. Where as Religion beleives it has all the answers. Only problem is, the answer you get depends on which religion you ask which is a place of ridicule if you ask me.


Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of God's non-existence?

Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of the invisible pink Unicorn?

root
06-14-2005, 11:32 PM
I wasn't aware of the fact that you have tested how something can come into existence from nothing!

Nor was I!


If so, why don't you do it again? Evolution is not widely accepted.

Depends how you phrase it. Are you refering to The "Educated" countries or the "Non-Educated". Don't take this statement out of context like the two I have Quoted above. I mean Countries where "all" children are educated through a National syllabus which includes Science & Religous Education.


Granted some people extract what they like, but some things are plain clear.

Are you trying to say the Qur'an as you know it has never suffered from a "Mis-pronounciation". If something is not ambigous then it is straightforward. If Islam is as straightforward as this why do opinions differ so greatly even amongst your same faith followers

we're not discussing the Bible.

Interesting, I would really like to know how your Islamic Creationistic beleifs are brought about when dis-regarding the bible.............

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-14-2005, 11:49 PM
Correct, and one would argue that to beleive in a Religous Creationist view. And I do intently state "Religous Creationist" being the possibility of a big pink elephant on the moon. it's a paradox you cannot escape because everything you say is abscent of proof. I tend not to judge two sides by their "Hits". But by their misses.
I can give very strong arguments about the existence of a Divine Creator simply because of the existnce of Creation. You would probably respond by saying, "well that doesn't prove God exists. That could have come about by random chance." And its true, it could have, just like there could be your big pink elephant. So yes there will always be alternate possibilities, but at least theists have evidence.


You are correct, and Religion plays this role and is very good at it too. The only problem of course is that Science is uniformal in it's position on Death for example. Where as religion has many a story to tell and not one being the same, that places you in a terrible position that your very beleif (Islam) may actually be wrong when other religions will directly engage over "the Afterlife".
There's a problem with the way you are referring to "religion". You are using the term to refer to the collective groups of various religious views/beliefs. Before doing that you would have to evaluate which is a valid religion.


Science is the only body to be uniformed in it's agreement over such issues............
When you say "science" are you really referring to "scientists"?

What do you mean by saying that they're agreed on death? Specifically what about death are you referring to?


You would debate the real events where Science does not support the case, the only thing uniformal in religion is that you all state that you are the only true religion.
Just as many scientists believe a specific theory to be true. The only difference is the belief is not as passionate because religion affects us much more deeply than science.


Stranger still, that is Geographically related to where one was born and born under a set religion.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Children aren't born Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. based on where they were born.


Your getting desperate...
No, I'm just trying to understand your points. I'm not trying to prove anything at this point in the game.

Light is the cause fot the pain stimuli,
Okay, I see.

I take it because you are muslim you will be absent of the sensation one suffers the next morning after a few too many pints!
You're right, I wouldn't know about that.


Nah, but i have read about the physical restrictions of organic matter and the restrictions applied to it and the power that "cilicone" brings to break through the restrictions of physical matter and cary out super human mathmatical wonders. I am not defeatest the same way you have implied by proceeding to explain our "Limited" understanding. Why can't you think outside the box....
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Hopefully you could elaborate. The limited understanding was a reference to the fact that "religion" (depends what you mean by the word of course) does not claim to know everything.


That is very specific. Please see above where I speak about "Hit's and misses"
Okay, so how does "hits and misses" relate the non-existence of God to the falling of a rock?


Your correct, some would say we are indeed created by intelligent design. Please don't make the mistake that they mean the "Allah" you talk about and that you claim as the Koran & the Bible as proof.
Well I would certainly enjoy discussing with these people their notion of the Creator. I think many people find that Allah is not as different from their concept of God as they imagined. I'm not concerned with what they call their God, only that there is a belief in the One Supreme Being who created the Universe. From there we can move on to talk about what that being requires of us.


I agree, and brought about by the fact that Science is on a learning curve. Where as Religion beleives it has all the answers.
Again, I would like to know what you mean when you use the term "religion" as used in the sense above.

But you are correct that both fields obtain data through different methodologies. Science obtains Data through observations and experimentations, while religion obtains Data through revelation, after ascertaining that revelation to be valid. Both are related through the laws of logic.


Only problem is, the answer you get depends on which religion you ask which is a place of ridicule if you ask me.
Is it a place of ridicule for science when I get a different answer from different scientists?



Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of the invisible pink Unicorn?
I don't think I need to. The Unicorn may or may not exist, but seeing as it has no effect on me, I am not concerned with it. However, I am certainly open to the possibility of its existence.

:w:

Abdul Fattah
06-14-2005, 11:53 PM
Hi root, nice to hear from you, welcome back. Although your absence has been noticed, I'm glad to see, you provided me with a lot of stuff to discuss, so lets get right to it ;)

Regarding the arguments you brought fourth about the evolution of the eye:
Nonetheless you’d have to agmit that several changes in structures, al due to a mutation in DNA had to have occured simultanious wright? Well that’s just it, it doesn’t make sense, why assume that something this unlikely happened? Thats basicly the core of al the examples I posted earlyer.

Regarding Big bang:
I’m no expert on the matter, but if I’m not mistaken, scientist are not even certain that big bang was the beginning of time. Big bang was an anomaly (rare existing proces) Wich changes 3 photons. This change equals in a lack of energy, this lack of energie is then exhauled by the surroundings, and the lack is passed on throughout space like the waves that form in the water when a rock hit’s it's surface. In it’s path all matter is changed to antimatter and vice verca. This is why nothing earlyer then this event can be “traced” or “examined”. What lies beyond the rimpel? Nobody knows for sure. Since the wave travels by the faststes speed able to obtain, that of light, nobody nor any sensor can be send beyond it to examen it. I even heard recent string theorists have reason to believe that this proces was caused by the collision of two “membranes”. What are these membranes? Well this universe is made up by 11 dimensions according to string theorists rather then 4. The 11th is a membrane. Now imagen many parrallel universes, as loaf’s of bread next to eachother. Now imagen to membranes of 2 universes colliding, and the energy that comes free from such an event.


I am comfortable with "Nothingness" otherwise refered to as "Nothing". And by this you must agree that the "Universe" is expanding, and it expands into "Nothing". For if you travel to the end of the universe would see nothing for light & matter has not expanded, it would not be a physical barrier such as matter can produce (i.e a brick wall)!!!!!

Well I hope you ‘r quite aware of what nothing implies. As you most likely know that what we refer to as vacuum isn't exactly “empty” but composed of “higgs-particles”. This insinuates a “nothing” beyond space, not an emptyness, but an absence of empty space. Think about this: if nothing had ever existed, would there at least have existed a place were something could 've been? This is a tricky filosofical road to travel. As you might also be aware of time is concidered as a dimension in quantumdynamics. Basicly, a fourth direction. This time also isn’t absolute, but can even be bended (by gravity). So, again the question arises, is there such a thing as absolute time, beyond the physics of the universe.

Small religieous intermezzo: Do you think that if this time we experience is also created by a creator, He himself would be subjected to his law?

Now to get back to my point, this whole absolete space and time creates somewhat of a paradox. Does such an absolute time exist? As a human being, my intuition says: “yes” because we as humans are bound to time, we travel to that dimension passifly, without the ability to change the direction of the movement nor the place.
My comen sense however, says: “no” It’s not because it is evident for us, that one has to assumme time exists by itself. An atheist should ask himself the question, if not God, who or what created time and space?

Shifting gears for a second....
Lets look at the way you described big bang. Nothingness from wich something emerges. Now if the “time and space” of this universe is made up of energy how can this time and space exist if there is nothing? And also, if there is nothing, is there a “place” and is there “time” for anything to come forth?
Isn’t this also contradictory to what science teaches us? Namelly that energy, under no circumstances can be formed or deleted, but that it simply shifts form when it looks like there’s a change in energy?


I don't mean to be offensive, but what you said is so typically a negative creationist view. I have said many times before, atheists do not need faith. When I drop a stone it falls to the ground. I know why this is and the theory of gravity tells me why. As for no evidence, most of evolutionary claims can be proven in the micro-species world. I have yet to see a new virus "Created" that does not come to be through evolutionary mutation.

I’m sorry but that’s where you’r wrong, There is no absolute “proof” what you have are plausibilities, based on theory’s not on science. Allow me to ellaborate.

If I were to state that an electrical current creates a magnetic field. I would be able to proof this by placing a compass (or several) next to an electric wire. Then whenever I let a current pass the wire, a change in the position of the needle can be witnessed. This would give my claims a lot of credebility. The proofs for evolution (and by this I mean the theory: from lifeless puddle to human being, because as I stated earlyer, I do not declair everything of evolution to be false) cannot be reproduced or tested in my living room. You can witness two fossiles laying next to eachother, equal in DNA exept for one little detail. An evolutionist can claim that one is a mutated offspring of the other, a creationist can claim it to be 2 slightly different created creatures. The presence of the fossile doesn’t prove either one of them. But since evolutionists first came to talk about these things, everybody naturaly accociates the fossile with evolution, and no questions are asked, this way of thinking goes for all the “so called proof” an evolutionist has to offer.

So just as you said it, it’s a matter of: “Wich plausibilaty seems more logic to me.” Rather then: “Wich theory is proven.” That is why I based this thread on showing some things of evolutiontheory that aren’t that logical (i.e.origin of life).

The same goes for Big bang. It supposibly serves as an alternative to creation, solving the questions that arise with the concepts of infinte, or beginingless. But as I showed, this merely changes the form of the question; just as you would be able to ask me, who created god than? I can ask you, who or what created time and space, created energy, created parallel universes with 11th dimension membranes that are able to collide? The question remains unanswered, and we'll both have to assume a beginingless form sooner or later.

2 of the 99 names of Allah are:
Al-'Awwal ( The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning. )
As-Samad ( The Eternal, The Independent, The Master who is relied upon in matters and reverted to in ones needs. )

I know this is quite a text to reply to, but don't worry, i'll wait. :p

Abdul Fattah
06-15-2005, 12:00 AM
ps: I know a great site that teaches this 11dimensions/string theory stuff etc.. quite well. And you don't have to worry, it's not a religious site. It's based on the book: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (an expert on the field)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

It's long, takes about 3 hours total, but the visualisations of these scientific theory's are certainly worth to watch.

Muhammad
06-15-2005, 10:00 AM
Nor was I!

Depends how you phrase it. Are you refering to The "Educated" countries or the "Non-Educated". Don't take this statement out of context like the two I have Quoted above. I mean Countries where "all" children are educated through a National syllabus which includes Science & Religous Education.I have been educated through a national syllabus, which includes science and religious education, and I am still a Muslim. And let's not forget that there are plenty of schools in some third-world countries...I doubt it has anything to do with education. In addition, it would help to teach people the full facts rather than only giving them what seems apropriate. How many people are taught that the Big Bang doesn't even have a sound basis? That you don't even KNOW where this starting matter came from?



Are you trying to say the Qur'an as you know it has never suffered from a "Mis-pronounciation". If something is not ambigous then it is straightforward. If Islam is as straightforward as this why do opinions differ so greatly even amongst your same faith followers .
The Qur'an has only been misinterpreted by people who either 'skim' over it or read with their eyes closed. You haven't even read it so you wouldn't know. Opinions differ with regards to minor issues, but no Muslim differs with regards to the Qur'an.


we're not discussing the Bible.


Interesting, I would really like to know how your Islamic Creationistic beleifs are brought about when dis-regarding the bible.............You seem to think all religions are the same, yet I was reminding you that we are discussing Islam here and thus you cannot blame us for the faults of other religions. Whether the Bible is regarded or disregarded, our beliefs regarding the evolution of the Universe remain the same.

Abdul Fattah
06-15-2005, 03:43 PM
One more thing, you say you judge this science over religion thing not by the hits but by the misses. Why is it then that you do not aply this way of thinking on your "own" visions? As I said before, there are many questions, arguments to things you said on this forum unanswered, while every question, argument you have brought forth has (almost) always been answered. So the manifestation of your vieuws on this forum has more misses then hits.
I've placed this same question for you in another post:

although you've insinuated this in other topics, science does not contradict religion and the 2 actually support one another. Every point brought up so far that seemingly is contradicting has been argumented against. And most of our arguments remain unanswered so far. Ofcourse one can always be sceptical. But look at it this way: It's like a palice with a 1000 entrances of wish one is closed. 999 ways are openly showing the truth. And one door can not be entered. Therefor the sceptic says the palace is "closed".

Muhammad
06-16-2005, 07:01 PM
:sl:

That's quite an interesting video steve, thankyou for providing the link. I noticed some interesting statements (food for thought) mentioned in the video, and so I have provided relevant parts of the transcript (available on the site) for you to read.




'Quantum mechanics says that you can't know for certain the outcome of any experiment; you can only assign a certain probability to the outcome of any experiment. And this, Einstein disliked intensely. He used to say "God does not throw dice."'

Did Einstein believe in God? There is also another part in the video where it mentions that Einstein was trying to think in the 'mind of God' as it were, (I couldn't find the part in the transcript), so I dont know if this is just an exaggeration, or describing the extent to which he wanted to understand God's creation.








'The existence of giant membranes and extra dimensions would open up a startling new possibility, that our whole universe is living on a membrane, inside a much larger, higher dimensional space.
It's almost as if we were living inside...a loaf of bread? Our universe might be like a slice of bread, just one slice, in a much larger loaf that physicists sometimes call the "bulk."

And if these ideas are right, the bulk may have other slices, other universes, that are right next to ours, in effect, "parallel" universes.

Not only would our universe be nothing special, but we could have a lot of neighbors. Some of them could resemble our universe, they might have matter and planets and, who knows, maybe even beings of a sort.

Others certainly would be a lot stranger. They might be ruled by completely different laws of physics. Now, all of these other universes would exist within the extra dimensions of M-theory, dimensions that are all around us. Some even say they might be right next to us, less than a millimeter away.'

But if that's true, why can't I see them or touch them?

BURT OVRUT: If you have a brane living in a higher dimensional space, and your particles, your atoms, cannot get off the brane, it's like trying to reach out, but you can't touch anything. It might as well be on the other end of the universe.
JOSEPH LYKKEN: It's a very powerful idea because if it's right it means that our whole picture of the universe is clouded by the fact that we're trapped on just a tiny slice of the higher dimensional universe.'

'BRIAN GREENE: Making string theory even harder to prove, is that, in order to work, the complex equations require something that sounds like it's straight out of science fiction: extra dimensions of space.

AMANDA PEET: We've always thought, for centuries, that there was only what we can see. You know, this dimension, that one, and another one. There was only three dimensions of space and one of time. And people who've said that there were extra dimensions of space have been labeled as, you know, crackpots, or people who were bananas. Well, string theory really predicts it.'

'AMANDA PEET: People who've said that there were extra dimensions of space, have been labeled as, you know, crackpots or people who are bananas. I mean, what, do you think there are extra dimensions? Well, string theory really predicts it.

BRIAN GREENE: What we think of as our universe could just be one small part of something much bigger.

SAVAS DIMOPOULOS: Perhaps we live on a membrane, a three-dimensional membrane that floats inside higher dimensional space.

BRIAN GREENE: There could be entire worlds right next to us, but completely invisible.

NIMA ARKANI-HAMED (Harvard University): These other worlds would, in a very literal sense, be, be parallel universes. This isn't a particularly exotic or, or strange notion.


We know that there would have to be 11 dimensions for this theory to make sense. So there must be 11 dimensions. We only see three plus one of them. How is that possible?
BRIAN GREENE: For most of us, it's virtually impossible to picture the extra, higher dimensions: I can't. And it's not surprising. Our brains evolved sensing just the three spatial dimensions of everyday experience. So how can we get a feel for them?'


Now this is an interesting idea, since Muslims have known about 'another dimension' for centuries. It is in fact a world parallel to ours, known as the world of 'Jinn' or demons. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was in fact sent to teach both worlds as they are both required to believe in God and obey His commands. Jinn are independent, living, intelligent beings possessing a will and subject to commands and prohibitions, and are not aspects of human nature as some people who deny their existence believe.

It seems that religion might not be as strange or unrealistic as some may conceive. Science itself is predicting ideas that would otherwise be thought to be crazy, yet now they are saying that these thoughts are not "particularly strange". Science and religion do not disagree, and perhaps the two will agree even more obviously in the future.


Nah, but i have read about the physical restrictions of organic matter and the restrictions applied to it and the power that "cilicone" brings to break through the restrictions of physical matter and cary out super human mathmatical wonders. I am not defeatest the same way you have implied by proceeding to explain our "Limited" understanding. Why can't you think outside the box....

With regard to the concept of having "limited" understanding, science itself indicates such a concept. The underlined text in the transcript above shows this, as does the following:

'We have been incredibly lucky. Nature has somehow allowed us to unlock the keys to many fundamental mysteries already. How far can we push that? We won't know until we, until we try.'

They seem to believe that nature has a mind of its own for one thing... and they don't know to what extent they can comprehend it. Maybe scientists are willing to admit that there is a limit to their understanding; they don't know how far they can go but they certainly recognise there is some kind of 'limit':

'And quantum mechanics unveiled the inner workings of atoms and molecules, revealing a world that's bizarre and uncertain.'

'But, regardless of the outcome, we'll keep going, because, well, that's what we do. We follow our curiosity. We explore the unknown. And a hundred or a thousand years from now, today's view of the cosmos may look woefully incomplete, perhaps even quaint. But undeniably, the ideas we call string theory are a testament to the power of human creativity. They've opened a whole new spectrum of possible answers to age-old questions. And with them, we've taken a dramatic leap in our quest to fully understand this elegant universe.'







The following is showing that not everything is science is based on facts and theories, and to believe in something without evidence is perhaps what some would call 'faith'. Thus religion and science are not so different as some imagined...

'No experiment can ever check up what's going on at the distances that are being studied. No observation can relate to these tiny distances or high energies. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done, nor is there any observation that could be made, that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. Is that a theory of physics or a philosophy? I ask you.

'S. JAMES GATES, JR. (University of Maryland): If string theory fails to provide a testable prediction, then nobody should believe it.

SHELDON LEE GLASHOW: Is that a theory of physics, or a philosophy?'

'These exercises in our imagination of mathematics are all, at the end of the day, subjected to a single question: "Is it there in the laboratory? Can you find its evidence?"
JOSEPH LYKKEN: String theory and string theorists do have a real problem. How do you actually test string theory? If you can't test it in the way that we test normal theories, it's not science, it's philosophy, and that's a real problem.'






Something about the Big Bang theory....

'As the classic story goes, the vast universe we see today was once extremely small, unimaginably small. Then, suddenly, it got bigger—a lot bigger—during the dramatic event known as the big bang.
The big bang stretched the fabric of space and set off the chain of events that brought us to the universe we know and love today. But there's always been a couple of problems with the big bang theory. First, when you squeeze the entire universe into an infinitesimally small, but stupendously dense package, at a certain point, our laws of physics simply break down. They just don't make sense anymore.

DAVID GROSS: The formulas we use start giving answers that are nonsensical. We find total disaster. Everything breaks down, and we're stuck.

BRIAN GREENE: And on top of this, there's the bang itself. What exactly is that?

ALAN GUTH: That's actually a problem. The classic form of the big bang theory really says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang.'


'PAUL STEINHARDT (Princeton University): Most people come at this with the naïve notion that there was a beginning—that somehow space and time emerged from nothingness into somethingness.
BURT OVRUT: Well, I don't know about you, but I don't like nothing. Do I really believe that the universe was a big bang out of nothing? And I'm not a philosopher, so I won't say. But I could imagine to a philosopher, that is a problem. But to a physicist, I think, it's also a problem.

BRIAN GREENE: Everyone admits there are problems. The question is: "Can string theory solve them?" Some string theorists have suggested that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning at all, that the universe could have existed long before even forever. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea.

ALAN GUTH: I actually find it rather unattractive to think about a universe without a beginning. It seems to me that a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation.'

Interesting why this person believes there should be a beginning...





'So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.'

Why does the Universe have to make sense? If it came from nothing and has such a random nature, where does orderliness and sense come into it?

root
06-16-2005, 07:22 PM
One more thing, you say you judge this science over religion thing not by the hits but by the misses. Why is it then that you do not aply this way of thinking on your "own" visions? As I said before, there are many questions, arguments to things you said on this forum unanswered, while every question, argument you have brought forth has (almost) always been answered. So the manifestation of your vieuws on this forum has more misses then hits.
I've placed this same question for you in another post

Hi Steve,

With the best of intentions, for this forum at least my ideas are very much in a minority. And to respond to all comments on all matters is not practicle. As far as "Hit's and misses" go. I don't generalise this point based on forum discussions but apply it to the whole field of science & religion (Not just Islam).

I am off down to the Pub for a pint or two and like to think about all the points discussed in this thread, though not this particular point even though you may have posted...... It's my opinion I give and I don't debate to a finale since that cannot be achieved with many points raised..........

I intend to come back to this thread though........

Regards

Root

Abdul Fattah
06-16-2005, 09:40 PM
Sounds fair enoughf to me, can't blame a guy for trying thoug, wright? I understand it's time filling to answer all questions and arguments. But on the other hand, when you make insinuations about science contradicting Islam, I need some reference or arguments in order not to shake you up for it. ;)

Abdul Fattah
06-16-2005, 09:46 PM
I think Einstein was a sucker for causality, believing that from beginning to end, whoever or whatever force made up the universe, must have don so in an order that al events just follow out of each other by natural laws. So there's no luck involved, no electron being at one place then and onother the next second. That's why he didn't like quantumfysics that much, It didn't fit his "picture".

As for science not being able to look outside the box, I came acros a beautiful metafore the other day:

Science Cannot Answer “Why”
The observable universe is three-dimensional. But the universe as a whole is at least four-dimensional. If a natural law has a cause in the fourth dimension, a dimension to which we have no access, we cannot understand it. We can demonstrate this by an example, helping us to understand what we mean. Think of a metallic plane on which there are some creatures that are like electrons, which have no interaction with the third dimension, nor do they have any sense of it. All they can see is the two-dimensional plane where they live. Assume that a person is shooting at the plane, periodically opening holes at regular intervals. Observing that these holes are being opened periodically and at an equal distance, these creatures, if intelligent enough, will begin to see an unchanging pattern. And they may even give it a name, like “the law of holes.” They may calculate exactly where and when the next holes will appear, but they will never understand why these holes are being made or why they are being made in an unchanging pattern. Our idea of universal laws is much the same. We find the laws, we name them, but we will never be able to understand why they exist, or why they work in a mathematically describable way.

source: Are Religion and Science Compatible?
By Murat ERDIN http://www.fountainmagazine.com/

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-18-2005, 04:10 AM
:sl: I don't want to flood the discussion, but I came across a decent summary article back on the subject of evolution and creation.

Do You Believe That Evolution Is True?

If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this
context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.

1. Something from nothing?

The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the
universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

2. Physical laws an accident?

We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?

3. Order from disorder?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy.

How can this be?

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly theapplication of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

4. Information from Randomness?

Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent
observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The
generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.

5. Life from dead chemicals?

Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?

The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

7. Life is complex

We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.

8. Where are the transitional fossils?

If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!

9. Could an intermediate even survive?

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited toeither its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But
why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

10. Reproduction without reproduction?

A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided)
series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

11. Plants without photosynthesis?

The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?

There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
this?

13.It's no good unless it's complete

We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

14. Explain metamorphosis!

How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?

15. It should be easy to show evolution

If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change
to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be show able and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

16. Complex things require intelligent design folks!

People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

root
06-19-2005, 04:41 PM
The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

1. Evolution has never been observed.
2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
3. There are no transitional fossils.
4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
1. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

Nakisai
06-19-2005, 09:39 PM
sooo long almost,,, can't read any longer!!!!

Abdul Fattah
06-20-2005, 08:19 AM
"Evolution has never been observed."

Well I think I stated a couple of times that I do not deny this, in fact I’m sure that some creature’s evolved from others. But it’s one thing to say that, and another to claim all beings evolved from one creature. What “hasn’t been observed” is a creature evolving wings for example. Again I still have doubts about the eye, even with this light-sensor as a base, it seems absurd to assume it evolved through random mutation of DNA.


"There are no transitional fossils."
First of al I already showed how fossiles aren’t quite the best of proofs available.


The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

I think the main point here is not the name of the creature but it’s structures. I have so far avoided naming concreate species and simply refered to their features to avoid such a way of thinking. Of course nature isn’t constrained to follow our indexation, but this indexation is formed for a reason. In the example of birds, the question you should ask yourself is not: “is there a flying species that looks simalar to a reptile?” , but rather: “how big is the chance of a reptile evolving wings, a lighter weight, stronger breastmuscles, ....


"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors

Here the answer to the argument is in fact already given. Natural selection comes after the “chance” part so it’s absurd to answer this chance with natural selection. In fact natural selection makes the “chance” of evolution smaller! This because natural selection states that a mutation must be in such a way that it’s usefull at once.


Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

I think any chemist can tell you this is in fact wrong. First of al there are so many carbon-based molecules, it’s absurd to assume the ones needed for DNA are sure to form. Do you know how many atoms an avarage virus is made of? It sure is a lot for it to be formed out of a lifeless pool. Also there’s still this chicken vs egg thingy I posted earlyer:

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

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


Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

Again a lot of wrong assumptions. The current theory of abiogenesis requires:
1. A galactic storm creating the proper enviorements. (the air on earth was quite hostile for life to form, so claims are made of stardust passing through the atmosphere)
2. A meteor carrying certain nucleid acids falling on earth. This metero was
A. Not to big for the impact to give to much energy so the nucleid acid would be destroyed.
B. Not to small to burn up in the atmosfere.
So the chemical compounds weren’t just waiting to form a lifeform as suggested.


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
Maybe I haven’t always been correct in terminology, but i think I made it quite clear that it was common descent and not evolution I provided arguements against. If I would have started a topic called: “common descent arguments vs creatist arguments” I think it would have been less clear what the topic was actualy about.


Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Funny, but wouldn’t the “theory of common descent” by that defenition also fail to be a theory? This is, basicly what I’ve been saying all along. When it comes to science vs. Religion, there are no contradictions, nor are there proofs against religion.


Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Yet the most obvious things, a critisist fails to accept. But when it comes to science, it’s all good, because of what it provides: peace of mind, false feeling of irresponsability over one’s actions regarding wright over wrong.
(I'm not saying this is true for you Root, I'm saying this "in general")

Preacher
06-21-2005, 12:22 AM
One could forward an argument that the "theory" about "all God/s being man-made" needs proof to be substantiated. What conditions do the evolutionists and/or atheists propose for their theory to be proved or disproved? Notice that their theory about God being a man made idea is THEIR invention (or conjecture. They need to present testable conditions by which their theory could be proved and/or disproved otherwise it cannot be accepted on the scale of science.

"If a creator exists, I feel that if it really required worship, love, fear, etc, it would certainly make itself known in a way that would exclude any doubts. So far, none have, which is why we have so many. This is just my opinion."

I think it would be pointless to have the Creator show up every now and then to scare us and induce belief in mankind. The reality of man having free will and choice will be entirely lost at that point. Evolution by random chance does not produce free will, nor will the perpetual presence of God among us. The reason why man stands apart for the rest of life forms is due to his ability to choose and believe. Much of scientific progress would not have happened if man did not choose and believe through indirect evidence. Evolutionists and/or Atheists argument necessitates that man should give up the idea of having freewill and accountability and become an animal form. A rapist and a murderer need not be punished just because they have been "biologically wired" to perform that act!

mansio
06-21-2005, 05:54 AM
Preacher

If you think it pointless to have the Creator show up every now and then and induce belief in mankind, then don't go to Heaven, you may see too much of Him.

Preacher
06-21-2005, 06:47 AM
Preacher

If you think it pointless to have the Creator show up every now and then and induce belief in mankind, then don't go to Heaven, you may see to much of Him.
mansio

When it comes to making non-sense and spreading disinformation, you take the cake. I know you from Ummah.com, where my ID is "This is Me." You just ran there and posted a response to my same post like Sherlock Holmes that this post is under "Preacher" at LI forum. This is the peak of your processing capacity. It never clicked in your mind that perhaps "Preacher" and "This is me" could be the same person. Seconds before I was at Ummah.com, where I read your post. Also I don't like fundi Christians like you who claim that they are not Christians, but can't resist defending the false NT and their sham god Jesus. Be man enough rather being ashamed to be a Christian? If you don't want to admit you are a Christian than why are you?

Let me also edcuate you that "me" going to Paradise (in Islam we have the concept of going to Paradise and not to heaven) is not the same as God is showing up often on earth. But again, this non-sense can only happen in the fictional Bible, of course you believe in that whole heartedly.

Ciao

mansio
06-21-2005, 07:12 AM
Preacher

There's only one thing that guides me :
I don't believe in fairy tales whether in the Bible or in the Quran.

Abdul Fattah
06-21-2005, 11:27 AM
I posted earlyer

Yet the most obvious things, a critisist fails to accept. But when it comes to science, it’s all good, because of what it provides: peace of mind, false feeling of irresponsability over one’s actions regarding wright over wrong.
(I'm not saying this is true for you Root, I'm saying this "in general")

I think we have a winner, someone who doesn't believe in fairy tales....
But lets take a look at these fairy tales, shall we? Considere the universe, a whole bunch of strings dancing around, forming quarks, atoms , molecules, structures, in such a magificant way it produces the world we are seing wright now. Imagen all the changes you see every day, al the processe happening on earth using 4 different forces and relies on these four only. So simple, yet it's taken us ages to figure out just "how" this works. And as far as science is concearned we still have no clue regarding to "why" (reason nor cause). Consider the earlyer mentioned big bang, if the energy was just a tiny amount bigger or smaller, the results would be a universe as beautifull as this one, would never have existed. Consider the beautiful constants we encounter in science, pi , armstrong, e , etc... Imagen one being slightly different, and a balance as stable as the current one would have been impossible. Imagen all your physical properties being writen on a molecule so small it's invisible to the naked eye. Did you know that DNA, rather then using a whole alfabet to store information, relies on only 4 different parts? (as a computer's information only consists of zero's and one's, genetic information could be deciphered as "A's" "B's" "C's" and "D's" )

Now consider, just for a second, that this universe, would be created. That the four forces work only at will of that creator. That he was able to fit all that information on your genes. Imagen the imense wisdom and power required. And ask yourself, if someone is able to do all that, would it be hard for him to perform a miricle? Would it be hard to make an angel with this kind of power? Would it be hard to make any other thing happen, that makes you refer to it as fairy tale? Or is it hard for you to exept this, just out of fear?

mansio
06-21-2005, 11:36 AM
Fairy tales have nothing to do with science.
It needs a God to create a universe, but anybody, even a child, can think up a fairy tale.

Abdul Fattah
06-21-2005, 11:44 AM
Correct, but then again if you admit that this universe indeed proves a creator, is it that far fetched to assume this creator has made contact with us at any way? I'm still assuming you refer to it as fairy tales, because it seems far fetched. What I'm trying to point out is, that it seems far fetched because you don't believe it.

I don't believ, therefor angels, and prophets and so seem far fetched, therefor this is a reason for me not to believe.....

I believe, therefor angels and prophet and so on seem logical, possible, therefor this is not a reason for me "not" to believe....

Both is thinking in circles, and wether or not you'd like to admit it, it's not the cause of my believe nor is it of your disbelieve.

root
06-21-2005, 01:54 PM
“is there a flying species that looks simalar to a reptile?” , but rather: “how big is the chance of a reptile evolving wings, a lighter weight, stronger breastmuscles,

Your still peddling misconceptions, and to avoid going around in circles I will let both our points lie, for at least the for's and against have been noted.

A small point aside, if you consider an evolutionary path that took reptiles & other species into the trees. Jumping from tree to tree will be the first steps into flight via a gliding motion & shear muscular power, Adaptation will take care of the rest. The distance by which one could jump would provide the evolutionary advantage which would also include a "flap" to sustain flight even if it was singular as time goes on so will the exploitation of an evolutionary advantage. The stages from tree to tree jumps then glide, then flap then full flight is not a big pill to swallow.....

It's not as if I am asking for you to accept that one day a genetic mutation occured and a full set of flying wings were the instant result!

Abdul Fattah
06-21-2005, 04:59 PM
Sorry if I'm the critical one now, but it seems like there's a big difference in gliding/jumping and flying. I can see how it looks less far fetched. And even then the main issue remains because there's a much bigger list of criteria for a creature to be able to fly.
Think of how long it took our brain to be able to produce something that conquers the sky.

Muezzin
06-21-2005, 05:01 PM
I love this phrase 'far-fetched'.

If you think about it, our entire species is far-fetched. I mean, we are the only bipedal lifeforms on this planet who are so advanced, we think up even more creative ways to destroy each other. You might say we're so smart we're stupid.

Muhammad
06-21-2005, 11:46 PM
One thing that I've been wondering is this: If there is such a thing as evolution, and humans have evolved from apes, then why don't humans keep on evolving? How long have humans existed for now, thousands of years? And yet you wouldn't say that we are evolving into another species would you? Are there even slight changes? Maybe height, but we're still human aren't we....and what about everything else: birds, fish, etc etc why does evolution seem to have stopped all of a sudden? Or are there changes that I'm not aware of?

The other thing is, I believe somebody mentioned:

Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures. I think the same can be said about fossils. Anyone can dig up bones and shape them up to make them look like a particular species. Look at dinosaurs for example: they have all these models on display yet people still don't know for sure whether they exist. Thus finding fossils is just as ambiguous as is claimed the scriptures are. Note, however, that at least some verses are not "ambiguous", or at least they can only be to a certain extent. In other words, no matter how you interpret them, they still indicate the same principle, or some are so clear that there is no need to interpret.

What is so ambiguous about this (as an example)?:
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them?" [21:30]

Danish
06-22-2005, 10:03 AM
:sl:
Theory is divided into 2 sections:
MINOR EVOLUTION -- Same as variation, small change in genes, scuh as siome have blue eyes, blue hair (?)! etc...This is a scientific fact, muslims believe in that

MAJOR EVOLUTION -- emergance of NEW and COMPLEX specie...Muslims cant believe in this as this relies on chances...i am in college so i cant access the Harun Yahya site, but he did a good job on how evolution theory is AGAIST quran

root
06-22-2005, 12:00 PM
Steve - Sorry if I'm the critical one now, but it seems like there's a big difference in gliding/jumping and flying.

Of course we are hypothosising, but in general evolutionists are looking very seriously into this general staging. But in evolutionary time which is far greater than our own for we are talking billions of years and not just a few thousand. Jumping, gliding then singular flaps to increase the distance of glide achieved and then onto full flight is not as impossible as you imply.


Danish - Theory is divided into 2 sections:
MINOR EVOLUTION -- Same as variation, small change in genes, scuh as siome have blue eyes, blue hair (?)! etc...This is a scientific fact, muslims believe in that

MAJOR EVOLUTION -- emergance of NEW and COMPLEX specie...Muslims cant believe in this as this relies on chances...i am in college so i cant access the Harun Yahya site, but he did a good job on how evolution theory is AGAIST quran

I don't think you are quite right here, I think you are talking about Micro-Evolution which is evolution within the single cell/microbial life. If you think about it, Aids for example is an emergence of a new complex life-form. Indeed every day new microbial life spring into life due to mutational change and the ability of the mutated new cells to reproduce perfect copies of themselves. This is well understood and a proven fact.

Macro-species on the other hand is a far more difficult issue for a single generation will last years as opposed to microbial life and thus it is a far greater issue to deal with on just a time scale alone. Another problem is the rate of reproduction between micro & macro life, with single cells their are millions of mutations daily, within the macro world this is very much less. Even so, their is plenty of evidence detailing how macro species adapt to suit their environments.


One thing that I've been wondering is this: If there is such a thing as evolution, and humans have evolved from apes, then why don't humans keep on evolving?

We are evolving. you don't see the results within our own life-time but the evidence is their, you must see evolution as a result of billions of years and not several thousand's.

1. Women are reaching child bearing age much quicker within 2 generations.
2. A womens menstual cycle also is starting earlier within 2 generations.
3. Human intelligence constantly evolves in line with generation advances.
4. Some humans are born without an appendix.

We also carry dormont characteristics no longer viable to the human body such as male nipples, wisdom teeth, tail-bones and ear muscles.


How long have humans existed for now, thousands of years? And yet you wouldn't say that we are evolving into another species would you? Are there even slight changes? Maybe height, but we're still human aren't we....and what about everything else: birds, fish, etc etc why does evolution seem to have stopped all of a sudden? Or are there changes that I'm not aware of

Well, it would depend on what you consider "Human". Homo-sapians have been around over 500,000 years, with the discovery of the "Hobit" that found itself trapped on flanders along with other mammals who all clearly reduced in size as they adapted to their environment. Darwin also theorised that some species will change very little since some environments remain static for long evolutionary periods of time such as the vast ocean floors where a species thought to be extinct was recently found that from fossil records showed no evolutionary change. It also tested and demonstrated how accurate fossil reconstruction is.


The other thing is, I believe somebody mentioned:

Quote:
Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures.

I think the same can be said about fossils. Anyone can dig up bones and shape them up to make them look like a particular species.

I disagree, I do agree that the fossil world is subject to great forgeries and cons so comparative with scripture I would agree. However,


Look at dinosaurs for example: they have all these models on display yet people still don't know for sure whether they exist. Thus finding fossils is just as ambiguous as is claimed the scriptures are.

This is just not true. Their have been many "Bone Pits" which were similar to "quick-sand" and "swamps" millions of years ago. These "Bone Pits" trapped scavenging dinasours who tried to feed on other dead animals caught in the trap and their bones have been preserved. The overwhelming fossil finds gives us a factual look at past species especially from dinasours since the bones structure were so huge.


Note, however, that at least some verses are not "ambiguous", or at least they can only be to a certain extent. In other words, no matter how you interpret them, they still indicate the same principle, or some are so clear that there is no need to interpret.

I will take your word for it since evolution does not use any scpriptured text in validating itself.


If you think about it, our entire species is far-fetched. I mean, we are the only bipedal lifeforms on this planet who are so advanced, we think up even more creative ways to destroy each other. You might say we're so smart we're stupid.

Their was a time when we shared the planet with other bipedal life forms. Why we became the sole survivors is still a mystery and "luck" "adaptation" "intelligence" and "violence" are all implicated as to why a single species came to rule supreme at the top of the animal kingdom.

Muhammad
06-22-2005, 11:46 PM
We are evolving. you don't see the results within our own life-time but the evidence is their, you must see evolution as a result of billions of years and not several thousand's.

1. Women are reaching child bearing age much quicker within 2 generations.
2. A womens menstual cycle also is starting earlier within 2 generations.
3. Human intelligence constantly evolves in line with generation advances.
4. Some humans are born without an appendix.I don't believe that any of this is sufficient evidence that humans are evolving, I mean nobody is growing wings or anything. I understand that you might need billions of years, but by now one might expect the start of some significant changes.
- Intelligence is something that varies all the time, and as generations pass by, humans learn from mistakes and previous knowledge, so I don't think this is evolving. For example, there was Einstein and many many knowledgable and famous scientists and other people like Plato etc yet nowadays you can get complete idiots.
- Some humans might be born without an appendix, yet what advantage do they have? And I doubt there is a significant number of humans in which it's happened for this to be considered as evolving.
- Again, what is the significance of women reaching child bearing age sooner or menstruating earlier?

In all these points, we need to ask ourselves what is the selective advantage that humans can gain out of this, and thus why would nature select them? Surely you don't think that nature will select the most intelligent to survive, hence making everyone an Einstein? Idiots though they may be, those other people are still able to feed themselves and live etc. so it's quite unlikely that they would die out. That is just an example and so all these things are more like variation in the population than evolution of humans.


We also carry dormont characteristics no longer viable to the human body such as male nipples, wisdom teeth, tail-bones and ear muscles.If we were evolving, we would not carry these dormant features anymore, and they should probably have long gone around the time when humans came into existence. If they are not viable, why would nature still allow them to be preserved?



This is just not true. Their have been many "Bone Pits" which were similar to "quick-sand" and "swamps" millions of years ago. These "Bone Pits" trapped scavenging dinasours who tried to feed on other dead animals caught in the trap and their bones have been preserved. The overwhelming fossil finds gives us a factual look at past species especially from dinasours since the bones structure were so huge.

I will take your word for it since evolution does not use any scpriptured text in validating itself.It is strange how you can tell everything from a heap of bones - the colour, lifestyle, food, mode of death, just about everything about creatures like dinosaurs, yet when we simply state that there was a man called Adam who was the first human - our source being God's Word, you think it false. You claim that from bones and old remnants of the like, you can extract such fine information. Likewise our scripture is not any old book written by the hands of man; it is blindingly obvious that it is the Words of God Himself, and to understand this, one needs to actually READ the book and contemplate over it rather than pick out certain parts and call them fairytales without even bothering to use one's intellect on the subject, when you so readily do so with regards to dirt in the ground. The resemblance being that if fossils are your proof for evolution, then the Quran is our proof for its absence. So if you think there can be flaws in our scripture, there can just as easily be flaws in your evidence too. You like to play with ambiguity, so I am simply reminding you that it goes BOTH WAYS.


Their was a time when we shared the planet with other bipedal life forms. Why we became the sole survivors is still a mystery and "luck" "adaptation" "intelligence" and "violence" are all implicated as to why a single species came to rule supreme at the top of the animal kingdom. To believe in things like luck doesn't quite match this concept of everything arising naturally and in chaotic order, and then producing a world of balance. First you say its random chance, then it's luck, which is it? One could also argue that you need some kind of faith to believe in luck - but that's just a side-point. Anyway, it is certainly no mystery to Muslims why humans are at the top.

root
06-23-2005, 01:15 PM
To believe in things like luck doesn't quite match this concept of everything arising naturally and in chaotic order, and then producing a world of balance. First you say its random chance, then it's luck, which is it?

Only in recent years has "survival of the luckiest" came to light in it's own right. Luck does play a major part in evolution. When a meteorite strikes the earth or an intense radiation blast hits the earth with a cataclysmic event. It is only luck that some species will survive. And it can happen to us at any given moment........


I mean nobody is growing wings or anything. I understand that you might need billions of years, but by now one might expect the start of some significant changes.

I don't mean to be harsh, but the rest of your point are intellectually dead, since Humans do not need adaptation into flight. As stated earlier some species will not change a great deal because their surroundings change little and to a great extent "civilisation" has taken away a survival of the fittest aspect within a society. mankind has been enjoying a golden era, how long before random chaos deals a hand is anyone's guess.........

Muhammad
06-23-2005, 01:42 PM
I don't mean to be harsh, but the rest of your point are intellectually dead, since Humans do not need adaptation into flight. As stated earlier some species will not change a great deal because their surroundings change little and to a great extent "civilisation" has taken away a survival of the fittest aspect within a society. mankind has been enjoying a golden era, how long before random chaos deals a hand is anyone's guess.........I was only using that as an example to say that humans are not changing. I wasn't implying anything about adapting into flight, although the fact that fish can become birds should mean that absolutely anything is possible.

One also has to bear in mind that not all humans are subject to the same surroundings. Some live in cold places while others in hot. Yet I don't think neither have a significant difference in their characteristics, such as those in hot places being adapted to survive without water for longer or people living in cold places being more hairier.

root
06-24-2005, 12:00 PM
I
was only using that as an example to say that humans are not changing. I wasn't implying anything about adapting into flight, although the fact that fish can become birds should mean that absolutely anything is possible.

I realise this & fish becoming birds is probably jumping the gun through evolution as fish type species were probably the first species to come onto land unless evolution came as a direct consequence of outer space deliverance. Assuming it was water life that came onto dry land, the adapted into mammals then started to move into higher ground (trees) etc etc, then into jumping from branch to branch, gliding etc etc. The true path is not quite clear at the moment. However one can hypothosise many "steps" before fish arrived at bird......... Though I am always prepared for a complete shocker if & when we discover the truth for my mind is open to "smart" speedy evolutionary adapted life within the universe that our origins may well lie with. However, when one looks at all the evidence I feel it is highly unlikely and against all the evidence that Man just appeared in current form which is a major deiving force for religions to claim as in Adam.


One also has to bear in mind that not all humans are subject to the same surroundings. Some live in cold places while others in hot. Yet I don't think neither have a significant difference in their characteristics, such as those in hot places being adapted to survive without water for longer or people living in cold places being more hairier.

We all know why people from a certain geographical location are black, brown and yellowish in skin colour. Again all the evidence supports adaptation, and no evidence other than religous who state simply because of the type of sand/clay colour used in the creation of man. Another reason why I cannot subscribe to religion for it will force me to accept something that over whelmingly is simply not the case. One of the reasons I am atheist is simply because I will not accept a point when it is so clearly not the case................

Root

Abdul Fattah
06-24-2005, 04:12 PM
Congrats on that last post root
I'm glad to see that pride does not keep you from admitting that: The true path is not quite clear at the moment as you said it. So this brings the discussion back to my earlyer point, it's basicly an intuitive feeling. A choice of one theory above another. And most likely infuenced not by what the theory says, but rather by what it insinuates.

One of the most basic argument a supporter of common descent sometimes uses is:


If two theaterplays were discovered, almost equal,some changes aside, it would be safe to assume that one is an inexact copy of the other, or that both are copys of a thirth origanal play. This because it's just to far fetched to assume that two different autors made two almost identical plays.

What is left outside of concideration, is that the comparison is false because religion claims these different designs to be from the same creator! Just as an architect swears to a certain type of material to build his houses, or always uses the same pencil to draw his plans, it seems perfectly logical that a creator created different species with the same basic material (=carbon based molecules to form DNA with). If it's not broke, don't fix it ;)


We all know why people from a certain geographical location are black, brown and yellowish in skin colour. Again all the evidence supports adaptation, and no evidence other than religous who state simply because of the type of sand/clay colour used in the creation of man. Another reason why I cannot subscribe to religion for it will force me to accept something that over whelmingly is simply not the case. One of the reasons I am atheist is simply because I will not accept a point when it is so clearly not the case................

Well this is your basic coincedental vs purpose based discusion. It seems indeed simplistic to claim the type of clay is responsible. I suspect sush claims to be more metaforicly in nature. Now basicly the difference between your and my believe is:

People have different skincolour DUE to the area they live in.
People have different skincolour BECAUSE they were created to live in a certain area.

coincedence vs. purpose...

root
06-24-2005, 05:04 PM
People have different skincolour DUE to the area they live in.

Hi Steve,

Do you hold any objections by changing your stated position to:

People have different skincolour DUE to adaptation of their natural environment?

Abdul Fattah
06-25-2005, 12:17 AM
Nope, no objections at all. I guess the point is cristalclear by now anyway, so I see no reason to object :D

root
06-26-2005, 02:35 PM
Evolution of life

I have yet to understand any points raised that would in any remote way give serous rise to a creation or specifically an "Inteligent Design" other than to discredit evolution which is simply bad science.

It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man.


Abdul Aziz - I found this in a site: Also the Quran does not clearly state whether Adam & Eve were physically transported from Heaven to Earth, or just their souls were put into the already living homo sapiens.

Well my question is whether they were transported physically or just their souls?

Source:http://islam.speed-light.info/islam...n_evolution.htm

To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians. The point is coverd at the following thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3115

The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:

1. The crystals do replicate.
2. The crystals do use a source for energy.
3. The crystals do mutate and change form.
4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.

The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.

Moving on to the mainstream theory of how life started on our planet I must express that for the life of me I cannot understand why Islam cannot support this theory of evolution or even acknowledge it's credability. It is within the realms of Islam to acknowledge that life came from space and indeed Islam itself does acknowledge that life outside our own planet is more or less a fact although to my own dissapointment Islam suggest's that such life within the universe will not be intelligent. Exactly what leadfs them to beleive this is simply beyond my understanding of Islam.

Starting with a fact - Nobody as yet can give a credible answer as to how life finally started on earth, though the theory I am just about to go into brings us half-way to this answer and that is as close as anyone yet has managed.

The evolutionary theory is summarised as:

1. The formation of the planet earth within the solar system.
2. Carbon Molucules, Organic Molucules and amino acids delivered to earth on comets/asteroids.
3. Single celled life establishing miles beneath the earth.
4. Single cell life taking energy from hydrogen sulphate.
5. Single cell life creating oxygen from Iron orr and oxygenating the sea
6. Single celled life once all sea iron orr depleted reacts within the atmosphere creating oxygen to the atmosphere

The above points all carry over-whelming evidence that exists in the world today.

We already know the following facts on comets/meteorites:

1. Comets carry over 70 varieties of amino acids including the 8 fundamental ones required for life. Comets are 1/4 organic compounds and comets have a very high water content. Comets carry everything essential for life to start. This is fact, you must acknowledge this as factual and not a fairy tail

2. The Lawarence Livemore National Laboratory set up a scientific investigation to test if all this life forming structures could withstand impacting with the earth. The results of which were truly astounding, not only was it proved as a fact that the structures survived but, what was incredible was the high energy of the impact caused a reaction within the compounds and created peptides:

"Peptides" - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:peptides

3. All scientific both microbe and geographic science proves that microbial life is far greater below the earth than it's surface: Indeed it is proven that the earth is teeming with microbe life 3 miles down where just a few years ago nobody could understand how microbes could support a source of energy in which tio survive since it was void of sun-light & oxygen. A thought main-stay to support life. This also was recently solved as it has now been proved as a fact that microbes can & do obtain an energy source from "Hydrogen Sulphate"

4. Again, everone knows that meteorites and comets are abundent in the universe one only has to look at the moon to see how often the moon is impacted and so to the earth, we evenm had a recent major comet smash on Saturn that demonstrated how much impacts are common place. We also know that ijn the early formation of the earth one could have stood upon the earth "assuming yoiu could survive the hellish place of early earth" and see no moon in the sky, it was not their at this point forming during the known "Great Bombardment" where very large astronmical impacts occured very frequently. Only when the Earth collided with another early planet formation was the moon formed. However, the meteor bombardment continues. Zircons even tell us the planet bwas right for life perhaps as 1 billion years since we thought possible.

This is the current evidence for how microbes came to be on our planet.

This is not the end of the story, for we need to understand how multi-cellular life came to be. It is important to understand that the early earth contained no oxygen and life existed deep in the planet though hydrogen sulphate was in abundence. As single celled life moved towards the surface sustained by hydrogen sulphate adapatation occured as the bacterium over billions of years moved to the surface of the crust where a new energy source was found. Our sun and phot-synthesis evolved new forms of life from the bacteriums known as "stromatolites": http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:stromatolites

Stromatolites are the single celled bacteriums that produced "Oxygen" for the first time on this planet and in keeping with this theory they just so happen to be the oldest fossils in the world dated as far back as 3.8 Billion years. We know Oxygen suddenly appeared very early and very fast in our evolutionary past.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/protero.html

Now that the sea is fully oxygenated (for those bothered to read the above link) it now moved into the atmosphere. Again this fully supports Evolutions claim that early complex (multi-celled) organisms existed in the sea a few million years before land, and life was able to move from sea to land firstly as single bacteriums then the complex multi-celled species of the sea could move to the surface of our planet.......... The rest is evolution continued.

Finally, to understand the above concept we must understand the concept of time represented in Billions of years which as humans we really do struggle to comprehend. In a timescale of 24 hours, from the beginning of the earth til present time. Life did not begin on the surface until the last 7 hours of the 24 hour clock. Man came only in the last 11 seconds.

Feel free to flame. A thanks to those who actually took the time to read this........................

Abdul Fattah
06-26-2005, 07:01 PM
Feel free to flame. A thanks to those who actually took the time to read this

Thanks, I’ll do my best in making your arguments argumental-worthy by replying to them ;)


Evolution of life
I have yet to understand any points raised that would in any remote way give serous rise to a creation or specifically an "Inteligent Design" other than to discredit evolution which is simply bad science.

Well I would think it’s the other way around. We were told how the creation of man kind was ages ago, and now some try to deny this with the help of evolution. The soul purpose of this thread was simply to show that they in fact do not contradict, I’m not saying throw your textbooks out of the window, I’m just saying, keep an open mind. Discredit? Don’t overdo it, if I where to claim al materialist are rapists or that believing in commen descent is a sandwich short of a picknickbasket I’d understand your frustration, but I think by making such claims you are in fact the one throwing mud.


It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man. To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians.

I know it’s hard for you to dismiss arguments if one moslims claims it to be as such and another makes another claim. But what’s the point? Are you on a mission to convert us to atheism? Or are you, just as we are, simply looking for the truth? Of course we differ from ideas, but we agrea to disagrea, in knowing that we’r all just looking to reveal the truth. But our diffrences are small compared to the common ground in our believes. So the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to attack a person’s personal believe and interpretation, or do you want to examen our common base of thruth?


The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:
1. The crystals do replicate.
2. The crystals do use a source for energy.
3. The crystals do mutate and change form.
4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.
The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.

I think your looking at this from a wrong perspective. When I would say my babysister made an ashtray out of clay, I’m sure you can imagen some tiny finger moulding the clayin a certain shape. This is because for her this is the only way to “make” something out of it. Her only proces of changing the clay is: moulding its shape. When Someone says to me Allah has created mankind of clay; I imagen that the one who created matter, atoms, electrons and so on out of energy, that the one who keeps the structures of molecules in a constant way by constantly upholding the 4 laws of nature (strongforce, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) ; I imagen him being able to do much more then just “mold” that clay. I imagen that person able to make radium-atoms out of hydrogen and vice versa just by swopping some protons and neutrons around. To assume a creator responsable for the entire univerce, it’s structure micro as well as macro, is to assume he’s unlimited in capabilitys.


Moving on to the mainstream theory of how life started on our planet I must express that for the life of me I cannot understand why Islam cannot support this theory of evolution or even acknowledge it's credability. It is within the realms of Islam to acknowledge that life came from space and indeed Islam itself does acknowledge that life outside our own planet is more or less a fact although to my own dissapointment Islam suggest's that such life within the universe will not be intelligent. Exactly what leadfs them to beleive this is simply beyond my understanding of Islam.

Again, there’s a difference between defending against false arguments against islam by atheist swearing to evolution and simply renouncing everything just pro forma, I thought I made that clear already?


Starting with a fact - Nobody as yet can give a credible answer as to how life finally started on earth, though the theory I am just about to go into brings us half-way to this answer and that is as close as anyone yet has managed.

Well there you go and stated just why I don’t buy, there’s a lot of maybe’s a lot of asumptions, and even then it only goes half way.


The evolutionary theory is summarised as:
1. The formation of the planet earth within the solar system.
2. Carbon Molucules, Organic Molucules and amino acids delivered to earth on comets/asteroids.
3. Single celled life establishing miles beneath the earth.
4. Single cell life taking energy from hydrogen sulphate.
5. Single cell life creating oxygen from Iron orr and oxygenating the sea
6. Single celled life once all sea iron orr depleted reacts within the atmosphere creating oxygen to the atmosphere
The above points all carry over-whelming evidence that exists in the world today.
We already know the following facts on comets/meteorites:

Wow there’s a lot of assumptions there, let me respond to them step by step, the numbering corresponds with your’s
1. how is this conected to evolution?
2. It is indeed a fact that some meteors carry organic molecules, but to claim they get delivered on earth is another thing. First that requires a meteor of a certain size not to big so the collision with earth doesn’t provide to much energy for the molecules to dismantel, not to small so it doesn’t burn up in the atmosphere. Secondly there’s a gigantic number of arganic material, if one would make a list of all possible organic molecules, the list would exceed the yellow pages. So to claim that the molecules required to form life spontaniously where delivered, and all those required where in the same meteor coincedently seems quite a statement. Thirtly you have to take a step back and realise what’s going on here, look at the bigger picture. Scientist try to formulate a proces by wich life origenated spontainously. When they hit a brick wall in trying to form organic material, they look around for a while and suddenly claim it just came from outer space. Problem solved. NO! It’s not, how did it formed in outer space? How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created? Fourthly it has to be taken under concideration just where this comet hit earth, because not every place on earth is hospitabel for life to occur.
3-6.This isn’t a fact on wich abiogenesis relies. This is the very thing that calls for a theory, be it creation or evolution. The precense of something doesn’t tell us anything on HOW they got there. Now matter what this single cell does; this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Single cell life is far after the origen of viri.


1. Comets carry over 70 varieties of amino acids including the 8 fundamental ones required for life. Comets are 1/4 organic compounds and comets have a very high water content. Comets carry everything essential for life to start. This is fact, you must acknowledge this as factual and not a fairy tail

Slow down there. Your mixing fact and fiction. It may be a fact that comets were found with these compounds. But that does not mean all comets are like this. There are in fact comets with totaly different compounds, and secondly it’s not because comets like this have been detected , that it’s also a fact that a simular one hit earth thousands of years ago!


2. The Lawarence Livemore National Laboratory set up a scientific investigation to test if all this life forming structures could withstand impacting with the earth. The results of which were truly astounding, not only was it proved as a fact that the structures survived but, what was incredible was the high energy of the impact caused a reaction within the compounds and created peptides:

It all depends on the size. As I said (about three or four times now) It takes a huge number of requirements and a very small margin of deviation.


3. All scientific both microbe and geographic science proves that microbial life is far greater below the earth than it's surface: Indeed it is proven that the earth is teeming with microbe life 3 miles down where just a few years ago nobody could understand how microbes could support a source of energy in which tio survive since it was void of sun-light & oxygen. A thought main-stay to support life. This also was recently solved as it has now been proved as a fact that microbes can & do obtain an energy source from "Hydrogen Sulphate"

Ok so how does the fact that some life forms in other regions use different sources of energy say anything about abiogenesis or common descent?


4. Again, everone knows that meteorites and comets are abundent in the universe one only has to look at the moon to see how often the moon is impacted and so to the earth, we evenm had a recent major comet smash on Saturn that demonstrated how much impacts are common place. We also know that ijn the early formation of the earth one could have stood upon the earth "assuming yoiu could survive the hellish place of early earth" and see no moon in the sky, it was not their at this point forming during the known "Great Bombardment" where very large astronmical impacts occured very frequently. Only when the Earth collided with another early planet formation was the moon formed. However, the meteor bombardment continues. Zircons even tell us the planet bwas right for life perhaps as 1 billion years since we thought possible.

This in fact proves that This planet was very hostile for life to form and that we shouldn’t take earths enviroment for granted, I fail to see how this helps your case. I would in fact believe more in creation when looking at this hellisch place from wich life arrised.


This is the current evidence for how microbes came to be on our planet.

I beg your pardon? Where tell me, where’s the evidence? Didn’t you state just earlyer it are just assumptions, who by the way don’t even go half way?


This is not the end of the story, for we need to understand how multi-cellular life came to be. It is important to understand that the early earth contained no oxygen and life existed deep in the planet though hydrogen sulphate was in abundence. As single celled life moved towards the surface sustained by hydrogen sulphate adapatation occured as the bacterium over billions of years moved to the surface of the crust where a new energy source was found. Our sun and phot-synthesis evolved new forms of life from the bacteriums known as "stromatolites":
Stromatolites are the single celled bacteriums that produced "Oxygen" for the first time on this planet and in keeping with this theory they just so happen to be the oldest fossils in the world dated as far back as 3.8 Billion years. We know Oxygen suddenly appeared very early and very fast in our evolutionary past.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/c...me/protero.html
Now that the sea is fully oxygenated (for those bothered to read the above link) it now moved into the atmosphere. Again this fully supports Evolutions claim that early complex (multi-celled) organisms existed in the sea a few million years before land, and life was able to move from sea to land firstly as single bacteriums then the complex multi-celled species of the sea could move to the surface of our planet.......... The rest is evolution continued.

Although very fascinating, that’s a lil’ bit off topic since it sais nothing about common descent or abiogeneses contradicting creation.


Finally, to understand the above concept we must understand the concept of time represented in Billions of years which as humans we really do struggle to comprehend. In a timescale of 24 hours, from the beginning of the earth til present time. Life did not begin on the surface until the last 7 hours of the 24 hour clock. Man came only in the last 11 seconds.

It’s a huge misconseption people make to assume that time is a factor favorable for an unlikely event to happen. Consider playing roulette and betting on a single number. In mathematical laws the number of times you bet on that number has nothing to do with it’s outcome. The chance of happening is 1/37 (there's 37 numbers including zero if i'm not mistaken). Betting the same number 37 times doesnt assure you you get it wright at least once. Every time you place the bet, the calculation for winning starts all over. Saying time is a favourable factor is like saying: “sure, man can run 100m in 1 second, just as long as the runway is over a 100 km." It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Fact remains, if it’s not likely it happend, your holding on to straws.

root
06-26-2005, 07:54 PM
Well I would think it’s the other way around. We were told how the creation of man kind was ages ago, and now some try to deny this with the help of evolution. The soul purpose of this thread was simply to show that they in fact do not contradict, I’m not saying throw your textbooks out of the window, I’m just saying, keep an open mind. Discredit? Don’t overdo it, if I where to claim al materialist are rapists or that believing in commen descent is a sandwich short of a picknickbasket I’d understand your frustration, but I think by making such claims you are in fact the one throwing mud.


I am simply engaging into debate



I know it’s hard for you to dismiss arguments if one moslims claims it to be as such and another makes another claim. But what’s the point? Are you on a mission to convert us to atheism? Or are you, just as we are, simply looking for the truth? Of course we differ from ideas, but we agrea to disagrea, in knowing that we’r all just looking to reveal the truth. But our diffrences are small compared to the common ground in our believes. So the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to attack a person’s personal believe and interpretation, or do you want to examen our common base of thruth?

I am simply engaging into debate



I think your looking at this from a wrong perspective. When I would say my babysister made an ashtray out of clay, I’m sure you can imagen some tiny finger moulding the clayin a certain shape. This is because for her this is the only way to “make” something out of it. Her only proces of changing the clay is: moulding its shape. When Someone says to me Allah has created mankind of clay; I imagen that the one who created matter, atoms, electrons and so on out of energy, that the one who keeps the structures of molecules in a constant way by constantly upholding the 4 laws of nature (strongforce, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) ; I imagen him being able to do much more then just “mold” that clay. I imagen that person able to make radium-atoms out of hydrogen and vice versa just by swopping some protons and neutrons around. To assume a creator responsable for the entire univerce, it’s structure micro as well as macro, is to assume he’s unlimited in capabilitys.

Since you did not bring any tangable debate in your above analogy, at the very least we know you have a healthy imagination.


Again, there’s a difference between defending against false arguments against islam by atheist swearing to evolution and simply renouncing everything just pro forma, I thought I made that clear already?

Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.


I know it’s hard for you to dismiss arguments if one moslims claims it to be as such and another makes another claim. But what’s the point? Are you on a mission to convert us to atheism? Or are you, just as we are, simply looking for the truth? Of course we differ from ideas, but we agrea to disagrea, in knowing that we’r all just looking to reveal the truth. But our diffrences are small compared to the common ground in our believes. So the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to attack a person’s personal believe and interpretation, or do you want to examen our common base of thruth?

No, I want to debate the given facts


Well there you go and stated just why I don’t buy, there’s a lot of maybe’s a lot of asumptions, and even then it only goes half way.

Their is no assumption to the halfway point, You must get over it in your own way.

I agree with you, we are at opposite sides of what ultimately can only be one truth. It is by debating both sides we understand what the differences are on both sides. If this was the case we either would know for sure (either way) or live in ignorance of each side. "You may not like it, but you need to hear it".


Wow there’s a lot of assumptions there, let me respond to them step by step, the numbering corresponds with your’s:

1. how is this conected to evolution?

Evolution is a system, you yourself stated that everything must have a beginning & an end. However, for this post of mine the beginning has been started at the formation of the planet. Sure we cab discuss the various theories both you and I support on the creation/evolution of the universe. But one step at a time would be more sensible.


2. It is indeed a fact that some meteors carry organic molecules, but to claim they get delivered on earth is another thing. First that requires a meteor of a certain size not to big so the collision with earth doesn’t provide to much energy for the molecules to dismantel, not to small so it doesn’t burn up in the atmosphere.

Not true. Sure you are right in the extreme, too small and burns up in the atmosphere. Too big and you destroy the planet in a cataclysmic event. The inbetween states of the extreme is extremely varied.


Secondly there’s a gigantic number of arganic material, if one would make a list of all possible organic molecules, the list would exceed the yellow pages. So to claim that the molecules required to form life spontaniously where delivered, and all those required where in the same meteor coincedently seems quite a statement.

It is isn't it. It is also a cast iron fact that such chemicals arrive on the planet. For years the source of these chemicals were unknown and debated. Now we know the source and science found it. Your statement about the same meteor is wrong also, since if you consider the "Great bombardment" many many strikes occured. Further the planet eath absorbs 1000 tonnes of space matter every year. Organic matter can and does get through by this means too.


Thirtly you have to take a step back and realise what’s going on here, look at the bigger picture. Scientist try to formulate a proces by wich life origenated spontainously. When they hit a brick wall in trying to form organic material, they look around for a while and suddenly claim it just came from outer space.

Their was nothing sudden about it. Science & religion looked exhaustedly for an earth driven start, if it ain't their one must expand the search. Only recent scientific knowledge and advancement has brought about an understanding of comet roles in spreading the life forming substances and distribute them around the entire universe.


Problem solved. NO! It’s not, how did it formed in outer space?

Yes, you are correct. And science may at least be asking a better question now that it realises life may well have come to the earth from space. The point being, is that I am not asking you to imagine anything merely consider what scientific evidence we have even if you contain it within your own faith. it's the same paradox as saying "who created the creator". To ask did the molocules of life originate n the very beginning of the Big bang is to acknowlege life is not unique on our planet, and came to be from space? This is progress is it not! or are we wasting our time and should not bother looking since we all know we were created. Exactly what is your position on this matter.


How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created?

A massive difference I think.



Fourthly it has to be taken under concideration just where this comet hit earth, because not every place on earth is hospitabel for life to occur.

it was not a singular event. Millions of meteors hit the planet during it's creation process. Just look at the moon or any other solid matter in space to see the frequent comet strikes. Indeed comets themselves are littered with crators, it's how they formed in the first place. As for being hospitalabel, zircons tell us it was............


3-6.This isn’t a fact on wich abiogenesis relies. This is the very thing that calls for a theory, be it creation or evolution. The precense of something doesn’t tell us anything on HOW they got there. Now matter what this single cell does; this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Single cell life is far after the origen of viri.

Evolution does. Adaptation



Slow down there. Your mixing fact and fiction. It may be a fact that comets were found with these compounds. But that does not mean all comets are like this. There are in fact comets with totaly different compounds, and secondly it’s not because comets like this have been detected , that it’s also a fact that a simular one hit earth thousands of years ago!

It's not that a similar one hit at all. The material of comets are well known and impact all the time. You have to move on from this, it's a fact let's move on


It all depends on the size. As I said (about three or four times now) It takes a huge number of requirements and a very small margin of deviation.

Your very small margin point is just wrong. Sure, too small and it burns up in the atmosphere "we find particles all the time like this" especially when the earth passes through a comets tail. Too big and a cataclysmic event will occur. In between the two extremes the margin is huge and not small as you imply


Ok so how does the fact that some life forms in other regions use different sources of energy say anything about abiogenesis or common descent?

Adaptation. Sea coral exists because it uses photsinthesis using the sun as the source of energy. A few years ago nothing was known of the deep ocean floor. Then we made it down their and what do we find!!!!! We find coral so deep that it cannot obtain enrgy from the sun. The light does not make it so deep, instead it uses sulphor-oxidising bacteria as it source of energy. Yet it is Coral all the same. Same life, different energy source..................


This in fact proves that This planet was very hostile for life to form and that we shouldn’t take earths enviroment for granted, I fail to see how this helps your case. I would in fact believe more in creation when looking at this hellisch place from wich life arrised.

Maybe you should take a look at what Zircons are telling us about "hellish earth". For they tell us the planet was right for life a billion years before even science thought was possible. Zircons don't lie or fudge the truth


I beg your pardon? Where tell me, where’s the evidence? Didn’t you state just earlyer it are just assumptions, who by the way don’t even go half way?

It's above.......


Although very fascinating, that’s a lil’ bit off topic since it sais nothing about common descent or abiogeneses contradicting creation.


It’s a huge misconseption people make to assume that time is a factor favorable for an unlikely event to happen. Consider playing roulette and betting on a single number. In mathematical laws the number of times you bet on that number has nothing to do with it’s outcome. The chance of happening is 1/37 (there's 37 numbers including zero if i'm not mistaken). Betting the same number 37 times doesnt assure you you get it wright at least once. Every time you place the bet, the calculation for winning starts all over. Saying time is a favourable factor is like saying: “sure, man can run 100m in 1 second, just as long as the runway is over a 100 km." It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Fact remains, if it’s not likely it happend, your holding on to straws.

Your way off base. I am not talking about time v probability. I am talking time required of the oxygenation of the sea then the atmosphere by the microbes stated and the proven method by which it occures. Also the need for time in order for evolutionary systems to work the magic that they do.

Muhammad
06-27-2005, 01:49 PM
I came across an audio link discussing the Big Bang...if you click on the link below, then go to the lecture entitled the Big Bang.

http://www.islamyesterday.com/audio.htm

The text for it: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bigbang/

I think it's about pretty much what we've been discussing before - nothing complicated.

root
06-28-2005, 01:28 PM
I came across an audio link discussing the Big Bang...if you click on the link below, then go to the lecture entitled the Big Bang.

No you won't. You will get a Meteorological lesson.

What dissapoints me is that it fails to mention that it was scientists themselves who predicted a big bang before it was known. If no evidence of the big bang was ever found then I would be the first to acknowledge this. However, the big band was predicted and it was found..........

As for a scrapyard blowing up and all the bits falling back to the earth and formed a BMW with it's engine running, it's just rubbish and I for one am so glad that we don't teach this in science classes........

Muhammad
06-28-2005, 03:28 PM
Actually, it discusses the science in the Qur'an (as well as the Big Bang) if you have listened to all 3 lectures, not just meteorology.

OK so scientists might have made predictions but I doubt the evidence is so strong as to suggest a definite Big Bang. I mean you don't even know from what the Bang came from or how that thing came to be there in the first place. Sure the Universe is expanding, but God already told us that :).

The scrapyard example was there to show that explosions do not produce an ordered world as we have today. Too many assumptions are made that all the right composition of gases came together and then reacted in the perfect way etc. etc.

It would also help if science classes didnt teach humans evolving from apes.

Khattab
06-28-2005, 03:37 PM
:sl:

Maybe it was unknown to many until recent years (Big Bang), and confirmation from scientist brought it to the masses, but the Big Bang was mentioned in the Quran long before scientists even had any idea of it, this at least should be acknowledged.

:w:

Muhammad
06-28-2005, 04:23 PM
Evolution of life


I have yet to understand any points raised that would in any remote way give serous rise to a creation or specifically an "Inteligent Design" other than to discredit evolution which is simply bad science.


From the outset, Muslims have believed that God created the Universe and its inhabitants and so do the people of many other religions. It could be asked, that if there is no God, then how did people ever come to such conclusions? Such beliefs existed long before Darwin ever posed his theory, and when it did, it needed to be questioned, since it does not make a great deal of sense nor does it agree with logic and what God has taught us.

From among the many ways, we know that God exists when we look around us and see His signs; when we read the Book that He sent down to mankind; when we live our lives and see the countless signs that point to Him, and from natural human instinct (fitrah). Thus when evolution came along to discredit the normal way of thinking, that is why it needed to be corrected and opposed. So it is people who claim there is no God who are the ones to discredit the evidences we give, and not the other way round.



As for the Intelligent Design you mentioned…one can easily find such teachings in the Qur’an, and also many Islamic scholars have answered questions from atheists on the subject., as follows:



Once Khalifa Haroon Rasheed asked Imam Malik: "What is the evidence (daleel) pointing to the existence of Allah (S.W.T.)?"

Imam Malik replied: "Difference in languages, difference in pitches of voice, difference in singing are proof that Allah (S.W.T.) exists!"



The same question was asked, by an atheist, of Imam Abu Hanifa and he replied, "Forget it! At the moment, I am busy thinking about this ship. People tell me there is a big ship, it contains
different goods on board. There is no one to steer it, no one maintaining it. Yet, this ship keeps going back and forth; it even traverses big waves on the oceans; it stops at the locations that it is supposed to stop at; it continues in the direction that it is supposed to head. This ship has no captain and no one planning its trips."

The atheist who posed the question interrupted and exclaimed, "What kind of strange and silly thought is this? How can any intelligent person think that some thing like this can occur?"

Imam Abu Hanifa said, "I feel sorry about your state! You cannot imagine one ship running without some one looking after its affairs. Yet you think that for this whole world, which runs exactly and precisely, there is no one who looks after it, and no one owns it."

Hearing the reply, the atheist was left speechless but he found out more about Haqq (The Truth) and proclaimed Islam.



Imam Shaa'fi replied to the question in the following way, "The leaves of Toot (berries) are all but one. Each leaf tastes exactly the same. Insects, honey bees, cows, goats, and deer live off of it. After eating these the insects produce silk; bees produce honey; deer give musk (a special kind of scent), cows and goats deliver off-springs. Is this not clear evidence that one kind of leaf has so many qualities, and who created these qualities? It is the Khaliq (Creator) who we call Allah (S.W.T.) Who is the Inventor and the Creator."



Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal reflected on the question in the following way. He said, "There is an incredibly strong fort, it has no doors, there is no way to get in. In fact, there is not even a hole in it. From outside it glows like the moon and from inside it shimmers like gold. It is sealed from all sides, matter of fact it is air tight. Suddenly one of its doors breaks down, a living thing with eyes and ears, a beautiful looking animal appears yelling and wandering all over. So is not there a creator who made it possible for life to take place in this secured and closed fort? And is not this Creator better than humans? This Creator has no limit." Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was referring to an egg which is closed from all sides but Allah (S.W.T.) The Khaliq (Creator) puts life in it and a chick pops out.


With regards to the Qur’an, many believe that it is not valid evidence as it is merely a book and nothing more. Yet it has been explained before, the fact that it contains so many scientific miracles and divine prophecies, among much more, that it is unthinkable to have been written by man. So when we read it, we have no doubt that we are reading words of truth from God Himself. There is a debate on the truth of the Qur’an in the following link, which you can listen to for further cllarification:


http://get.to/islam (http://get.to/islam)
Written Transcript (http://www.examinethetruth.com/ahmed-giron.htm)



It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man.


I think that Islam clarifies perfectly well the nature of creation. First of all, Adam did not evolve but was created by God:


3.59 . Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam . He created him of dust , then He said unto him : Be! and he is .


23.12 . Verily We created man from a product of wet earth ;


38.71-72 . When thy Lord said unto the angels : lo! I am about to create a mortal out of mire ,

And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My spirit , then fall down before him prostrate ,


As for the universe, the Qur’an informs us of its creation:


50.38 . And verily We created the heavens and the earth , and all that is between them , in six days , and naught of weariness touched Us .


41.9-12 . Say ( O Muhammad , unto the idolaters ) : Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days , and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He ( and none else ) is the Lord of the Worlds .


He placed therein firm hills rising above it , and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days , alike for ( all ) who ask ;


Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke , and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you , willingly or loth . They said : We come , obedient .


Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate ; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps , and rendered it inviolable . That is the measuring of the Mighty , the Knower .


There is no implication of evolution, however, if you are referring to small things such as differing height or difference in numbers of species etc. these are possible. (Shortening of height has already been known). Thus evolution to some extent may be possible, but it was not the way that the world arose.



To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians. The point is coverd at the following thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3115 (http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3115)


To ask how exactly Adam was brought to earth seems a rather pointless question since it is of insignificant value. The fact that Adam did not arise from evolution and that indeed he was made from clay have already been long established.

An important fact to bear in mind is that Islam is not a religion based solely on science, as this would deviate from its main objective to teach the truth. There are some things that God, out of His infinite Wisdom, did not reveal to mankind, such as the exact way in which He created the Universe etc. and if such matters were crucial for our survival or understanding, then no doubt He would have enlightened us with details of them.


[21:23] He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned.


[17.85] . They will ask thee concerning the Spirit . Say : The Spirit is by command of my Lord , and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little .


It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade us to occupy ourselves with things that cause confusion and are not clear.



The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:



1. The crystals do replicate.

2. The crystals do use a source for energy.

3. The crystals do mutate and change form.

4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.



The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.



The logic doesn't follow here. God informs us that He has created human beings from clay, yet you dismiss God's words on the basis of what? Creation from clay is a sign for human beings, since to us clay seems so lifeless and inconceivable that we could be created from it, yet God has truly designed us in the best form from this substance, a testimony to His power and wisdom.
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/en...hFatwaID=104053 (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=104053)

Besides, I don't even know how you can remotely use this as an argument against Islam, since the nature of this clay was unknown to you.





Moving on to the mainstream theory of how life started on our planet I must express that for the life of me I cannot understand why Islam cannot support this theory of evolution or even acknowledge it's credability. It is within the realms of Islam to acknowledge that life came from space and indeed Islam itself does acknowledge that life outside our own planet is more or less a fact although to my own dissapointment Islam suggest's that such life within the universe will not be intelligent. Exactly what leadfs them to beleive this is simply beyond my understanding of Islam.




I, also, for the life of me, cannot understand how you can support such a theory and acknowledge its credibility. If you don’t mind, please bring the evidences for these points so that I can see where you are coming from.

root
06-28-2005, 06:41 PM
The fact that Adam did not arise from evolution and that indeed he was made from clay have already been long established.

In religous text only has it been long established. Let me take another claim of your scientific facts as stated in the Quran. For my point I am using the speed of light that Muslims state was known to the Quran before science had discovered it. The problem I have with Islam & many other religions, in fact them all is that the only source of credibility they have is via themselves?

Taking the claim that the Quran knew the exact speed of light before it was known, here is a good scientific forum that debates this:

Please take a look: (it is a very interesting read) & my home forum of choice, so we are never rude or disrespectful to anyone

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3471&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Quran

Bittersteel
06-28-2005, 07:14 PM
I read it .Interesting.I read somewhere that angels travelled fastest,faster than the speed of light.
anyway this is the article posted in that forum:
http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

Muhammad
06-28-2005, 11:55 PM
The fact that Adam did not arise from evolution and that indeed he was made from clay have already been long established.
In religous text only has it been long established.

To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians.

You suggested that Islam was in need of a general consensus, so I was simply correcting you that we are content on this matter.



Let me take another claim of your scientific facts as stated in the Quran. For my point I am using the speed of light that Muslims state was known to the Quran before science had discovered it. The problem I have with Islam & many other religions, in fact them all is that the only source of credibility they have is via themselves?I believe you are wrong here, since there are many non-muslims who appreciate the moral character of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the accuracy and truth of the Qur'an, for example:

The essential and definite element of my conversion to Islam was the Qur'an. I began to study it before my conversion with the critical spirit of a Western intellectual. There are certain verses of this book, the Qur'an, revealed more than thirteen centuries ago, which teach exactly the same notions as the most modern scientific researches do. This definitely converted me.
Author :
Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine

"I have read the Sacred Scriptures of every religion; nowhere have I found what I encountered in Islam: perfection. The Holy Qur'an, compared to any other scripture I have read, is like the Sun compared to that of a match. I firmly believe that anybody who reads the Word of Allah with a mind that is not completely closed to Truth, will become a Muslim."
Author :
(Saifuddin) Dirk Walter Mosig, U.S.A.

Other such quotes can be found at:http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3077 (http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3077)


Taking the claim that the Quran knew the exact speed of light before it was known, here is a good scientific forum that debates this:

Please take a look: (it is a very interesting read) & my home forum of choice, so we are never rude or disrespectful to anyone

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3471&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Quran
Thankyou for providing the link to that forum. I read through the discussion and found that some issues were addressed incorrectly. There was quite a bit of deviation from the key concepts, as people kept bringing up confusing points like probability and statistics, cause and event etc which I felt did not have anything to do with the topic.

However, I found the following points quite relevant:

Originally Posted by Sayonara³:
All of those pieces of information were supplied by the author of the article, not by the Quran. He uses them to create a structure around the figures that the Quran does give, but this does not mean that the figures in the Quran were ever intended to imply such a structure.


Originally Posted by sickmusic:
I totally agree, there is a possibilty that it could be a massive coincidence.
The other side of he coin, if the result did not give us anything close to the speed of light, then it would be a major flaw in the Quran hence disproving its credibility. But this is not the case..
..as its not the case with all other scienific discoveries that can also be derived from the Quran.. can list them in separate threds if u want.

My reasoning on chance..
Someone can win the lottery once in their life - id call that luck.
For someone to win it 10 times - Id call it a fix or a miracle.

I think this point that the member sickmusic brings up is very crucial to the discussion and was disregarded as though it wasn't mentioned. Even though the figures and concepts mentioned in the Qur'an might not be intended to be interpreted as they are by some people, they nevertheless do not disregard the Qur'an's credibiltity since they do not oppose science. And the fact that this happens with all the scientific issues in the Qur'an shows that it's not chance but a miracle and sign of its validity.

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-29-2005, 01:40 AM
Please take a look: (it is a very interesting read) & my home forum of choice, so we are never rude or disrespectful to anyone

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3471&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Quran
Greetings root,
I actually read through an atheist article (Richard Carrier) a while ago which attempted to deliver a detailed refutation of the "speed of light" miracle. After reading the article, I found their arguments to be very weak, centering around ambiguity in the Qur'anic text, in fact he stated (about the Qur'an saying a day=1000 years):

I would be far more impressed if the Koran said a day is equal to 1,023 and 2/3 years, or something like that, producing an absolutely exact result (at least as it would have been when the Koran was supposedly dictated--so Allah missed a glorious opportunity to give ideal mathematical proof of when the Koran was revealed...
Of course, this is to be expected of an atheist as the Qur'an tells us itself. They will only believe when they see an obvious sign:
25:21 And those who expect not for a Meeting with Us, say: "Why are not the angels sent down to us, or why do we not see our Lord?" Indeed they think too highly of themselves, and are scornful with great pride.

26:4-8. If We will, We could send down to them from the heaven a sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.
And never comes there unto them a Reminder as a recent revelation from the Most Beneficent (Allâh), but they turn away therefrom.
So they have indeed denied (the truth this Qur'ân), then the news of what they mocked at, will come to them.
Do they not observe the earth, how much of every good kind We cause to grow therein?
Verily, in this is a sign, yet most of them are not believers.

So if Allah swt so wished, He could simply have replaced Suratul-Fatiha (opening chapter of the Qur'an) with a list of universal constants in mathematics and science. But these atheists fail to realize that that is not the purpose of the Qur'an, and their requests ahve benn responded to in the Qur'an itself.

:w:

root
06-29-2005, 10:52 AM
Yes, we can go round in circles. I would have been impressed had the Koran stated the speed of light is X Y Z. But to tie it into a lunar calendar will always bring suspicion and remain as it is. Inconclusive.......

Bittersteel
06-29-2005, 11:06 AM
ahem,if the Quran had said everything what would you have done?People would have read the Quran and that's it.They wouldn't have need to go to schools ,colleges,universities,etc.We would have become lazy and wouldn't have a wanton of more knowledge.people wouldn't want to work.


Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
So if Allah swt so wished, He could simply have replaced Suratul-Fatiha (opening chapter of the Qur'an) with a list of universal constants in mathematics and science.

root
06-29-2005, 11:15 AM
I am sure I have missed this so I would ask a Muslim to please state the verse in the Koran that mentions the speed of light. Not the supporting arguement. Simply the text (only) from the Koran that predicts the speed of light.........

Thanks in advance

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-29-2005, 03:36 PM
:sl: root,
there is none. :) And there doesn't need to be one. Allah is far greater than filling His book of divine guidance with random numbers from science.

But I would appreciate if we could get back to the topic on creation versus evolution.
:w:

root
06-29-2005, 08:12 PM
there is none. And there doesn't need to be one.

I thought as much & agree we should keep this thread as the heading states....

Muhammad
06-30-2005, 04:27 PM
Greetings root,

Going back to the discussion we were having - I hope nobody minds if I continue.



The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:
1. The crystals do replicate.
2. The crystals do use a source for energy.
3. The crystals do mutate and change form.
4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.
The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.



I think your looking at this from a wrong perspective. When I would say my babysister made an ashtray out of clay, I’m sure you can imagen some tiny finger moulding the clayin a certain shape. This is because for her this is the only way to “make” something out of it. Her only proces of changing the clay is: moulding its shape. When Someone says to me Allah has created mankind of clay; I imagen that the one who created matter, atoms, electrons and so on out of energy, that the one who keeps the structures of molecules in a constant way by constantly upholding the 4 laws of nature (strongforce, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) ; I imagen him being able to do much more then just “mold” that clay. I imagen that person able to make radium-atoms out of hydrogen and vice versa just by swopping some protons and neutrons around. To assume a creator responsable for the entire univerce, it’s structure micro as well as macro, is to assume he’s unlimited in capabilitys.



Since you did not bring any tangable debate in your above analogy, at the very least we know you have a healthy imagination.


This is not the first time that your reply is besides the point, because you seem to have missed the key issue that is raised. You stated earlier that clay contains crystals which supports the fact that it could be from what we are created. Then you said that this is contradicted by the fact that clay cannot be proven to be organic.


Steve was saying that there is a difference between a human being’s actions and God’s actions. There is nothing to indicate that the two would be of the same nature, because God is unlike (as in far superior to) His creation.


‘And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.’ [112:4]

‘…glory be to Allah above what they describe!’ [23:91]


It is not for us to to state what God can or cannot do, because as Muslims we believe that God can do absolutely anything.

‘His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.’ [36.82]

‘Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yea! and He is the Creator (of all), the Knower.’ [36.81]

This last verse explains very well what I am saying. If He can create the whole Universe when there was nothing, surely, then, anything is possible!

Furthermore, you said that clay cannot be proven to be organic, and this suggests that only your current scientific findings indicate such a statement, yet it could be proven in the future.





Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.

If possible, could you please explain what led you to believe that Islam does not support intelligent life beyond our planet?





Yes, you are correct. And science may at least be asking a better question now that it realises life may well have come to the earth from space. The point being, is that I am not asking you to imagine anything merely consider what scientific evidence we have even if you contain it within your own faith. it's the same paradox as saying "who created the creator". To ask did the molocules of life originate n the very beginning of the Big bang is to acknowlege life is not unique on our planet, and came to be from space? This is progress is it not! or are we wasting our time and should not bother looking since we all know we were created. Exactly what is your position on this matter.

It has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum (http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost.php?p=49214&postcount=5):



The Quran doesn't close the posibility of life existing outside the earth . . . Rather the Quran tells us that there is more than just the old view of the Earth being centre of everything . . . Allah know's best . . . Allah know's the contents of the heavens . . . Mankind has just about scrached the surface of knowing a little bit about the Earth . . . The are many things in the Quran yet to be discovered by Scientists . . .





How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created?



A massive difference I think.

Can you explain why?




This is the current evidence for how microbes came to be on our planet.

You mentioned that comets brought all the building blocks of life onto this planet. You did not, however, explain how these brought about microbes. Just because there is more microbial life below the earth does not imply it was the first thing to exist.

I was also wondering…how did the iron ore arise and is there evidence to prove it existed? Or is this an assumption. Same goes for hydrogen sulphate, and how do you know it was present at that time.





Your way off base. I am not talking about time v probability. I am talking time required of the oxygenation of the sea then the atmosphere by the microbes stated and the proven method by which it occures.

You may have been referring to the process of oxygenation, but what about the processes before that? Is it likely that all the building blocks of life came to earth in the right proportions and then came together in the exact perfect way to start off life? I believe it is unlikely events like this that steve was referring to. So if time cannot help an unlikely event before it can help a ‘likely’ one, then no matter how possible the latter is, it cannot be possible from such origins.



Also the need for time in order for evolutionary systems to work the magic that they do.

Interesting that you should use such a word to describe a random process originating from a catastrophic event; all dominated by complete chance!

Abdul Fattah
06-30-2005, 06:22 PM
Sorry root for keeping you waiting formy reply al this time, I’ve been quite busy lately. But here it is after all. Looking foreward for your response ;)

All the parts to wich you answered to: “I’m simply debating.” I invite you to look back to wich statements they can be tracked back to and wich “arguments” were found in that particular part of your “debating”


Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.

But the part you commented on was actually a comment I made regarding:


It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man. To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians.

So what I meant in fact is that we muslims base our believe on the same origen but that at a certain point it comes down to personal interpretation. Why would we “need” to get to a conscensus, especially concidering that although this is a hot topic interreligiously, such things make lil difference in our daily lives or our way of believing. So to each his own, no?


Their is no assumption to the halfway point, You must get over it in your own way. I agree with you, we are at opposite sides of what ultimately can only be one truth. It is by debating both sides we understand what the differences are on both sides. If this was the case we either would know for sure (either way) or live in ignorance of each side. "You may not like it, but you need to hear it".

Yes, there are assumptions used root, Can you provide any proof that a meteor that carried this specific nucleid acid actually hit earth? Did you catch it on film? Or perhaps you have some eyewitnesses? Where you there when a life origenated out of a pool of mud? This has nothing to do with what I like to hear.


Evolution is a system, you yourself stated that everything must have a beginning & an end. However, for this post of mine the beginning has been started at the formation of the planet. Sure we cab discuss the various theories both you and I support on the creation/evolution of the universe. But one step at a time would be more sensible.

Sure but how does the theory of big bang or better it’s correctness come in handy when debating creation vs. Evolution?


Not true. Sure you are right in the extreme, too small and burns up in the atmosphere. Too big and you destroy the planet in a cataclysmic event. The inbetween states of the extreme is extremely varied. Your very small margin point is just wrong. Sure, too small and it burns up in the atmosphere "we find particles all the time like this" especially when the earth passes through a comets tail. Too big and a cataclysmic event will occur. In between the two extremes the margin is huge and not small as you imply

No, you’r overlooking some possibilitys and are thus forming a wrong marge. I’m not talking about a big enoughf meteor able to destroy earth, but the size that would bring forth energy on impact that would destroy the molecules of the nucleid acids. In other words destroy them on delivery. This narrows the margin down a lot!


It is isn't it. It is also a cast iron fact that such chemicals arrive on the planet. For years the source of these chemicals were unknown and debated. Now we know the source and science found it. Your statement about the same meteor is wrong also, since if you consider the "Great bombardment" many many strikes occured. Further the planet eath absorbs 1000 tonnes of space matter every year. Organic matter can and does get through by this means too.

This is where you mix fact and assumptions. Scientist fail to find the source of such material, and then find it in space so they assume that it came from outer space. Seems quite logical, but it’s not a given fact that because these materials are found in outer space that those present on earth must have origenated from there to! Secondly, all types of meteors hit us in the great bombardment, can you tell wich material they were carrying? No we can only assume.


Yes, you are correct. And science may at least be asking a better question now that it realises life may well have come to the earth from space. The point being, is that I am not asking you to imagine anything merely consider what scientific evidence we have even if you contain it within your own faith. it's the same paradox as saying "who created the creator". To ask did the molocules of life originate n the very beginning of the Big bang is to acknowlege life is not unique on our planet, and came to be from space? This is progress is it not! or are we wasting our time and should not bother looking since we all know we were created. Exactly what is your position on this matter

First of al there’s a difference in stating nucleid acids came from space and life came from space because frankly nucleid acids by them selves are not concidered an alive organisme, but are simply one of the required molecules.
Secondly the location as to where it happened only affect the creation vs. abiogenesis discussion in the following way: It provides abiogenesis a schield, it happened in outer spece, so we can’t know about it.


it was not a singular event. Millions of meteors hit the planet during it's creation process. Just look at the moon or any other solid matter in space to see the frequent comet strikes. Indeed comets themselves are littered with crators, it's how they formed in the first place. As for being hospitalabel, zircons tell us it was. Maybe you should take a look at what Zircons are telling us about "hellish earth". For they tell us the planet was right for life a billion years before even science thought was possible. Zircons don't lie or fudge the truth

Is a place hospitable for zircons also hospitable for life to emerge? Not even close they have a totaly different set of envoriomental requirements in oreder to exist.


3-6.This isn’t a fact on wich abiogenesis relies. This is the very thing that calls for a theory, be it creation or evolution. The precense of something doesn’t tell us anything on HOW they got there. Now matter what this single cell does; this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Single cell life is far after the origen of viri.
Evolution does. Adaptation

Look, Abigenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution tells us about how life evolved once it was there. Abiogenesis tries to explain how it was created. So no, evolution does not tell us that.


It's not that a similar one hit at all. The material of comets are well known and impact all the time. You have to move on from this, it's a fact let's move on

No it’s not a fact the universe is changing so we’re encountering different kind of materials now then we would have many years ago. Secondly there is no proof once so ever to support the so called “fact”. It’s not because I ate a sandwich with cheese this morning that I ate the same yesterday! So lets call it an assumption and not a fact.


Ok so how does the fact that some life forms in other regions use different sources of energy say anything about abiogenesis or common descent?
Adaptation. Sea coral exists because it uses photsinthesis using the sun as the source of energy. A few years ago nothing was known of the deep ocean floor. Then we made it down their and what do we find!!!!! We find coral so deep that it cannot obtain enrgy from the sun. The light does not make it so deep, instead it uses sulphor-oxidising bacteria as it source of energy. Yet it is Coral all the same. Same life, different energy source..

First of all this adaptation thing has to do with evolution not with abiogenesis as I stated earlyer. Secondly We have absolutly no idea as to why they evolved, sure we can assume that they adapted, but we can also assume that they evolved because they heard the cheeseburgers were half off at mac-donalds. We can’t know. Adaptation says intelligent design. Whereas survival of the fittest says random luck. Thirthly, it’s not because some evolved, that all evolved out of the same, so The arguments does not say anything about either common descent nor abiogenesis.


I beg your pardon? Where tell me, where’s the evidence? Didn’t you state just earlyer it are just assumptions, who by the way don’t even go half way?
It's above.

Quite a cute try, but why is it you failed to pin point this irrefutable evidence in your text? Could it be because both sides of the discussion are forced to restrict themself to probability's and logic rather then proof? To simply refer to a statement to be proof of what it states is quite ridicule. I f you want to pass these things of as facts you'll have to actually point us out the evidence.


Your way off base. I am not talking about time v probability. I am talking time required of the oxygenation of the sea then the atmosphere by the microbes stated and the proven method by which it occures. Also the need for time in order for evolutionary systems to work the magic that they do.

No, you used time as a faverable factor in abiogenesis, so my counterargument still stands. This is because even if all the assumed parts of the theory would be truth.
Meaning: the nucleid acids were in fact delivered, not just any but the exact ones required.
Also meaning the required sugars were present (wich by the way also don’t just form by there self and where the theory has some difficulties with).
Then the assumption argument still stands because it’s quite unlikely for RNA (even the most basic one has a complex structure) to arise from the accidential positioning of those required base material. If you want to discuss time as favourable for oxygenation of the sea and the atmosphere by the microbes then that would be of course a totaly different discussion.

root
06-30-2005, 07:04 PM
Cool, I am happy to oblige for I enjoy debates of this nature.


This is not the first time that your reply is besides the point, because you seem to have missed the key issue that is raised. You stated earlier that clay contains crystals which supports the fact that it could be from what we are created. Then you said that this is contradicted by the fact that clay cannot be proven to be organic.

No. I am sorry if I never made my point clear enough, I will reiterate.

I acknowledge that "crystals" forming within clay can have a perfectly accepted process of evolution. However, it is not organic. It is not the case that it cannot as yet be proven as organic for crytals are not organic.


Steve was saying that there is a difference between a human being’s actions and God’s actions. There is nothing to indicate that the two would be of the same nature, because God is unlike (as in far superior to) His creation.

I understand this point. And I can't really add anything to say other than the fact that "God" is a notion that I reject & with the current knowledge we have I don't feel religion has "proven" anything in relation to creationism other than to validate itself by scripture or to try to discredit evolutionary thinking as being an impossible feit and thus validate itself. Their is no issue here we can really discuss with this specific part for it is a question of beleif. Their is much we can still debate though I feel.


It is not for us to to state what God can or cannot do, because as Muslims we believe that God can do absolutely anything.

‘His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.’ [36.82]

‘Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yea! and He is the Creator (of all), the Knower.’ [36.81]

This last verse explains very well what I am saying. If He can create the whole Universe when there was nothing, surely, then, anything is possible!

I understand your point, I really do. I just personally feel that what we have learned so far from a non religous stance does not support what religion tells us about our past. In effect their is a direct conflict of what religion(s) tell us and what our own science tells us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by root

Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.



If possible, could you please explain what led you to believe that Islam does not support intelligent life beyond our planet?

Yes of course I will, please give me a little time to find my sources again when I researched it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by steve

How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created?

Quote:
Originally Posted by root

A massive difference I think.

Can you explain why?

Science is trying to look at the origins of life, and how life started on this planet. Creation aside the source of the material & it's origin is very important. What I mean by this is that an overwhelming number of scientists & evolutionists amongst others beleive that life itself or the raw materials to build life came from space. "When" we find life in space, we have already found the building blocks of life, then then this will ask even more questions than it solves.

As a Hypothosis, let us assume (just for now) that we find life on another planet and we also found out that life was abundent in the universe. We still are left with the question "but where did that life originate". Even under my hypothosis we proved life came to this planet via another planet, we still have to find the "source". For instance, does science need to look at the big bang as the birth-place of life itself, or was the big bang the source of the raw materials or was the source of the raw materials created in galaxy formation. Where either the raw materials or life itself created is a big issue for science..... For the truth is other than God or another "creator" where we look for the answers is the crucial issue that makes such a massive difference..............


You mentioned that comets brought all the building blocks of life onto this planet. You did not, however, explain how these brought about microbes. Just because there is more microbial life below the earth does not imply it was the first thing to exist.

I didn't say it brought about microbes as a given fact. I stated that science has proved us up-to the halfway point. Please don't underestimate the importance of this fact, peptides are crucial to the forming of life as we know it

2. The Lawarence Livemore National Laboratory set up a scientific investigation to test if all this life forming structures could withstand impacting with the earth. The results of which were truly astounding, not only was it proved as a fact that the structures survived but, what was incredible was the high energy of the impact caused a reaction within the compounds and created peptides:

"Peptides" - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...define:peptides


I was also wondering…how did the iron ore arise and is there evidence to prove it existed? Or is this an assumption. Same goes for hydrogen sulphate, and how do you know it was present at that time.


the primary source of today's global iron ore supply. From the 600 trillion tons of iron ore present today, we know there was plenty of iron in Precambrian waters.

Iron normally stays dissolved in seawater; it falls out of solution when it comes in contact with oxygen. The fine, bright orange particles that settle on the ocean floor are the product of a chemical reaction: rust. The alternating layers of rust-colored and gray deposits suggest oxygen production fluctuated over time.

As underwater chimneys called deep-sea vents release dissolved iron into Precambrian waters, oxygen is used up as quickly as it is produced. Once the iron supply is exhausted, however, oxygen begins escaping the seas into the open air. Evidence of a buildup of atmospheric oxygen first appears in rock layers 2,200-1,900 million years old, during which time most of the planet's exposed surface rusts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/c...me/protero.html


You may have been referring to the process of oxygenation, but what about the processes before that? Is it likely that all the building blocks of life came to earth in the right proportions and then came together in the exact perfect way to start off life?

earth contained very little or no Oxygen when life first formed.

It is generally conjectured that cyanobacteria were the source of oxidants for banded iron-formation. However, recently resolved phylogenetic trees based on whole genomic DNA sequences show that cyanobacteria were one of the last major lineages to diverge off the bacterial tree. This newly resolved tree shows that sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and sulfate-reducing bacteria arose before cyanobacteria did. This mirrors the changes in the geochemical record, centered around 2.7 billion years ago. At this time, the isotopic fractionation of sulfur compounds becomes large, followed by the sudden increase in oxygen in the atmosphere and surface water environments at about 2.2 or 2.3 billion years ago.

Also, in the absence of Oxygen. Life deep in the ocean does not require Oxygen nor energy from the sun. Their is nothing to support the fact that life itself or the raw materials were delivered in the right quantity since it is beleived that the time of "the great bombardment" would have delivered an over-whelming number of raw materials that would have impacted deep into the earth which would have afforded and protected the formation of life since the earths surface was too hostile.

May I suggest if we want to debate the above can we do it 1 part at a time so we don't get lost in the confusion as it develops.....

Thanks - Root

Bittersteel
07-01-2005, 03:25 PM
May I suggest if we want to debate the above can we do it 1 part at a time so we don't get lost in the confusion as it develops.....

yeah guys do that.Its confusing for me.

Muhammad
07-01-2005, 04:44 PM
Hello root,


Regarding the issue of clay, I am sorry for misunderstanding your point, and now I understand what your concern is: You are saying that since religion claims that God fashioned Adam out of clay, science has shown that clay is not organic and thus it could not support life. I understand this, and I have mentioned that God is capable of doing anything – thankyou for understanding this point. I can go on further to mention that when God created Adam out of clay, Adam did not in fact come to life immediately.

[15.29] So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down making obeisance to him.

Therefore it is important to realise that life comes ultimately from God. The fact that the foetus in the womb becomes a living human once an angel blows his soul into him (120 days after fertilisation) is another example that, even though all the components of a human are assembled, this does not necessarily mean that there will consequently be life.

[23.80] And He it is Who gives life and causes death, and (in) His (control) is the alternation of the night and the day; do you not then understand?



I understand this point. And I can't really add anything to say other than the fact that "God" is a notion that I reject & with the current knowledge we have I don't feel religion has "proven" anything in relation to creationism other than to validate itself by scripture or to try to discredit evolutionary thinking as being an impossible feit and thus validate itself. Their is no issue here we can really discuss with this specific part for it is a question of beleif. Their is much we can still debate though I feel.

I have already mentioned that Islam existed ever since Adam came to earth, therefore if religion came before theories such as those of evolution were even proposed, there must surely be evidence other than to discredit such theories. Among the evidence is of course the scriptures, from which only one stands fully true today; addressed to all mankind till the end of time: The Qur’an.

[2.23] And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

I came across an interesting site discussing the Qur'an, and quote the following from it:


“One thing which surprises non-Muslims who are examining the book very closely is that the Quran does not appear to them to be what they expected. What they assume is that they have an old book which came fourteen centuries ago from the Arabian desert; and they expect that the book should look something like that - an old book from the desert. And then they find out that it does not resemble what they expected at all. Additionally, one of the first things that some people assume is that because it is an old book which comes from the desert, it should talk about the desert. Well the Quran does talk about the desert - some of its imagery describes the desert; but it also talks about the sea - what it's like to be in a storm on the sea.”

Please see here (http://www.fisabilillah.org/img/books/amazing.pdf) for more.


Religion does not ONLY depend on mere belief, there are many evidences for it which God invites all of mankind to see.

[2.99] And certainly We have revealed to you clear communications and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors.

Below I have provided a passage of the Qur’an, and I hope you will not feel burdened to read it, but I felt it discusses the concept of God relevant to our discussion.

[16.9] And upon Allah it rests to show the right way, and there are some deviating (ways); and if He please He would certainly guide you all aright.

[16.10] He it is Who sends down water from the cloud for you; it gives drink, and by it (grow) the trees upon which you pasture.

[16.11] He causes to grow for you thereby herbage, and the olives, and the palm trees, and the grapes, and of all the fruits; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who reflect.

[16.12] And He has made subservient for you the night and the day and the sun and the moon, and the stars are made subservient by His commandment; most surely there are signs in this for a people who ponder;

[16.13] And what He has created in the earth of varied hues most surely there is a sign in this for a people who are mindful.

[16.14] And He it is Who has made the sea subservient that you may eat fresh flesh from it and bring forth from it ornaments which you wear, and you see the ships cleaving through it, and that you might seek of His bounty and that you may give thanks.

[16.15] And He has cast great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with you, and rivers and roads that you may go aright,

[16.16] And landmarks; and by the stars they find the right way.

[16.17] Is He then Who creates like him who does not create? Do you not then mind?

[16.18] And if you would count Allah's favors, you will not be able to number them; most surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[16.19] And Allah knows what you conceal and what you do openly.

[16.20] And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created;

[16.21] Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised.

[16.22] Your God is one God; so (as for) those who do not believe m the hereafter, their hearts are ignorant and they are proud.

[16.23] Truly Allah knows what they hide and what they manifest; surely He does not love the proud.

[16.24] And when it is said to them, what is it that your Lord has revealed? They say: Stories of the ancients;

[16.25] That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.



I just personally feel that what we have learned so far from a non religous stance does not support what religion tells us about our past. In effect their is a direct conflict of what religion(s) tell us and what our own science tells us.

I don’t think you can say such a thing, when we have been trying to show you that religion never contradicts science and have not yet been proved wrong. Religion has even preceded science in many aspects – i.e. the Qur’an has stated things which are only modern day discoveries. While some things have been interpreted, such as the speed of light, others are explicitly stated, such as the origin of the Universe (originating from smoke, being one body etc.) as has been discussed earlier.


As a Hypothosis, let us assume (just for now) that we find life on another planet and we also found out that life was abundent in the universe. We still are left with the question "but where did that life originate". Even under my hypothosis we proved life came to this planet via another planet, we still have to find the "source". For instance, does science need to look at the big bang as the birth-place of life itself, or was the big bang the source of the raw materials or was the source of the raw materials created in galaxy formation. Where either the raw materials or life itself created is a big issue for science..... For the truth is other than God or another "creator" where we look for the answers is the crucial issue that makes such a massive difference..............

I believe we were thinking different things regarding the origin of raw materials and the difference it makes. While you are saying that there is a massive difference in where we look for the origins of these materials, which I agree with, steve was stating that no matter where something comes from, the question will always be asked how did it arise? In other words, the origin will not answer how it was created. For example, if we find out the Big Bang was the birth-place for the materials, we still will not know from what the Bang initiated and where that initial material that caused it, came from.


As for the stages of abiogenesis, I agree we should discuss them 1 part at a time to avoid confusion.


Regards,
Muhammad.

root
07-02-2005, 07:15 PM
Yes, there are assumptions used root, Can you provide any proof that a meteor that carried this specific nucleid acid actually hit earth? Did you catch it on film? Or perhaps you have some eyewitnesses? Where you there when a life origenated out of a pool of mud? This has nothing to do with what I like to hear.

We have extremely definite evidence from radio observations that there's quite an array of organic molecules in interstellar space," measuring radio waves from celestial objects as part of the research effort.

There's other evidence that comets contain organic material. When European spacecraft analyzed dust particles from the Halley comet in 1986, it turned out to be some of the most organic-rich material measured in the solar system. Meteorites that have hit Earth contain a whole suite of molecules, including amino acids, which play an important role in terrestrial biology.

Out of two main comet sources so far, both have been found to carry organic rich material. Out of billions of comets within our own solar system we have had the direct oppurtunity to chemically test only two, and in both cases it has been proven that a very high proportion of organic rich material has been found. You must also consider to, another vital ingrediant found in comets.......WATER

You must also consider the overwhelming evidence of meteorite impacts. Every single object in space including comets show an exceedingly high number of impact damage, you only have to look at the moon to see the number of impacts suffered. Their is nothing in space that is exempt from constant bombardment of meteorites, I think your asking for the actual meteorite that hit the earth and brought the vital ingrediants for life is a nonsense because we are talking hundreds and thousands of impacts on our planet alone as well as hundred's & thousands of impacts on all our solar planetary objects.......



No, you’r overlooking some possibilitys and are thus forming a wrong marge. I’m not talking about a big enoughf meteor able to destroy earth, but the size that would bring forth energy on impact that would destroy the molecules of the nucleid acids. In other words destroy them on delivery. This narrows the margin down a lot!

Perhaps the main question is whether organic molecules can survive space travel or if they break up and contribute the atoms that are necessary to ultimately make biological material and water?

"Our museums contain examples of primitive meteorites that likely are very similar to the material delivered by comets," "The key point is that small bodies deliver their organics intact to Earth's surface. This must have been a common event on the early Earth. It's scientifically proven that organic matter can and does impact onto the earth and survive. irrespective of your opinion on margins which at present is unknown so we cannot say with any accuracy if the margin is big or small. You seem to suggest the margin is small, and I suspect you are doing this in order to achieve a limited probability in what we are discussing. This may or may not be a mistake on your part, it is estimated that the margin is actually high.




This is where you mix fact and assumptions. Scientist fail to find the source of such material, and then find it in space so they assume that it came from outer space. Seems quite logical, but it’s not a given fact that because these materials are found in outer space that those present on earth must have origenated from there to! Secondly, all types of meteors hit us in the great bombardment, can you tell wich material they were carrying? No we can only assume.


First of al there’s a difference in stating nucleid acids came from space and life came from space because frankly nucleid acids by them selves are not concidered an alive organisme, but are simply one of the required molecules.
Secondly the location as to where it happened only affect the creation vs. abiogenesis discussion in the following way: It provides abiogenesis a schield, it happened in outer spece, so we can’t know about it.

I have up to now avoided discussions on actual life within comets, and this is for a reason. Not ruled out of course for it may just be possible. We just don't know, what you must consider is 50 years ago, such organic molacules were never even considered as having an origin in space. Yet in the present the presence of organic rich material being on comets is undisputable!!!!!

Comets carrying such material and comets themselves are the "In-Topic" for science with it's search for our origins, I can name 2 recently passed comet/meteorite missions to send unmanned spce-crafts/probes to such space bodies. Indeed we are actually living in a time that enables us to carry out missions like "Deep Impact" as discussed in the LI Forum http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3100

Within the next 25 Years as the mission is already several years old, man intends to drill deep a meteorite/comet bringing it's raw material back to earth for analysis. Itwill be approx 50 years old, if I make it to that age. The pace of progressing mans knowledge is slow, of course 50 years is a very long time to us humans. In the great scheme of things, that is not even a nano-second when compareto the universe. I consider this quite a sad record on mankinds ability to become clouded in a religous charge to be perceived as the main-stream thought along with the basic sciptured theory of creationism. It is appearing if I am not mistaken that creationists do or do not support the theory in an absolute basic format "Organic rich material exists on comets, and coments impact planets and some organic material using the impact itself as a source of energy creates peptides"

Irrespective of ones faith, evolutionary or cteationist favoured. At some point one must either state based on their religous spiritual and scientific knowledge state if they do or do not accept as noted below:

"Organic rich material exists on comets, and coments impact planets and some organic material using the impact itself as a source of energy create peptides"

Finally, One of the things I love about science in the hear and now is that knowledge is actually being pursued: So here is some upto date news from deep impact :

A picture of Tempel 1(left) taken by Deep Impact's medium-resolution camera is shown next to data of the comet taken by the spacecraft's infrared spectrometer. This instrument breaks apart light like a prism to reveal the "fingerprints," or signatures, of chemicals. Even though the spacecraft was over 10 days away from the comet when these data were acquired, it detected some of the molecules making up the comet's gas and dust envelope, or coma. The signatures of these molecules - including water, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - can be seen on the spectrum


Is a place hospitable for zircons also hospitable for life to emerge? Not even close they have a totaly different set of envoriomental requirements in oreder to exist.

No Steve, Zircons are the most toughest substances known, even tougher than diamonds They are like the rings of a felled tree recording geographical history.
fact that zircons existed so long ago shortly after the formation of the Earth allows us to understand the conditions of our planet. What I am saying is this the "Zircons" reveal the planetary conditions were right for life perhaps as much as 3 quarter of a billion years earlier than the current estimate.

Nakisai
07-02-2005, 09:45 PM
Clay or Mud ?

Abdul Fattah
07-03-2005, 03:56 PM
We have extremely definite evidence from radio observations that there's quite an array of organic molecules in interstellar space," measuring radio waves from celestial objects as part of the research effort. There's other evidence that comets contain organic material. When European spacecraft analyzed dust particles from the Halley comet in 1986, it turned out to be some of the most organic-rich material measured in the solar system. Meteorites that have hit Earth contain a whole suite of molecules, including amino acids, which play an important role in terrestrial biology.

How does the existance of this material “prove” that a meteor carrying it actually did hit earth, or that the first RNA molecule was compound out of extraterrestrial molecules? This is exactly what I meant when I said, It’s not because I ate a cheese sandwich today, that we have to assume I ate one yesterday too.


Out of two main comet sources so far, both have been found to carry organic rich material. Out of billions of comets within our own solar system we have had the direct oppurtunity to chemically test only two, and in both cases it has been proven that a very high proportion of organic rich material has been found. You must also consider to, another vital ingrediant found in comets.......WATER. You must also consider the overwhelming evidence of meteorite impacts. Every single object in space including comets show an exceedingly high number of impact damage, you only have to look at the moon to see the number of impacts suffered. Their is nothing in space that is exempt from constant bombardment of meteorites, I think your asking for the actual meteorite that hit the earth and brought the vital ingrediants for life is a nonsense because we are talking hundreds and thousands of impacts on our planet alone as well as hundred's & thousands of impacts on all our solar planetary objects.......

You are totally missing the point here Root. First of all, to assume most comets have nucleid acids based on 2 experiments couldn’t even be called scientific. For all we know this is just a fluke, and that wouldn’t take a lot of luck! Secondly there’s a difference between organic rich materials, which are produced easily by themselves, And the required nucleid acids, which don’t form that easily. Thirdly, no matter what you personally think of it, you have to admit there’s a difference between assumptions and known facts, just claiming this is proof 1000 times won’t make it so.


Perhaps the main question is whether organic molecules can survive space travel or if they break up and contribute the atoms that are necessary to ultimately make biological material and water?

I have a feeling you’re suggesting that this impact energy in fact helps the theory of abiogenesis by using this impact energy as start-energy required for certain processes. But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested. Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules. This also shows us how just a lil’ bit too big of a meteorite would bring enough impact energy not only to break the string up, but even to break the molecule up into the same scrap we had lying around on earth anyway. I didn’t want to go too deep of-topic on this, but since you metioned it yourself...


"Our museums contain examples of primitive meteorites that likely are very similar to the material delivered by comets," "The key point is that small bodies deliver their organics intact to Earth's surface. This must have been a common event on the early Earth. It's scientifically proven that organic matter can and does impact onto the earth and survive. irrespective of your opinion on margins which at present is unknown so we cannot say with any accuracy if the margin is big or small. You seem to suggest the margin is small, and I suspect you are doing this in order to achieve a limited probability in what we are discussing. This may or may not be a mistake on your part, it is estimated that the margin is actually high.

Well then again I could suggest that it is in fact you who are persuaded by your personal feelings in putting up this marge. But I honestly wouldn’t see how this would be helpfull to either one of us. What is in fact proven is that it is a possible, it could have happened it’s a probability, not a fact, not a proof. We can go back and forth about this marge, but I already showed you that it in fact is much smaller when we look upon it even closer.


I consider this quite a sad record on mankinds ability to become clouded in a religous charge to be perceived as the main-stream thought along with the basic sciptured theory of creationism.

I consider it to be a sad record on mankinds ability to overlook the truth revealed to us ages ago, based on assumptions and wild-goose-chases just so they wouldn’t have to face up the responsibility our Creator laid down upon us. I admit that we are influenced in our way of reasoning by our belief, but so is an atheist influenced by his disbelief. Then again, this topic is not about giving personal opinions abouth the belief of others.


Irrespective of ones faith, evolutionary or cteationist favoured. At some point one must either state based on their religous spiritual and scientific knowledge state if they do or do not accept as noted below: Organic rich material exists on comets, and coments impact planets and some organic material using the impact itself as a source of energy create peptides"

Of course it exist, and theoretically you could write up a scenario where it got delivered and then spontaneously formed certain molecules, not life, but some molecules required for it, but that still doesn’t make the theory of abiogenesis complete and it’s very unlikely that this was in fact the way life origenated.


No Steve, Zircons are the most toughest substances known, even tougher than diamonds They are like the rings of a felled tree recording geographical history.
fact that zircons existed so long ago shortly after the formation of the Earth allows us to understand the conditions of our planet. What I am saying is this the "Zircons" reveal the planetary conditions were right for life perhaps as much as 3 quarter of a billion years earlier than the current estimate.

Thats a very bold statement, and not the first time I caught you thinking in circles. I’d say that even the current condition of earth isn’t quite hospital for life to originate, and considering abiogenesis is far from complete, you’d have to respect my point of view on that. But to get back on topic. The zircones only suggest the condition of earth. It is the scientists who try ever so hard to finish abiogenesis who reveal the planet was “perhaps” ready for it many years earlier. It’s quite a tainted revealing. Secondly I already showed that the factor time can not be considered to be a favourable factor for abiogenesis. If we can’t think of a way in wich life spontaneously arose in a short period of time in a hypothetical habitat or even a habitat created to stimulate the formation of it, How can we claim that just by giving it enough time, it eventualy must of happened even in an unlikely enviroment?

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-03-2005, 07:07 PM
:sl:
An excellent response, Br. Steve. May Allah reward you.

:w:

Bittersteel
07-03-2005, 08:08 PM
what does Islam say about comets and how iron was sent to earth?what other materials was sent to earth via meteors,comets,etc?

root
07-04-2005, 07:49 PM
How does the existance of this material “prove” that a meteor carrying it actually did hit earth, or that the first RNA molecule was compound out of extraterrestrial molecules? This is exactly what I meant when I said, It’s not because I ate a cheese sandwich today, that we have to assume I ate one yesterday too.

OK, let us draw a line under the discussion of meteorites and their ability to bring organic material to the planet including energy from the impact forcing chemical changes in the organic matter. For at the very least, I am pleased you seem to acknowledge that "organic matter" does exist on comets including water..........


You are totally missing the point here Root. First of all, to assume most comets have nucleid acids based on 2 experiments couldn’t even be called scientific.

I think it would be far less scientific if i was to argue on the basis that the last two meteorites showed no organic material or water and stated that I still beleive they do based solely on that "some" may contain organic matter and we have not looked at the right ones. I can well imagine this position just not holding any credability. To find organic matter on 2 out of two random comets out of billions of comets just within our local solar system is very strong evidence that organic matter exist's on "most comet's". Deep impact may well be making it a third!!!!!, as I said. Water, Carbon Dioxide & Carbon Monoxide has already been confirmed as too Ice. Also, these were NOT experiments, they are a factual account of the results of the analysis of the actual material & not a simulation. If you feel I am talking bad science then cool, that is for you to judge. Impact analysis experiments must be taken seriosly, the ability to achieve the same results from re-testing can only make a test credible. Indeed the impact test for the survival of organic matter does give us the same answer, time & time again.

The actual energy of an impact can and does create peptides.

If you choose to continue to state that the science behind this is floored, then that truly astounds me............ But, it is your right to hold that position.


You are totally missing the point here Root. First of all, to assume most comets have nucleid acids based on 2 experiments couldn’t even be called scientific. For all we know this is just a fluke, and that wouldn’t take a lot of luck! Secondly there’s a difference between organic rich materials, which are produced easily by themselves, And the required nucleid acids, which don’t form that easily. Thirdly, no matter what you personally think of it, you have to admit there’s a difference between assumptions and known facts, just claiming this is proof 1000 times won’t make it so.



Again, you accuse me of going around in circles. So I will summarize finally.

Science asks - "where do proven organic material reside other than our own planet"

Answer - Comets.

Science asks - "could organic material survive an impact with Earth"

Answer - Yes

Other than questioning the actual science behind these conclusions, these are none the less scientific answers.


I have a feeling you’re suggesting that this impact energy in fact helps the theory of abiogenesis by using this impact energy as start-energy required for certain processes. But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested. Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules. This also shows us how just a lil’ bit too big of a meteorite would bring enough impact energy not only to break the string up, but even to break the molecule up into the same scrap we had lying around on earth anyway. I didn’t want to go too deep of-topic on this, but since you metioned it yourself...

OK, I am suggesting what you are feeling. If you don't already know this then you should, though I suspect you do. I enjoy debating science, and as such I am very careful that I can show adequate support for all I calim. Yuop are now going where you should not go. Your "baffling" the issue. Let us break down what you bare saying:


I have a feeling you’re suggesting that this impact energy in fact helps the theory of abiogenesis by using this impact energy as start-energy required for certain processes.

Yes, I am claiming that it is possible and proven in a scientific laboratory.


But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested.

Why is this. Could you please explain why the energy produced in an impact actually reduces the margin of mass, could you also indicate what you mean by a "margin of mass"


Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules.

Wow, sounds complex. OK, I agree the mass must not be too small for it will burn up. Again, look to the moon as a simple example of how many actually get through. I would try to find out how many comets fit the bill that would not burn up, it would number in the millions within our solar system alone. What do you mean by deliver enough energy?


This also shows us how just a lil’ bit too big of a meteorite would bring enough impact energy not only to break the string up, but even to break the molecule up into the same scrap we had lying around on earth anyway.

I agree with you, a lot of "Scrap" will be made. On the other hand, a significant ammount will survive. Indeed the probability of whole comets destroying all the organic matter is high. But it is no where near 100%


I didn’t want to go too deep of-topic on this, but since you metioned it yourself...

Your not going deep. Going deep would look at where and how comets form.


Of course it exist, and theoretically you could write up a scenario where it got delivered and then spontaneously formed certain molecules, not life, but some molecules required for it, but that still doesn’t make the theory of abiogenesis complete and it’s very unlikely that this was in fact the way life origenated.

Thankyou. At least we can acknowledge this.


Thats a very bold statement, and not the first time I caught you thinking in circles. I’d say that even the current condition of earth isn’t quite hospital for life to originate,

I like this. Thanks for calling me "Bold". and then immediately making a bold statement yourself.


and considering abiogenesis is far from complete, you’d have to respect my point of view on that.

I do.


But to get back on topic. The zircones only suggest the condition of earth. It is the scientists who try ever so hard to finish abiogenesis who reveal the planet was “perhaps” ready for it many years earlier. It’s quite a tainted revealing.

It is....... abiogenesis aside, the zircons don't lie........


Secondly I already showed that the factor time can not be considered to be a favourable factor for abiogenesis. If we can’t think of a way in wich life spontaneously arose in a short period of time in a hypothetical habitat or even a habitat created to stimulate the formation of it, How can we claim that just by giving it enough time, it eventualy must of happened even in an unlikely enviroment?

You have not already showed that a factor of time cannot be considered as a favourable factor.


what does Islam say about comets and how iron was sent to earth? I am interested why you think "Iron" was brought to the earth?

Bittersteel
07-04-2005, 08:06 PM
I am interested why you think "Iron" was brought to the earth?

coz I heard something like that.

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-04-2005, 08:55 PM
:sl:
http://-----------------------/scientific_30.html
:w:

Abdul Fattah
07-05-2005, 02:22 AM
OK, let us draw a line under the discussion of meteorites and their ability to bring organic material to the planet including energy from the impact forcing chemical changes in the organic matter. For at the very least, I am pleased you seem to acknowledge that "organic matter" does exist on comets including water.

I’ve seem not to have made my case al to clear. It was never my intention to claim it is impossible, but only that it is unlikely; that the requirements for such a thing to happen are quite high.


To find organic matter on 2 out of two random comets out of billions of comets just within our local solar system is very strong evidence that organic matter exist's on "most comet's". Deep impact may well be making it a third!!!!!, as I said. Water, Carbon Dioxide & Carbon Monoxide has already been confirmed as too Ice.

I suggest you look up the formula’s in statistics. Even if it were 3 out of 3 examened, it’s still 3 out of millions existing and therefor not a representive group to claim “most comets”.


The actual energy of an impact can and does create peptides. If you choose to continue to state that the science behind this is floored, then that truly astounds me............ But, it is your right to hold that position.

I never claimed the energy of an impact can’t create peptides, but simply that it doesn’t necesairly create them! That it is a possibility, depending on the circumstances.


Wow, sounds complex. OK, I agree the mass must not be too small for it will burn up. Again, look to the moon as a simple example of how many actually get through. I would try to find out how many comets fit the bill that would not burn up, it would number in the millions within our solar system alone. What do you mean by deliver enough energy?

[off topic]Sorry, I realise I have the tendancy to cram to much information in a small sentence and that by doing so the sentence can become confusing, even surrealistic. It’s like I have this budget to keep in mind when I use words, and I’m saving up for this nice sentance that would look quite well on the citchen table. :D [/off topic]
Well the moon doesn’t have a atmosphere, hence the many impacts, the actual impacts on earth are in fact a lot smaller.
Also by claiming that it's a likely thing to happen, just because in our solar system alone there's tons of them, you'r overlooking the fact that al those meteor you refer to a in a belt drifting around the sun, on a set course, and not likely to spend their holiday in hawaii. And I'd also be suspicios about milions that fit the bill. I'd guess it to be a much smaller number. But then again we can only guess, I don't work at NASA so I have no idea to the size shape and mass of al the meteors in our solar system. We also both have no idea to the content of those meteors exept perhaps for three of them. So basicly it's an estimation, or even better: an impression. We can't know. Let's not let our intuitive notion of the meteors in space cloud our judgement.
With the “enough energy” I mean that the energy required for peptides to form has a minimum hence the mass of the meteor, (wich directly influences the energy delivered) must also have a minimum requirement.


But actually, bringing this inpact energy into the equation and looking at it from a chemical point of view actually shows us that the margin of mass from a delivering meteor is even a lot smaller then I previously suggested.
Why is this. Could you please explain why the energy produced in an impact actually reduces the margin of mass, could you also indicate what you mean by a "margin of mass"

Strange that you should ask this, considering you posted the answer right beneath it:
Not only does the meteor now have to have a big enough mass not to burn up, but the mass that isn’t burned away must still be sufficient to deliver enough energy to break the large strings of the nucleid acids in smaller molecules.
In other words the “margin of mass” is the requirements a meteor must have for him to be able to deliver these molecules. This margin gets even smaller concidering the minimum: "not to burn up", is lower then the minimum: "not to burn up, but still be big enough even after entering the atmosphere so that enough impact energy is formed on collision. (sorry it's the long sentences-syndrome again :p )
Looking at it from a chemical point of vieuw also showes how fragile this molecules actualy are for "to much" impact energy to destroy it.


I agree with you, a lot of "Scrap" will be made. On the other hand, a significant ammount will survive. Indeed the probability of whole comets destroying all the organic matter is high. But it is no where near 100%

I never said 100%, I never claimed impossible. I said improbable.


Your not going deep. Going deep would look at where and how comets form.

Well in a evolution vs creation, I’d call this deep. A personal judgement I admit, but lets not bicker over these details :D


I like this. Thanks for calling me "Bold". and then immediately making a bold statement yourself.

I never called you bold, I said your statement was. As for the hypocrosy, I guess you have a point, but then again, maybe it was my point to begin with ;)


and considering abiogenesis is far from complete, you’d have to respect my point of view on that.
I do.

[pat on the back]I can tell by the discussion. No ceriously, I’m not being ironic, I discussed these matters with other people over the internet, and this is the most productive and respectful one I witnessed so far. That’s why I’m so eager to respond all the time :p Forgive me for going of topic but it doesn’t have to be flaming al the time right. ;) [/pat on the back]


But to get back on topic. The zircones only suggest the condition of earth. It is the scientists who try ever so hard to finish abiogenesis who reveal the planet was “perhaps” ready for it many years earlier. It’s quite a tainted revealing.
It is....... abiogenesis aside, the zircons don't lie........

Of course, zircons don’t lie. Some scientist might -well not actually lie- but at least be subjective. The key word in the sentence here is “perhaps”. They just can't tell, It's a probability, a maybe, a "let's just assume this since it helpes our case". Not that I actually consider some sort of cover up conspiracy, this is more likely due to a subjective way of thinking in my opinion.


You have not already showed that a factor of time cannot be considered as a favourable factor.

Yes I already did, didn’t I? Hence the “I already showed”-part in the sentence. But apparnetly some of your arguments made me feel like repeating myself.
:p

root
07-05-2005, 11:40 AM
OK, Steve I am pleased that you acknowledge this theory as improbable for your own reasons but not impossible.


Well the moon doesn’t have a atmosphere, hence the many impacts, the actual impacts on earth are in fact a lot smaller.

this is rubbish Steve, the fact the moon has no atmosphere merely allows us to see the number of times all space bodies are impacted. The Earth has been hit every bit as much as the moon.


Also by claiming that it's a likely thing to happen, just because in our solar system alone there's tons of them, you'r overlooking the fact that al those meteor you refer to a in a belt drifting around the sun, on a set course, and not likely to spend their holiday in hawaii.

Their is not "Tonnes", their are over 2 billion of them within our solar system alone. Meteor impact with earth is the biggest threat that the Earth faces today. Only a few years ago creationists were telling us meteorites were in stable orbits as per the "perfect creation". Schumacker leevy 9 impacting on Saturn showed how wrong they are. Even the comet on the deep impact probes target was covered in impact craters........ Everywhere in the solar system we find evidence of meteor impacts, solar system bodies are covered with impacts and nothing is immune......... Meteorites/comets are constantly impacting & being knocked out of their orbit.


And I'd also be suspicios about milions that fit the bill. I'd guess it to be a much smaller number. But then again we can only guess,

Who said anything about being a "Guess". the information is out-their for those who look.


I don't work at NASA so I have no idea to the size shape and mass of al the meteors in our solar system.

I thought Islam encouraged knowledge & since we are debating this issue I am surprised you have not done a few minutes reseach on the information available.


We also both have no idea to the content of those meteors exept perhaps for three of them. So basicly it's an estimation, or even better: an impression.

This demonstrates a lack of willingness to find out. The origins of meteors are being understood all the time and we are waiting for the data obtained from deep impact to confirm or dismiss our current understandings of where they come from and how they formed. All comets are "dirty Ice balls" that are left over from the formation of the solar system.......... In essence, they are all the same and it is this "tail" of the comet that tells us this......


We can't know. Let's not let our intuitive notion of the meteors in space cloud our judgement.

Why do you say we can't know. Is it forbidden to know in your eyes for some reason.


With the “enough energy” I mean that the energy required for peptides to form has a minimum hence the mass of the meteor, (wich directly influences the energy delivered) must also have a minimum requirement.

Can you give me more information, I still don't understand where you obtained the "Minimum energy required".

Bittersteel
07-05-2005, 02:08 PM
eh someone summarise the argument plz......who's stating what.....

Abdul Fattah
07-05-2005, 03:08 PM
Well the moon doesn’t have a atmosphere, hence the many impacts, the actual impacts on earth are in fact a lot smaller.
this is rubbish Steve, the fact the moon has no atmosphere merely allows us to see the number of times all space bodies are impacted. The Earth has been hit every bit as much as the moon.

No it’s not, most comets burn up in the atmosphere so they don’t actualy “hit” earth.


Their is not "Tonnes", their are over 2 billion of them within our solar system alone. Meteor impact with earth is the biggest threat that the Earth faces today. Only a few years ago creationists were telling us meteorites were in stable orbits as per the "perfect creation". Schumacker leevy 9 impacting on Saturn showed how wrong they are. Even the comet on the deep impact probes target was covered in impact craters........ Everywhere in the solar system we find evidence of meteor impacts, solar system bodies are covered with impacts and nothing is immune......... Meteorites/comets are constantly impacting & being knocked out of their orbit.

LOL
I wasn’t talking about the meteors in our solarsystem, but about the meteors in our solarsystem able to fit the bill. Big difference ther Root.


Who said anything about being a "Guess". the information is out-their for those who look.

No it’s not, tell me where could you find the mass of all the meteores in our solarsystem? I’d doubt it a google search or a trip to the local libery ‘d be helpfull, but you’r welcome to try of course.


I don't work at NASA so I have no idea to the size shape and mass of al the meteors in our solar system.
I thought Islam encouraged knowledge & since we are debating this issue I am surprised you have not done a few minutes reseach on the information available.

Well yes, but Some data isn’t just available freely. As I said before, be my guest. I’d doubt you’ll be able to bring forth any accurate data. The only think you’d most likely come up with is something in the line of: the average mass of a meteor in that belt is. Or the masses of meteors in that belt vary from... to ....
It’s easy to accuse someone not to look things up when you do the exact same thing.(see quote below)


I would try to find out how many comets fit the bill that would not burn up, it would number in the millions within our solar system alone.

“If I would try”; did you try it Root? Tell me what requirements did you use for a meteor to fit your bill? Can we rely on your judgement. What is the exact number root? Did you not totally make this up, did you actually rely on something when making this claim? Is this not an opinion rather then a scientific fact? Can you honestly claim to have a good insight in when a meteor "fits the bill" seeing you can’t even grasp this impact energy thing? Can you honestly claim to have knowledge of what material each meteor in our solarsystem exist out?


We also both have no idea to the content of those meteors exept perhaps for three of them. So basicly it's an estimation, or even better: an impression.
This demonstrates a lack of willingness to find out. The origins of meteors are being understood all the time and we are waiting for the data obtained from deep impact to confirm or dismiss our current understandings of where they come from and how they formed. All comets are "dirty Ice balls" that are left over from the formation of the solar system.......... In essence, they are all the same and it is this "tail" of the comet that tells us this......

This has nothing to do with me not wanting to find out, you earlyer on statad that only 3 meteors have been examened so we have absolutely no clue as to the content of all the others, now you can blame me for being lazy, but that doesn’t even have anything to do with the fact that we ‘r unable to accuire such information? What you expect me to personally build a spacecraft and go look dig up inside some meteors to find organic material? As for your claims about the current "understanding of origen" that has nothing to do with the fact wether or not they carry organic material so is completely irrelevant!


Why do you say we can't know. Is it forbidden to know in your eyes for some reason.

Because it is an unknown fact to both of us, we are both making an estimation, none of us has this knowledge. I invite you to proof me wrong, but I seriously doubt you’ll be able to come forth with exact data. (= being a list with information about the exact shape's , mass and material of meteors, a sets of requirements based on calculations telling us wich mass is required and a cross refrence of the two telling us how many actually do fit the bill)


With the “enough energy” I mean that the energy required for peptides to form has a minimum hence the mass of the meteor, (wich directly influences the energy delivered) must also have a minimum requirement.
Can you give me more information, I still don't understand where you obtained the "Minimum energy required".

Imagen a bunch of organic material that is in a rock the size of my hand. Now if I were to drop it from my hand to the floor, although the proces would be simular to a meteor colliding with earth those organic materials won’t form peptides. This is mainly because I dropped it from to low a place.
Now imagen a rock entering the atmosphere, it partually burns up, so it’s now less then half the size it was before, imagen that the part that didn’t burn up is now equal to the rock I dropped earlyer. Now we will have a collision from a big enoughf hight, but still it won’t be suffiecient to form peptides. This is because the size of the rock isn’t big enough to produce suffiecient energy in the form of pressure and heat on impact for peptides to form.
So you can se that the “marge of mass” for a meteor able to deliver material goes even tighter. “Just big enough not to completely burn up” doesn’t cut it anymore, now it has to be big enough not to burn up, but also delever enough impact energy.

Abdul Fattah
07-05-2005, 03:16 PM
eh someone summarise the argument plz......who's stating what.....
selam aleykum
Well basicly It's about abiogenesis, the theory that life arose spontaniously out of matter. The problem with the theory is that certain molecules couldn't possibly arise on earth due to enviromental circomstances. Many materialist claim that the molecules that formed the first living creature (an RNA-string) were delivered by an meteor colliding with earth. I however stated that this is in fact a very unlikely event since such an event has quite strict requirements to be able to accur. Root on the other hand is bending backwards to proof me wrong by tangling some of the points I made and turning my facts (a meteor requires a certain mass for this) into opinions ( I feel the requirements aren't as strict and there are in fact many meteors that could do this).

Bittersteel
07-05-2005, 04:27 PM
oh i see........

Off Topic:

We know that Earth existed long before the appearance of humans. Allah says, "Wasn’t there a long period of time before humans were even mentioned?" (76:1)

does this verse refer to dinosaurs and other creatures?

root
07-05-2005, 04:52 PM
selam aleykum

Well basicly It's about abiogenesis, the theory that life arose spontaniously out of matter. The problem with the theory is that certain molecules couldn't possibly arise on earth due to enviromental circomstances. Many materialist claim that the molecules that formed the first living creature (an RNA-string) were delivered by an meteor colliding with earth. I however stated that this is in fact a very unlikely event since such an event has quite strict requirements to be able to accur. Root on the other hand is bending backwards to proof me wrong by tangling some of the points I made and turning my facts (a meteor requires a certain mass for this) into opinions ( I feel the requirements aren't as strict and there are in fact many meteors that could do this).

Steve is right: However,

1. I am talking "Comets" & not meteorites. With meteorites I would agree more with Steve than I do. Since a comet is a deeply frozen bag of ice and other stuff & it has been scientifically proven that organic matter can survive an impact and more, it can change the structure of the organic matter.

2. Steve uses the Abiogenesis theory when the actual facts I have brought have little to do with Abiogenesis, though I agree it is very closely linked.


This is because the size of the rock isn’t big enough to produce suffiecient energy in the form of pressure and heat on impact for peptides to form.
So you can se that the “marge of mass” for a meteor able to deliver material goes even tighter. “Just big enough not to completely burn up” doesn’t cut it anymore, now it has to be big enough not to burn up, but also delever enough impact energy.

Hi Steve,

OK, I will say "Prove" your above "Bolded Position" and I will accept a truth in the face of a scientific herecy......... I know I can show proof of the exact opposite of what you are expecting me to beleive. Your trying to pass "Guff" as scientifically credible when it is not. I can prove that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides, "This is impossible under your scientific "Guess-work"

Regards

Root

Bittersteel
07-05-2005, 05:12 PM
Q.1According to Islam what is the chronological order of the creation of planet Earth,then living organisms and then the emergence of man?

like first the big bang happened then what followed......

hope you understand my question.
you do not have to elaborate on the points

Q.2He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it-all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." (Qur'an, 41:10-11)

what does this mean?It refers to the planet Earth right,or wrong?And why was the smoke called to come to it by Allah?

root
07-05-2005, 06:16 PM
Q.1According to Islam what is the chronological order of the creation of planet Earth,then living organisms and then the emergence of man?

Maybe we should ask what of the implications when living organisms are found to be older than our planet, Something tells me not very much. Though I for one would assume "Earth, Living Organism then the emergence of man". In the end it would not matter though which order was found to be correct from the stance of your question.......

"Smoke" Could mean absolutely anything, I guess it's all to do with how easy you fit a square peg into a round hole.....

1. Morning Mist
2. Comet\meteorite trails
3. Clouds
4. Even the raw material of the universe "Helium & Hydrogen" could be construed as "Smoke".

Abdul Fattah
07-06-2005, 04:22 AM
Hi Steve,

OK, I will say "Prove" your above "Bolded Position" and I will accept a truth in the face of a scientific herecy......... I know I can show proof of the exact opposite of what you are expecting me to beleive. Your trying to pass "Guff" as scientifically credible when it is not. I can prove that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides, "This is impossible under your scientific "Guess-work"

Regards

Root

Well, if you can prove that, by all means, be my guest...

Staffy
07-06-2005, 10:26 AM
:w:
Dear brothers and sisters in Islam,
Their are many things that we will not know simply because we do not need to know.......It is of no benifet for us to know certain things like what is on the other side of the galaxy......maybe one day in the future man will need to know such things for their worldly education but until then we should not stress....
I doubt any brothers with great minds would spend their skills on space exploration when they could be helping the ummar down here on earth (where they are sposed to be) may i quote a verse from the Al-Quran that i was looking at today which may bring you back down to earth for just a tick;).....
1426 years ago they did not have much knowlage of conception let alone the minute formation that happens within the womb........
Translation of part of 22:5
O'Mankind! if ye have doubt about the resurection,(consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leach-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that we may manifest (our power) to you; we cause whom we will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do we bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much)........
Alhamduilah irabil alamien... :brother:
anyway knowlage is a very powerfull gift and it was once said by a great muslim leader that knowlage gained is the greatest prize.......but we must not mix knowlage with dumfoundness for we all reach a certain point in our quest for knowlage that is beyond us.......It takes a greater man to walk away at that point than one who is consumed by it.........For Allah is all knowing and all wise he has showen that in his infinate mercy and wisdom to us many a time (like in 22:5) we can never expect to match him only shaytan would like us to think we can.......So may we all learn from life my brothers and sisters......Exactly what we are ment to learn so as we can live strong mindedly without being consumed by the evils of glutanty................Staffy
:sl:

root
07-06-2005, 10:54 AM
Their are many things that we will not know simply because we do not need to know.......It is of no benifet for us to know certain things like what is on the other side of the galaxy

Empty space and more Galaxies is the answer to your question. My question would be if Islam encourages it's followers to gain knowledge. Who decides wether one should seek it or not if you are implying that Islam should not seek knowledge in certain areas?



Hi Steve,

OK, I will say "Prove" your above "Bolded Position" and I will accept a truth in the face of a scientific herecy......... I know I can show proof of the exact opposite of what you are expecting me to beleive. Your trying to pass "Guff" as scientifically credible when it is not. I can prove that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides, "This is impossible under your scientific "Guess-work"

Regards

Root

Steve - Well, if you can prove that, by all means, be my guest...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html

Staffy
07-06-2005, 11:23 AM
I had trouble understanding your post could you restructure please? and by the way i didnt ask what was on the other side of the galaxy so why did you say the ansser to my question was stars etc??...... :w: :sl: to all my Brothers and sisters

root
07-06-2005, 11:51 AM
I had trouble understanding your post could you restructure please?

Nah, don't be offended it's just going off-topic. This thread is titled Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments? I would be happy to debate with you in respect to the subject matter.

What gets me about a cretionist view is that the main supporting evidence for creation is the fact that we exist. Scripture does not create a supporting arguement either, some creationists even state that they accept micro-evolution but dismiss macro which I fail to understand.

Another issue is scientific evidence with a supporting view of creationism, can someone please post any scientific evidence supporting creationism..............

I know the comet discussion was long, and the result even amongst creationists was that it is improbable however accepting it is possible. Which is the best way of saying "I agree, but I can't". - For their own reasons.

"Any truth is better than indefinite doubt."

Regards

Root

Abdul Fattah
07-06-2005, 02:40 PM
Some creationists even state that they accept micro-evolution but dismiss macro which I fail to understand.

Basicly it's just the common desent we question. It's not because some evolved from the same that all evolved from the same.


Another issue is scientific evidence with a supporting view of creationism, can someone please post any scientific evidence supporting creationism...

What kind of evidence are you looking for? How exactly would you expect us to prove this? Can you "proove" the first life form spontaniously arose from lifeless matter? Do you have solid evidence for it? No all you have is a theory that sounds unlikely, even if the meteor part was wright, then we have the base material, but that doesn't mean life will just spontainiously arise. That's like claiming that if you shake a lego-box around long enough, eventualy the blocks will form the house that is pictured on the outside of the box.


I know the comet discussion was long, and the result even amongst creationists was that it is improbable however accepting it is possible. Which is the best way of saying "I agree, but I can't". - For their own reasons.

It's possible that a mteor deliverde it yes, but that doesn't make abiogenesis possible, that's just one part of the problem. The main thing here is that it's unprobable just like other parts of the theory. So it's not a question of "I agree, but I can't" It' s more like "sure it's possible, but it sounds more like a fairy-tale to me, in fact the alternative, creationism, just sounds so much more down to earth and probable!"

About the link you provided, "proving that an impact of a little bigger than pea size can result in peptides" as you stated it. Just because a soda-can sized bullet was fired into a metal target; doesn't mean a soda-sized meteor has the same effect. You have to consider: different materials, different enviroment, different speed, etc..
They chose the impact of a soda-sized-bullet, and the pressure and heat that came with it, to represent a certain effect caused by certain meteors it's however wrong to assume the expirement represents meteor of the same size as the bullet. Secondly that articels shows yet another thing that narrows down the list of comets that fit the bill, namely the angle at wich the meteors collide. So as I said before, the more you look into it, the more fishy it smells.

root
07-06-2005, 03:43 PM
Low angle impact simulated

The ballistic test was designed to simulate the type of impact that would have been frequent in Earth's early history, some 4 billion years ago, when rocky, icy debris in our solar system accreted to form the planets in what must have been spectacular collisions. Much of the debris would have resembled comets -- dirty snowballs thought to be mostly slushy water surrounding a rocky core -- slamming into Earth at velocities greater than 16 miles per second (25 kilometers per second).

When the improbable becomes probable...........

Abdul Fattah
07-07-2005, 12:21 AM
When the improbebal is proven possible, it remains still, improbabel.
Be it as it may, that doesn't change the fact that bringing the angle into the equasion make's the probability even lower since it brings another set of requirements. And that's what it's all about, I never claimed impossible, I just said unproven and unlikely. The possibility has nothing to do with it.

root
07-07-2005, 12:28 PM
When the improbebal is proven possible, it remains still, improbabel.
Be it as it may, that doesn't change the fact that bringing the angle into the equasion make's the probability even lower since it brings another set of requirements.

Steve, you keep referring to the "Impact Angle". When in reality only 11% of comet/meteorite impacts are direct impacts on land. The full statistics are:

2% - Skim through atmosphere and deflect back into space.
17% - Airburst over solid land.
41% - Airburst over oceans.
28% - Impact into the ocean.
11% - Impact onto land

Of course, this type of knowledge and understanding is the cutting edge of our understanding on how life came to be on the Earth and it is in it's infancy but whilst you see it as improbable we must consider some issues:

Structure of Comets.

You have agreed with me that comets are in essence giant dirty snowballs that have a very large cronium that is organic matter & water deeply frozen. The science question is simply to answer can & how does organic matter from a comet arrive on Earth. You also agree that organic matter can survive a low angle impact, which as the figures above show only occures out of a given percentage within 11%. Probability favours "Air Bursts" since 58% will not actually impact directly but spread their cargo over a wide area. Nobody really knows the strength of the crust within a comet & the recent "Deep Impact" probe has already proved that the crust is solid & hard, but not as hard as was expected. The deep impact probe may actually fail in it's mission because it was by the study of the impact crator that was made give science the understanding of the consistency of the comet. Because far more of the cronium has been released than expected we have learned that the crust is weaker than expected (this alone only increases the probability of organic matter surviving an airburst or low angle impact). The cronium (where the frozen Ice and matter resides) is bigger and closer to the surface of the comet. Unfortunately, this knowledge has been gained at expense, since the cronium matter is so much that it is blocking the view of the crator itself. Hopefully this will clear, I am desperately scouring the net for any latest knowledge.


"Curonium matter"

Their is of course much understood knowledge of the matter contained within a comet. But in reality, and to dispell counter debates, the whole matter needs to be resolved. For example:

1. Does life actually exist within comets?
2. Do Peptides exists within comets?
3. What is the organic matter like in the deep cold vast of space deeply frozen?

I wish I knew, but in 191 days 21 Hours & 30 minutes we will have the cronium material under our earthly microscopes with no foriegn body contamination......... "I wonder what wonders we will find"

Stardust Mission

Launched - Feb 7th 1999
Main comet matter collection - Jan 5th 2004
Expected return to earth - Jan 15th 2006

So after a six year mission, we finally get to analyze this matter.......

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/top.html

Root

Bittersteel
07-07-2005, 07:04 PM
hey guys what do you think of my theory?Suppose Allah created comets containing organic matter and they collided with Earth later and that's how organic matter spread out and life evolved?Is this a possibility according to Islam?

I am not trying to 'integrate ' Islam into the scientific theory.

root
07-07-2005, 07:09 PM
hey guys what do you think of my theory?Suppose Allah created comets containing organic matter and they collided with Earth later and that's how organic matter spread out and life evolved?Is this a possibility according to Islam?

I don't see why not since islam speaks of the creation being a "Stepping Stone". Saves me banging my head against a brick wall......... Ok, you may need to re-think the origins od Adam ever so slightly. But in essence, I really cannot see why Islam could not support this theory......... Of course this would mean intelligent life throughout the Universe. Not sure Islam subscribes to that.

Bittersteel
07-07-2005, 07:23 PM
oh aliens I am not sure.

Qouting from the link.Not sure about its reliability.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7906/

"Among His (God's) signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth,and the living creatures that He has scattered through them :and He has power to gather them together when He wills. 42:29" (8)


Does this prophecy of spaceflight?

In Sura 55:33-34,we are addressed,"O ye assembly of Jinn and men!If it be you can pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth,pass ye!Not without authority will ye be able to pass!Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"

root
07-07-2005, 07:44 PM
No offence intended:


Does this prophecy of spaceflight?

In Sura 55:33-34,we are addressed,"O ye assembly of Jinn and men!If it be you can pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth,pass ye!Not without authority will ye be able to pass!Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"

But that can cover a multitude of scenarios. If I was to go through any religous book I could imply just about anything I wanted.....

Preacher
07-08-2005, 02:11 AM
No offence intended:



But that can cover a multitude of scenarios. If I was to go through any religous book I could imply just about anything I wanted.....
There is a considerable difference between "implying" and "deducing." Per your own admission you are not capable of deducing. This is because you have no knowledge, especially Prophetic knowledge. The following link explains the subject matter, further in great detail after deducing the correct meaning and interpretation. Needless to mantion that you will deny that as well. But never foget your opinion or denial means nothing to two billion Muslims. Neither these subjects and Islamic beliefs requires your approval?

Scientific realities in the Qur’aan. (http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/science.htm)

Regards
Preacher

root
07-08-2005, 07:55 AM
But never foget your opinion or denial means nothing to two billion Muslims. Neither these subjects and Islamic beliefs requires your approval?

I agree with what you say preacher & we must consider that two billion is still the minority train of thought.

Rgds

Root

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-08-2005, 06:51 PM
:sl:

But that can cover a multitude of scenarios.
I agree it's an ambiguous statement. I would want someone to become a Muslim because of the message of Islam, not simply because of a scientific miracle, although there are many miracles.

:w:

YamahaR1
07-08-2005, 07:01 PM
A lighthearted but thought provoking question:

If evolution is correct and man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? :)

aamirsaab
07-08-2005, 07:24 PM
Thats What I Want To Know! :d

minaz
07-08-2005, 07:53 PM
Sympatric and allopatric speciation

Bittersteel
07-09-2005, 03:14 AM
Originally Posted by Root

Their is of course much understood knowledge of the matter contained within a comet. But in reality, and to dispell counter debates, the whole matter needs to be resolved. For example:

1. Does life actually exist within comets?
2. Do Peptides exists within comets?
3. What is the organic matter like in the deep cold vast of space deeply frozen?

I wish I knew, but in 191 days 21 Hours & 30 minutes we will have the cronium material under our earthly microscopes with no foriegn body contamination......... "I wonder what wonders we will find"

Stardust Mission

Launched - Feb 7th 1999
Main comet matter collection - Jan 5th 2004
Expected return to earth - Jan 15th 2006

So after a six year mission, we finally get to analyze this matter.......

To my Muslim brothers and sisters,what if they do find organic matter in comets?

and there is another matter troubling my mind.

If Allah created us from clay why did He say everything evolved from water?I heard some people talk about it so I am asking this.

root
07-09-2005, 11:49 AM
Yamaha - A lighthearted but thought provoking question:

If evolution is correct and man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Hi Yamaha,

Firstly, welcome to the LI forums since I note you are relatively new to this site. I realise you stated the above was lighthearted. So a lighthearted response would be a counter question. "If an ass evolved from a donkey (or visa versa) why do we still have donkeys!

Your question says more about your lack of evolutionary knowledge than evolution itself. Man never evolved from apes, however man & apes "share" a common ancestory. Evolution is not a ladder but more of a branching bush. Man shared the planet with other Man species (Homonids) and would have co-located.

YamahaR1
07-11-2005, 03:59 PM
Firstly, welcome to the LI forums since I note you are relatively new to this site. I realise you stated the above was lighthearted. So a lighthearted response would be a counter question. "If an ass evolved from a donkey (or visa versa) why do we still have donkeys!

Good one. :)

Bittersteel
07-13-2005, 05:16 PM
in 185 days later stardust mission is completed ,and they find that life in comets!

Big deal could happen .

so how do we know that comet hit Earth millions of years ago?Even if that comet contains life is there any evidence to show that the same type of comet containing life hit Earth?


And guys have you uh made a "conclusion" of you first argument?

root
07-13-2005, 08:15 PM
Big deal could happen .

OK, cool.


so how do we know that comet hit Earth millions of years ago?Even if that comet contains life is there any evidence to show that the same type of comet containing life hit Earth?

Well, a comet is a comet & a steak pie is a steak pie. Comet impacts are of infinate frequency, Look to any planet or satellite to see how frequently they impact.

Bittersteel
07-13-2005, 08:26 PM
well there aren't frequent impacts on Earth ........though there are the meteorites.They have found organic matter etc on the meteorites too,right?

Muezzin
07-14-2005, 12:20 PM
well there aren't frequent impacts on Earth ........though there are the meteorites.They have found organic matter etc on the meteorites too,right?
Maybe that's because they keep landing in compost heaps :)

root
07-14-2005, 12:28 PM
http://mail.lionrampant.co.uk/users/root@lionrampant.co.uk/Pictures/moon_ng020203e.gif

As I said, you only have to look at the moon to see the frequency of impacts. & in answer to your question meteorites are different from comets. Icidently, we all witnessed Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smacking into Saturn. We gain live images of comets within our own atmosphere, and all planetary & satellite objects are all scared with impacts no matter how small or large they may be.

Muezzin
07-14-2005, 12:35 PM
They're sort of like acne scars really.

minaz
07-15-2005, 01:31 PM
lol don't me remind us all of your puberty days! :p

root
07-15-2005, 11:03 PM
lol don't me remind us all of your puberty days!

You mean like "Crator Face"

Muezzin
07-16-2005, 09:37 AM
You mean like "Crator Face"
I don't have a Crater Face! :p I just eat well and used spot cream, since picking at 'em gives ya scars. Like one of our old English teachers. *shudders*

Muhammad
07-17-2005, 09:36 AM
Greetings,

I think it is time to get back on topic and I hope you don't mind if I go back a bit. I am very sorry for the late responses...


"Smoke" Could mean absolutely anything; I guess it's all to do with how easy you fit a square peg into a round hole.....

1. Morning Mist
2. Comet\meteorite trails
3. Clouds
4. Even the raw material of the universe "Helium & Hydrogen" could be construed as "Smoke".


I agree that one can go too far when interpreting religious texts, but is this really that far-fetched? The verse in question is:


“Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." [41:11]


To suggest that the smoke here could be referring to clouds or morning mist seems like a very feeble argument since how could such things exist when we are discussing the formation of the heavens and the earth i.e. before day and night even existed?


I am not an expert on the verse and I do not know its exact meaning but if you look at it from a logical point of view, it doesn’t seem that hard to acknowledge its concept. Sometimes people bend over backwards to disprove a verse, rather than the other way round. The fact remains that God chose such a word to describe such an event, out of a multitude of other possibilities, and this being in conjunction with modern day ideas is quite amazing – nobody is saying what smoke actually means but the fact it was used should at least invoke a sense of respect and interest.


My last point on this is the fact that the Qur’an, as you know, was revealed in the Arabic language. Hence to understand the verse in English might somewhat not quite be the same as it would be to understand it in Arabic – in fact many verses are like this. Sometimes an Arabic word can have 10 or so different meanings in English, and sometimes no sufficient translation can be made. Therefore to quote the verse in English is not a very accurate way to go about concluding whatever we want since to seriously consider it, it would need to be understood in its Arabic context along with scholarly opinions rather than our own. That is not to say that the gist of the meaning is always wrong, but rather should be researched properly and not over-speculated upon.



What gets me about a cretionist view is that the main supporting evidence for creation is the fact that we exist. Scripture does not create a supporting arguement either



The fact that we exist does indeed provide a good argument, but your arguments are based on disproving logic. Scripture does provide good argument actually, and I fail to comprehend how one can make such a judgement when he has not even read a scripture! I have explained before and I shall say again that the Qur’an tells us many many, many times to ponder and reflect, and that those with any sense and understanding will know that to God is Whom we belong; it is He Who deserves our thanks; as it is He Who is the Creator. Many times the Qur’an describes our creation, our origin, our surroundings, and thus encourages us to realise from our very existence that we were created.



Another issue is scientific evidence with a supporting view of creationism, can someone please post any scientific evidence supporting creationism..............


The only thing that requires scientific facts is materialism since it is they who suggest everything came into existence by itself; it is they who use science to support all their arguments – or so they claim – and as Muslims we believe in Allaah, which is sufficient evidence of the reasoning behind every last thing we can conceive about ourselves and the universe. Nevertheless, Islam has never shunned science since it is Allaah who created science, and that is why the two can never contradict. You might think it is quite implausible, but you have yet to disprove the existence of God. Might I also add that you don’t even have all the answers, and thus your theory of life is still incomplete – until it is, which I doubt it will be, you can search for this scientific evidence since we are in no need of any.



I don't see why not since islam speaks of the creation being a "Stepping Stone". Saves me banging my head against a brick wall......... Ok, you may need to re-think the origins od Adam ever so slightly. But in essence, I really cannot see why Islam could not support this theory......... Of course this would mean intelligent life throughout the Universe. Not sure Islam subscribes to that.


You still have not explained why you think of Islam like this. Please elaborate on what you mean by a stepping stone and what has led you to believe this. If you are suggesting that Adam came into existence as a result of comet collisions then as far as I can tell that does not comply with Islam because God Fashioned Adam Himself.



this is rubbish Steve, the fact the moon has no atmosphere merely allows us to see the number of times all space bodies are impacted. The Earth has been hit every bit as much as the moon.


I don’t understand how the moon and the earth are so similar. The moon is much smaller and has no atmosphere and thus is bound to display more comet collisions. You have been discussing how the atmosphere burns up comets, so to say that the absence of an atmosphere has no effect on the moon seems contradictory.



Their is not "Tonnes", their are over 2 billion of them within our solar system alone. Meteor impact with earth is the biggest threat that the Earth faces today. Only a few years ago creationists were telling us meteorites were in stable orbits as per the "perfect creation". Schumacker leevy 9 impacting on Saturn showed how wrong they are. Even the comet on the deep impact probes target was covered in impact craters........ Everywhere in the solar system we find evidence of meteor impacts, solar system bodies are covered with impacts and nothing is immune......... Meteorites/comets are constantly impacting & being knocked out of their orbit.


…and yet in the history of mankind (after the dinosaurs, if they existed) there has not been any such collision jeopardising all life on earth. Coincidence? Or controlled by God?


Regards.

Preacher
07-17-2005, 10:26 AM
Greetings,

I think it is time to get back on topic and I hope you don't mind if I go back a bit. I am very sorry for the late responses...




“Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." [41:11]
:sl:

The Arabic words used in the Ayah 41:11 is "Dukhan دُخَانٌ" that is a noun. This word is also used in Ayah 44:10 and the name of the Surah 44 is based on this word.

We read in Sahih Bukhari (there are more Ahadith, but I have chosen the following) the following Ahadith that shows it is kind of smoke:

2-CHAPTER: The saying of Allah (the Exalted and Almighty)

Nor am I one of the pretenders (a person who takes upon himself jobs which he cannot do».

[4809] Masruq narrated: We came upon Abdullah bin Mas'ud and he said: «O people! If somebody knows something, he can say it, but if he does not know it, he should say: Allah knows better, for it is a sign of having knowledge to say about something which one does not know. Allah knows better. Allah (the Exalted and Almighty) said to His Prophet (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him): -

Say (O Muhammad!) No wage do I ask of You for this (Qur'an), nor am I one of the pretenders (a person who pretends things which do not exist).

Now I will tell you about Ad-Dukhan (the smoke). Allah's Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) invited Quraish to embrace Islam, but they delayed their response. So he said: «O Allah! Help me against them by sending on them seven years of famine similar to the seven years of famine of Joseph». So the famine year overtook them and everything was destroyed till they ate dead animals and skins. People started imagining to see smoke between them and the sky because of severe hunger. Allah (the Exalted and Almighty) said: «Then watch you for the Day the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible, covering the people. This is painful torment». (44:10-11)

(So they invoked Allah): «Our Lord! Remove the punishment from us really we are believers». How can there be for them an (effectual) reminder when an Apostle, explaining things clearly, has already come to them? Then they had turned away from his and said: One taught (by a human being) a madman?

We shall indeed remove punishment for a while, but truly, you will revert (to disbelief)».

Will the punishment be removed on the Day of Resurrection?» Abdullah added: «The punishment was removed from them for a while but they reverted to disbelief, so Allah destroyed them on the Day of Badr. Allah said: -

The day we shall seize you with a mighty grasp. We will indeed (then) exact retribution».

Dictionary meaning of the word دخان is as follows:

Smoke; Gas; Vaporous matter with suspended particles; Fume resembling smoke; Soemthing fleeting or beclouding; Colored smoke; Suppressed state; Dust; Famine in which people feel a sort of smoke hanging before their eyes or because of no rain for a long time the atmosphere becomes dusty; Drought.

*** So brother Muhammad, your assertion of "mist" is not too far off, since it is stated in Sahih Bukhari as "kind of smoke."

:w:
Preacher

Muhammad
07-17-2005, 10:51 AM
:sl: Br. Preacher

Jazakallahu Khayr for giving me a very important reminder and adding your insight into this matter, it is very much appreciated, may Allaah reward you.

:w:

root
07-19-2005, 12:02 PM
Remember the title of the thread.

Creation Argument vs evolution arguments?

With these two comes two possible outcomes.

a. Man was created by God.
b. Man came into existence through evolution.

You beleive that man was created, your evidence for this is the fact that you are here & the Quran tells you this. Unscientific as that is, you state.


The fact that we exist does indeed provide a good argument, but your arguments are based on disproving logic.

Can I ask why you reach this conclusion?


Might I also add that you don’t even have all the answers, and thus your theory of life is still incomplete – until it is, which I doubt it will be, you can search for this scientific evidence since we are in no need of any.

I put it to you that you do not use scientific evidence, not because you feel you don't need to but simply because of the lack of it to support creation.


I don’t understand how the moon and the earth are so similar. The moon is much smaller and has no atmosphere and thus is bound to display more comet collisions. You have been discussing how the atmosphere burns up comets, so to say that the absence of an atmosphere has no effect on the moon seems contradictory.

Again, a contradiction between science and faith. The moon was part of the earth during the formation of the solar system. The fact that the moon has no atmosphere and that the moon is stagnated means that "ALL" comet\meteorite impacts remain visible, the number of impacts that the moon has suffered is no different to that of our own earth. Instead of a greater number of "air-bursts" that the earth will have, "most" scars, resulting from impacts on earth "heal". On the moon they do not. Their is no contradiction other than you would probably say that the moon was created by itself and not as a result of early solar system formation. Another example where the science does not support your case. But we know science does not support your case anyway.


…and yet in the history of mankind (after the dinosaurs, if they existed) there has not been any such collision jeopardising all life on earth. Coincidence? Or controlled by God?

OK, cool. Now you are considering "if" dinasaurs ever existed in the first place. And your even questioning the low probability of a cataclysmic event, which is by an impact from meteorite and not a comet. Remember, I use the comet theory to show how it is quite possible for organic matter to arrive on this planet, the most recent being june 30th 1908, that is less than 100 years ago.

Since a comet is very ice-rich, friction
with the Earth’s atmosphere will cause it to heat up. The water trapped
inside the comet will boil and produce steam that will probably blow the
comet apart above the Earth’s surface (depending on the comet’s size and
speed). This is what is thought to have happened during the Tunguska event
over Siberia on June 30, 1908. The explosion causes all the trees in the
area to be uprooted and blown over and even knocked people and animals to
the ground.

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-19-2005, 07:28 PM
a. Man was created by God.
b. Man came into existence through evolution.
Peace Root,
I don't think you've accurately described the two possibilites. In fact, it is possible for both of those statements to be true at the same time.

I believe the two possibilites are created in the present form, vs. evolution+abiogenesis. OR creation by God vs. Formation by coincidence.

Muhammad
07-19-2005, 11:09 PM
Greetings,



You beleive that man was created, your evidence for this is the fact that you are here & the Quran tells you this. Unscientific as that is, you state. Yes that is part of what I am saying: don't forget that there is rational thinking behind the fact that we are here. I mean if we think about it, either we came into existence by ourself, or we were created by someone else. And from our experience of life, nothing comes into existence on its own. No order comes about from chaotic, random events.

Science can be defined as:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

So being observant of the world around us is at least being scientific! God created us and did not leave us to reach our own conclusions, because he has explained it all for us (Praise be to Him). He sent Messengers to every nation to guide them and the guidance to ours is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur'an. Hence the Qur'an is not the only thing that tells us of God's existence. There were also many other books revealed to other Prophets, but of course the only one which we can use today is the Qur'an due to its promised preservation.

So it is not like this is some new idea that formed overnight, because mankind has known since its beginning.


Can I ask why you reach this conclusion? Now your position on the matter is that somehow, a tiny bit of dense mass exploded and due to its random expansion, the world as we know it today came about through evolution. You use time and infinitely small probabilities as factors to explain why complex processes took place, which would otherwise be impossible.

Leaving aside the scientific flaws, let us think about the purpose of our existence. From your view, it has taken us billions of years to first understand how we got here, and quite unfortunate is the fact that we just keep dying generation after generation and becoming just as non-existant as before - there seems to be no purpose except to enjoy and die! There have been nations in the past living for much longer than we do nowadays, and one would expect evolutionary changes to maintain if not increase such life expectancies, but in fact they have dropped. The case of height can be also be used as an example. Death seems to be a design of life, that nobody can ever escape, which is quite unfortunate for those wishing to live a life of enjoyment. My ultimate point is, that such a pointless existence seems quite tragic and to reach such a conclusion from mere conjectured theories plainly defies logical reasoning.

You have not seen what has happened in the history of mankind, yet it is quite acceptable to believe in Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Vikings, Saxons, etc. due to our history books... so why is so hard to believe in the Prophets sent to nations of the past, as guidance from God and teaching them our true purpose in life?

And speaking of the unseen, you say that it is wrong to believe in something just because you have not seen it, yet you so readily believe in parallel universes and gliding membranes or what not, neither of which are likely to ever be proven. It takes faith to believe in science, just as it takes faith to believe in religious teachings.

Everything points to God, and just looking at the Qur'an for one: we can see that it has never been proven to be a work of man, never has anyone found a fault, look at its remarkable preservation throughout time, the prophecies that have come true, and any doubts or questions about it have always been answered and cleared. How then can we deny such a scripture whereas on the other hand accept weak possibilites thought out by men? If we wish to be reasonable, we should use our God-given intellect wisely.


I put it to you that you do not use scientific evidence, not because you feel you don't need to but simply because of the lack of it to support creation.
If religion suggested scientific processes by which the universe came to be, then it would be fine to ask for supporting scientific evidence to back up the statements. The fact of the matter is, the very word "creation" means:
The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

and thus it is foolish to ask for scientific evidence for such a thing! It is not plausible to ask how God did something - for example, Jesus came into existence by God's saying the Word: "Be!" and he was! What scientific evidence do you think is obtainable from that?! And yet all that God has told us about science - all of that is evidence for us to use, since it is all supportive of modern knowledge on the subject, eg. Muslims might not have known the details of how the earth came to be, but they certainly knew details of the formation of the foetus before such a thing was scientifically observable (i.e. 1400 yrs ago)! God reveals what He wills out of His wisdom, and it is for us to accept rather than question.


Again, a contradiction between science and faith. The moon was part of the earth during the formation of the solar system. The fact that the moon has no atmosphere and that the moon is stagnated means that "ALL" comet\meteorite impacts remain visible, the number of impacts that the moon has suffered is no different to that of our own earth. Instead of a greater number of "air-bursts" that the earth will have, "most" scars, resulting from impacts on earth "heal". On the moon they do not. Their is no contradiction other than you would probably say that the moon was created by itself and not as a result of early solar system formation. Another example where the science does not support your case. But we know science does not support your case anyway. Yes the bombardment on the moon might be more visible, but do you deny that it is also more than on earth due to the smaller size of the moon and no protective atmosphere? I still see a contradiction in your statement so science seems to be against you rather than me. When you say "case", I hope you are not referring to "Creationist views" as you call them.


OK, cool. Now you are considering "if" dinasaurs ever existed in the first place. And your even questioning the low probability of a cataclysmic event, which is by an impact from meteorite and not a comet. Remember, I use the comet theory to show how it is quite possible for organic matter to arrive on this planet, the most recent being june 30th 1908, that is less than 100 years ago.
Yet nothing as threatening to the whole of mankind as it was in the dinosaur theory has ever happened!

Regards (Sorry about the long post!)

root
07-20-2005, 11:26 AM
Yes that is part of what I am saying: don't forget that there is rational thinking behind the fact that we are here. I mean if we think about it, either we came into existence by ourself, or we were created by someone else. And from our experience of life, nothing comes into existence on its own. No order comes about from chaotic, random events.

But it is not rational to state "nothing comes into existence on it's own"

Random mutational change brings "something" into existence and it was not "created". I don't see the logic nor rational here.


Science can be defined as:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

This should be expanded upon a little with "Experimental Investigation". For something to have a basis in science one must be able to make a prediction based on observation then test for the predicted outcome. Again theoretical explanation requires a prediction and succesful proof that the prediction was correct via scientific testing. So being observant of the world is partly scientific but cannot be classed in itself as scientific.


Now your position on the matter is that somehow, a tiny bit of dense mass exploded and due to its random expansion, the world as we know it today came about through evolution. You use time and infinitely small probabilities as factors to explain why complex processes took place, which would otherwise be impossible.

My being born defied all the odds you care to throw at me. The fact we all came to be is a supporting case on infinate chance.


Leaving aside the scientific flaws, let us think about the purpose of our existence. From your view, it has taken us billions of years to first understand how we got here,

No you have assumed this and are wrong. It's 30 - 50,000 years ago. However, evolution was concieved & has survived only 130 (something) years.


and quite unfortunate is the fact that we just keep dying generation after generation and becoming just as non-existant as before - there seems to be no purpose except to enjoy and die!

I think the spreading of ones genes happens to be a major part of the life-cycle to. Adaptation to ones surroundings and variable genetic mixing relies upon the constant life & death system.


There have been nations in the past living for much longer than we do nowadays, and one would expect evolutionary changes to maintain if not increase such life expectancies

Your wrong again, life expectency is closely associated to ones surroundings and life expectency goes up and down all over the globe. here for example is the best & worst; (Country, Life Expectency)

Zambia 37.1
Mozambique 37.5
Malawi 36.6
Andorra 83.5
Japan 80.7

Mozambique has fallen from a poor 45.4 years to a worse 37.5 within just two years.


but in fact they have dropped.

No that is not a fact.


The case of height can be also be used as an example. Death seems to be a design of life, that nobody can ever escape, which is quite unfortunate for those wishing to live a life of enjoyment. My ultimate point is, that such a pointless existence seems quite tragic and to reach such a conclusion from mere conjectured theories plainly defies logical reasoning.

it's a shame that you see a "pointless" existence for life. And I don't think you can support your claim of conjectured theories plainly defying logical reasoning....... In the West life expectency keeps increasing. And it is science that will continue it's increase.


You have not seen what has happened in the history of mankind, yet it is quite acceptable to believe in Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Vikings, Saxons, etc. due to our history books...

No, I think it is wrong to state just "History Books". Archeological and other sciences also prove the above.


so why is so hard to believe in the Prophets sent to nations of the past, as guidance from God and teaching them our true purpose in life?

It's not a question of beleiving simply because it is claimed. I would feel a lot better about "Any" religion if the "observations around" us as you stated earlier even glimpsed at the possibilty of the truth. The fact of the matter is that it does not. We see no supporting science for many of the things you feel we should beleive. Creation of man being the first.


And speaking of the unseen, you say that it is wrong to believe in something just because you have not seen it, yet you so readily believe in parallel universes and gliding membranes or what not, neither of which are likely to ever be proven. It takes faith to believe in science, just as it takes faith to believe in religious teachings.

No. Again, your misunderstanding is quite visible. Parallel\multi\membrane universes are mere hypothisis, Science due to Einstienes E = Mc (Square) "Predicted" that the universe started with an explosion, the knid of explotion we cannot imagine. This prediction was correct for years later we discovered the remenent echoes of the big bang. Same thing that science predicted and has now proven the existence of "dark matter". It does not take faith one bit to understand science, after-all man does not beleive in science, science is a tool not a faith.


Everything points to God, and just looking at the Qur'an for one: we can see that it has never been proven to be a work of man, never has anyone found a fault, look at its remarkable preservation throughout time, the prophecies that have come true, and any doubts or questions about it have always been answered and cleared. How then can we deny such a scripture whereas on the other hand accept weak possibilites thought out by men? If we wish to be reasonable, we should use our God-given intellect wisely.

Can you please provide me with a single piece of scientific knowledge that you was able to predict and test an outcome then allow man to benefit from as "knowledge". I mean a testable prediction and not hindsight views. I would be impressed if that was part of the creation theory. For their are hundreds of scientific "knowledge" that extends man's life based on the facts of evolution.


Yes the bombardment on the moon might be more visible, but do you deny that it is also more than on earth due to the smaller size of the moon and no protective atmosphere? I still see a contradiction in your statement so science seems to be against you rather than me. When you say "case", I hope you are not referring to "Creationist views" as you call them.

No, it remains the same. Scientists today go out on "Salt lake city" just about daily to collect pieces of meteorites that have impacted over a 24 hour period, don't forget our earths mass increases by 100,000 tonnes of "space matter" every year...... "It has to fall somehere"!!!!!!


Yet nothing as threatening to the whole of mankind as it was in the dinosaur theory has ever happened!

yes you are right, but it is not a question of "if" but "When". And statitically we are over due quite a large impact.

Bittersteel
07-20-2005, 12:09 PM
I don't think you've accurately described the two possibilites. In fact, it is possible for both of those statements to be true at the same time.
I thought man's creation by God was a separate creation not through evolution unlike other creatures.Correct me if I am wrong which is most possible.

root
07-20-2005, 12:47 PM
Quote:
I don't think you've accurately described the two possibilites. In fact, it is possible for both of those statements to be true at the same time.


I thought man's creation by God was a separate creation not through evolution unlike other creatures.Correct me if I am wrong which is most possible.

I am not sure. I think Ansar means that he is open to the possibility that man did evolve though the creation of life was God's work. (I think, he means this)

I think you are getting getting confused between the evolution of micr-life. Single celled organisms v multi-celled organisms........ Of which man is one of the latter.

Muhammad
07-20-2005, 04:47 PM
Greetings root,


But it is not rational to state "nothing comes into existence on it's own"

Random mutational change brings "something" into existence and it was not "created". I don't see the logic nor rational here.

Random mutational change happens to something that already exists, and thus cannot be used to explain how matter arises from no matter. The only possible event that could do this is creation by God.


This should be expanded upon a little with "Experimental Investigation". For something to have a basis in science one must be able to make a prediction based on observation then test for the predicted outcome. Again theoretical explanation requires a prediction and succesful proof that the prediction was correct via scientific testing. So being observant of the world is partly scientific but cannot be classed in itself as scientific.

I thought you might say that… but what I was trying to say is that Islam is not based upon scientific findings. God has encouraged observation and reflection to realise His great Power, but as for experimental investigation: well science hasn’t always been as advanced as it is now, so God taught us the science before mankind was in a position to prove it. I am not saying God taught us every last thing about the subject, but He taught us what He knew was best for us to know. As time passed, man became able to prove such science for himself, thus it is more like foresight rather than “hindsight” as you have stated –


Can you please provide me with a single piece of scientific knowledge that you was able to predict and test an outcome then allow man to benefit from as "knowledge". I mean a testable prediction and not hindsight views. I would be impressed if that was part of the creation theory. For their are hundreds of scientific "knowledge" that extends man's life based on the facts of evolution.

as for specific examples: you can read about cloud formation, thunderstorms, details about insects, significance of mountains, movement of celestial bodies, deep seas and internal waves, human embryonic development, origin of the universe etc. etc. Nobody was capable of determining scientific facts about these topics such as those mentioned in the Qur’an. And yet you think it “unscientific” to believe in the Qur’an!


My being born defied all the odds you care to throw at me. The fact we all came to be is a supporting case on infinate chance.

So you admit that the bottom line to your theory is that chance and probability are the sole determinants of our ordered world; that randomness brought about precise scientific laws governing the universe… well that is what I call defying logic.


I think the spreading of ones genes happens to be a major part of the life-cycle to. Adaptation to ones surroundings and variable genetic mixing relies upon the constant life & death system.

To what end? What is the purpose of adapting to the environment, living for a bit longer but ultimately dying?


Your wrong again, life expectency is closely associated to ones surroundings and life expectency goes up and down all over the globe. here for example is the best & worst; I wasn’t talking about small scale changes occurring in modern day times, but rather nations that existed way back in history. But of course you will ask for proof other than ‘scriptures’ so I guess its not a good point to bring to the argument.


No that is not a fact.

In comparison to past nations: it is a fact!





No, I think it is wrong to state just "History Books". Archeological and other sciences also prove the above.

It's not a question of beleiving simply because it is claimed. I would feel a lot better about "Any" religion if the "observations around" us as you stated earlier even glimpsed at the possibilty of the truth. The fact of the matter is that it does not. We see no supporting science for many of the things you feel we should beleive. Creation of man being the first.

And archaeological findings confirming religion do exist! Take the pharaoh of Egypt as an example, whose preservation since his death confirms his story. And geographical locations that contain evidence of perished nations such as the dead sea - I believe its called. And those houses carved into the mountains (can’t remember where they are) – evidence of inhabitants as mention in scriptures. Scriptures themselves are such evidence as they date back very long periods of time - some might be tampered with but nevertheless they exist.



Does all this not glimpse at the possibility of truth?




No. Again, your misunderstanding is quite visible. Parallel\multi\membrane universes are mere hypothisis, Science due to Einstienes E = Mc (Square) "Predicted" that the universe started with an explosion, the knid of explotion we cannot imagine. This prediction was correct for years later we discovered the remenent echoes of the big bang. Same thing that science predicted and has now proven the existence of "dark matter". It does not take faith one bit to understand science, after-all man does not beleive in science, science is a tool not a faith.

It takes faith to believe predictions without direct experimental evidence. If science is but a tool, why do you only rely on scientific evidence? We can use science to obtain evidence, but why should that mean all evidence must be scientific?


No, it remains the same. Scientists today go out on "Salt lake city" just about daily to collect pieces of meteorites that have impacted over a 24 hour period, don't forget our earths mass increases by 100,000 tonnes of "space matter" every year...... "It has to fall somehere"!!!!!!

Well if the earth is so heavily bombarded then why don’t these scientists find space matter on their doorstep?! I doubt it would be as difficult on the moon…


yes you are right, but it is not a question of "if" but "When". And statitically we are over due quite a large impact.

Perhaps that’s a prediction that went wrong?


it's a shame that you see a "pointless" existence for life.

I am not the one seeing the pointless existence of life... but merely trying to think using your logic. Perhaps you would like to share with us your perspective of the purpose of life?
Regards.

root
07-20-2005, 06:00 PM
Hi Muhammed,


Random mutational change happens to something that already exists, and thus cannot be used to explain how matter arises from no matter. The only possible event that could do this is creation by God.

This is totally irrelevent, firstly I am not stating that random mutational change is responsible for the beginning of life. I am saying that it in itself brings about new species who have a connection to another species but is different. It's the theory of ancestoral evolution. We don't use evolution to explain how matter arise from matter for it does not. Matter is produced from raw energy and visa versa.


I thought you might say that… but what I was trying to say is that Islam is not based upon scientific findings. God has encouraged observation and reflection to realise His great Power, but as for experimental investigation: well science hasn’t always been as advanced as it is now, so God taught us the science before mankind was in a position to prove it. I am not saying God taught us every last thing about the subject, but He taught us what He knew was best for us to know. As time passed, man became able to prove such science for himself, thus it is more like foresight rather than “hindsight” as you have stated –

OK, then give me foresight where the Quran or any other religous text has given mankind a scientific leap forward and lead to a benefit for mankind!


So you admit that the bottom line to your theory is that chance and probability are the sole determinants of our ordered world; that randomness brought about precise scientific laws governing the universe… well that is what I call defying logic.

No, laws exist with anything. Even chaos, perhaps you should look at fundamental laws of chaos a little closer.


To what end? What is the purpose of adapting to the environment, living for a bit longer but ultimately dying

Survival, and the life & death cycle is the most efficient way for evolution to work for only the survival of the fittest\luckiest will continue to spread a genetic link.


I wasn’t talking about small scale changes occurring in modern day times, but rather nations that existed way back in history. But of course you will ask for proof other than ‘scriptures’ so I guess its not a good point to bring to the argument.

Your talking life expectency here. This has increased over the last 30,000 years on average I fail to see your point.


And archaeological findings confirming religion do exist! Take the pharaoh of Egypt as an example, whose preservation since his death confirms his story. And geographical locations that contain evidence of perished nations such as the dead sea - I believe its called. And those houses carved into the mountains (can’t remember where they are) – evidence of inhabitants as mention in scriptures. Scriptures themselves are such evidence as they date back very long periods of time - some might be tampered with but nevertheless they exist.

yes they do, I agree with you. A lot of what Jesus discusses is true, and evidence is their. Since it was written during that time one would expect this to be apparent. However, when it comes to splitting of the moon, noah's great flood & the parting of the sea, Adam etc etc then you go onto very shaky ground.




Does all this not glimpse at the possibility of truth?

You do get glimpses of the truth as I stated above, however the fine line between truth and fiction becomes very murky would you not agree!


It takes faith to believe predictions without direct experimental evidence. If science is but a tool, why do you only rely on scientific evidence? We can use science to obtain evidence, but why should that mean all evidence must be scientific?

Because it would take you beyond rationality and into leaps of faith if you do. Such as the "splitting of the moon"


Well if the earth is so heavily bombarded then why don’t these scientists find space matter on their doorstep?! I doubt it would be as difficult on the moon…

They do! even pieces of mars end up falling to earth!


I am not the one seeing the pointless existence of life... but merely trying to think using your logic. Perhaps you would like to share with us your perspective of the purpose of life?
Regards.

Sure, to pass on my genetic material and extelligence to my off-spring. In return, I get to live. so I value every single day that I do live.

Muhammad
07-21-2005, 06:15 PM
Hello Root,


This is totally irrelevent, firstly I am not stating that random mutational change is responsible for the beginning of life. I am saying that it in itself brings about new species who have a connection to another species but is different. It's the theory of ancestoral evolution. We don't use evolution to explain how matter arise from matter for it does not. Matter is produced from raw energy and visa versa.

Yes my point exactly! Random mutational change may bring a species into existence from an existing species, but the first species to exist cannot have arisen from such a process! I was talking about existence from nothing as in the creation of the universe.


OK, then give me foresight where the Quran or any other religous text has given mankind a scientific leap forward and lead to a benefit for mankind!

I did mention:


cloud formation, thunderstorms, details about insects, significance of mountains, movement of celestial bodies, deep seas and internal waves, human embryonic development, origin of the universe etc. etc.

I think there may have been some misunderstanding about this so I will attempt to clarify: The Qur’an indeed has many benefits and its purpose can be identified from certain verses such as:

[2.2] This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).

[3.3] He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.

[17.82] And We reveal of the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust.

[10.57] O men! there has come to you indeed an admonition from your Lord and a healing for what is in the breasts and a guidance and a mercy for the believers.

We see the purpose of guidance being mentioned many times, and spiritual healing is mentioned as a benefit, these, I believe, are perhaps among the most important aspects to consider. However, the Qur’an addresses many perspectives and people of all kinds, and since people of scientific minds look to the Qur’an to find such issues discussed, they will find them, but this does not mean it is going to explain every fact of science, or else it would lose its prime message. I cannot explain everything that God has chosen to do, because He is the All-Knowing, All-Wise, and as humans, we do not have such capabilities.

Therefore, what I am saying is that scientific miracles can be found in the Qur’an, such as those mentioned in my above quote, and they may or may not be designed to give mankind a scientific leap forward – I don’t know – but that is besides the point. The fact remains that, of what HAS been mentioned, how could an illiterate man suggest such things? How could he describe the world in such accurate words that cannot be rendered scientifically wrong? Looking at one verse for eg:

We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them… (Qur'an, 21:31)

So from merely looking at one (the scientific) angle, we see a sign that the Qur’an could not have been written by a man but is the Word of God.

Let us not lose sight of the argument:


You beleive that man was created, your evidence for this is the fact that you are here & the Quran tells you this. Unscientific as that is, you state.

This should be expanded upon a little with "Experimental Investigation". For something to have a basis in science one must be able to make a prediction based on observation then test for the predicted outcome. Again theoretical explanation requires a prediction and succesful proof that the prediction was correct via scientific testing. So being observant of the world is partly scientific but cannot be classed in itself as scientific.

So taking this into the context of our discussion, I am trying to show how it is acceptable to believe in the Qur’an, as one of the many signs that God has given mankind to prove His existence. A verse to help out here:

[2.164] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.

This verse mentions some signs other than the Qur’an itself.

I hope it makes sense now that not everything must have a scientific explanation/evidence. Look at dreams for example, or exorcism, do they have clear scientific explanations? Such things point to supernatural ideas. So it should not always be the case that we depend on archaeological findings or laboratory experiments to believe in things, but rather we need to have room to accept other means of proof.



No, laws exist with anything. Even chaos, perhaps you should look at fundamental laws of chaos a little closer.
So when did such laws come about…or did they always exist?


yes they do, I agree with you. A lot of what Jesus discusses is true, and evidence is their. Since it was written during that time one would expect this to be apparent. However, when it comes to splitting of the moon, noah's great flood & the parting of the sea, Adam etc etc then you go onto very shaky ground.
True, it is unlikely that there is scientific evidence to be found today of splitting of the sea, because that was a temporary event. As was the splitting of the moon. There are some signs that were for the people at that moment in history, and there are those which are meant for mankind till the end of time, among these is the Qur’an.

The perfectness of our religion (note: not all the people!) allows us to not only believe in the signs present today, which strengthen our belief, but also those that have passed before us. This is how we know the difference between fact and fiction. One incident in history comes to mind:

When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) went on the Night Journey to the heavens and met prophets etc. (I am not sure if you know about this)… but when the people heard of this they mocked at him and thought how ridiculous it seemed! But those who knew him for the truthful man he was, and the truth with which he came, they believed in him without a question of a doubt. The disbelieving folk asked him to describe the Mosque at which he ascended (in Jerusalem – hundreds of miles away if I am not mistaken) and God allowed him to describe its every detail – this being their evidence of the truth of his story.

So accurate preservation of religious texts throughout history are what allow us to continue to believe in such incidents, yes it takes faith, but when you look at the overall picture it is not the same as believing a fictional tale told by a stranger on the street. I hope from all the thinking described above, I have been able to communicate this concept to you, I know I have made it very long and I sincerely apologise for that.



Sure, to pass on my genetic material and extelligence to my off-spring. In return, I get to live. so I value every single day that I do live.

Thankyou for sharing that with us, I am happy to hear your perspective! Let’s think about it then and I hope I will not offend you by this… is our purpose to live to demonstrate our devotion to God and earn His reward – thus in return achieving an eternal life of happiness, or is it to simply have offspring and live for a limited period on earth… without a defined end or sense of aiming for an eternal achievement? They are two very different views, and we need to consider which is the explanation that our innate nature tells us to be true.

Regards.

root
07-25-2005, 09:17 PM
Hi Huhammed

I read what you posted, However. though I understand your perspective It is going off topic, and proof beyond science is something I don't want to get involved with.

Regards

Root

UPDATED


Thankyou for sharing that with us, I am happy to hear your perspective! Let’s think about it then and I hope I will not offend you by this…

You wil not offend me, it's cool


is our purpose to live to demonstrate our devotion to God and earn His reward – thus in return achieving an eternal life of happiness,

Yes, I would agree with you if you are of a religous nomination.


or is it to simply have offspring and live for a limited period on earth… without a defined end or sense of aiming for an eternal achievement?

I agree with you also here, though one would question what you mean by a defined end. The atoms that make me will never die and thus for me are eternal


They are two very different views, and we need to consider which is the explanation that our innate nature tells us to be true.

I agree with you also, you were created by allah or came to through an evolutionary process or both.

Muhammad
07-27-2005, 02:52 PM
It is going off topic, and proof beyond science is something I don't want to get involved with. Thankyou for your reply. I would just like to add that although I might have been going off-topic, it is quite inevitable to bring in proof beyond science, because the very difference, I believe, between creationism and materialism is that creationism doesn't rely solely on science, in fact it doesn't rely on it at all. Therefore the only way to discuss the issue if we are to discuss it with just science is to dismiss the materialistic side, or at least prove that it does not disprove the former, as was stated earlier:

"the purpose of the thread is not to prove creationism, but to dismiss evolution as an argument against it."

I am interested to know why you don't want to get involved with proof beyond science...

And a thought provoking question to finish off...


The atoms that make me will never die and thus for me are eternal How do you know that they will never die? If they came into existence, then why can't they become non-existent?

And when I say defined end, I mean a conclusive finish to our lives; an expected outcome; just like an argument like this needs a conclusion, so do our lives to make them 'complete' or 'worth living' as it were. Why else do humans have so much intelligence with regards to all other creatures, if our sole purpose is to pass on our genes?

I must also add, your statement almost sounds like you believe in reincarnation!

root
07-27-2005, 05:14 PM
Hi Muhammed,


Thankyou for your reply. I would just like to add that although I might have been going off-topic, it is quite inevitable to bring in proof beyond science, because the very difference, I believe, between creationism and materialism is that creationism doesn't rely solely on science, in fact it doesn't rely on it at all. Therefore the only way to discuss the issue if we are to discuss it with just science is to dismiss the materialistic side, or at least prove that it does not disprove the former, as was stated earlier:

Of course you are right to state that creationism does not use any science to support it's case, though this in itself is not through the lack of trying. The question of man being created from a creationist view is quite bizarre to say the least and the origins of created man is quite murky.


am interested to know why you don't want to get involved with proof beyond science...

it's simply because anything that requires faith to me becomes more than questionable. To say for example that the moon was split, despite our current modern understanding is a big leap of faith. True, their is much to discover still and man himself is not "safe" from nature and man itself may be wiped out as it has happened many times before. Microbial life was all but wiped out, Dinasaurs were wiped out in fact the planet has suffered around six near extinction events. A personal note of mine is that your prophet encourages to look around and take observation, little did he know in my opinion how close to the truth he was for the fossils we find today could have been found then. And what would religouns of the world made of what we know now. To think they walked on the earth, blissfully unaware of the history recorded of our evolutionary past.



And a thought provoking question to finish off...

Cool, for I appreciate your comments.



The atoms that make me will never die and thus for me are eternal

How do you know that they will never die? If they came into existence, then why can't they become non-existent?

Ah, Death. Of course death is only a concious ending of my life, for the atoms that make my body and everything around us are merely atoms. The only difference between my atoms and the atoms that make up this computer keyboard I am typing on is the way that they form their complex structures. My atoms that make my body originated from the big bang, and it is possible that my atoms one day will be part of a Sun or other interstella space object, for atoms are never destroyed though they can be. A nuclear bomb is what you get if you was to destroy just a small handfull of my atoms, however the paradox is that atoms will also be produced from such a high energy explosion. M=Mc (Square) gave us the matter in the universe from the big bang. when we talk matter we talk atoms.


And when I say defined end, I mean a conclusive finish to our lives; an expected outcome; just like an argument like this needs a conclusion, so do our lives to make them 'complete' or 'worth living' as it were.

Depends how you look at it. I don't expect upon my death to be eternal in anyway from a concoius point of view, I don't remember the billions of years before my life so it does not worry me the billions of years after my life. Besides, sleeping is another state of conciousness but I have no conciouse time of sleep. Though, as I say I expect my atoms to form other complex patterns. Though this is not reincarnation as we understand it. More a simple fact of the universe.


Why else do humans have so much intelligence with regards to all other creatures, if our sole purpose is to pass on our genes?

because we survived near extinction by adaptation. we repeatedly survive the earths changes because we are the number one species at adapting. Intelligence & communication is our key. To say, when food is short. Go to the other side of that mauntain where you find food in a form of whatever is a powerful tool of adaptation that no other species can replicate as yet. Our earth is constantly changing constantly evolving, and only those that can adapt to this change can survive. Personally, I have a hunch that DNA & life giving molocules never had the "starting point" on earth but life itself is evolutionary within the universe and our origins are further away now than they have ever been. I am also open to "creation" as a possibility, but creation from our current understanding I just don't buy into because the scientific evidence does not support it, and sadly I don't think I will ever know the answer to the question in my short life.


I must also add, your statement almost sounds like you believe in reincarnation!

he he. Not at all.........

Thanks for reading

Root........

Muhammad
07-30-2005, 04:11 PM
Hello again!


Of course you are right to state that creationism does not use any science to support it's case, though this in itself is not through the lack of trying. The question of man being created from a creationist view is quite bizarre to say the least and the origins of created man is quite murky. If we think about it, is the creationist view really so bizarre when compared to the materialistic view? I mean humans essentially coming about from nuclear explosions and microbial interactions, evolving over the centuries... it isn't something so easy to believe.


Creationist view does not rely on science, but rather science supports it. But this does not mean that the reason we believe in it is because we have scientific evidence. Nor does it mean that there is scientific evidence for every aspect of it.


it's simply because anything that requires faith to me becomes more than questionable. To say for example that the moon was split, despite our current modern understanding is a big leap of faith. True, their is much to discover still and man himself is not "safe" from nature and man itself may be wiped out as it has happened many times before. Microbial life was all but wiped out, Dinasaurs were wiped out in fact the planet has suffered around six near extinction events. A personal note of mine is that your prophet encourages to look around and take observation, little did he know in my opinion how close to the truth he was for the fossils we find today could have been found then. And what would religouns of the world made of what we know now. To think they walked on the earth, blissfully unaware of the history recorded of our evolutionary past. So you are saying that everything beyond scientific discovery requires faith, i.e. you are limited by science. You do not approve of logical thinking, only what scientists claim to be a theory. I have already explained about the incident of the splitting of the moon - an incident which you seem to be quite fond of I might add - when we consider science to support creation we don't look at miracles that existed for a temporary moment in history! I mean it could be supported by science but if they are not then that is not a reason to disbelieve them. I am not sure what you mean about how close our Prophet (pbuh) was "to the truth"... but if you mean he did not find fossils then what would be the point of digging up the earth when God Himself has encouraged reflection of current surroundings,

[3.190] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand.
[3.191] Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: Our Lord! Thou hast not created this in vain! Glory be to Thee; save us then from the chastisement of the fire:

If your parents told you that your great grandfather saw a ghost, would you ask for scientific evidence (even though such an incident could not be proven by science!) or would you believe them? If preservation of knowledge by truthful people, along with truthful texts tell us that there lived a Prophet and thousands like him, we believe! (Not only that but we have the tool of inborn conscience and logic to believe in God. He did not leave us to form our own opinions but created signs to guide us.) Point being, faith is not wrong. Science has limits and is merely a tool, not a criterion of right and wrong.

Regards.

root
07-31-2005, 10:39 AM
If we think about it, is the creationist view really so bizarre when compared to the materialistic view? I mean humans essentially coming about from nuclear explosions and microbial interactions, evolving over the centuries... it isn't something so easy to believe.

I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work..................................



Creationist view does not rely on science, but rather science supports it.

It's high time creationists stop saying this downright LIE. Science does not support a creationist view.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31


So you are saying that everything beyond scientific discovery requires faith, i.e. you are limited by science.

In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.

In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to "have more faith" that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of 'letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence' is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he's murdered them.

Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It's their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they're already right, pretty much, close enough.

If a scientist says "I have faith this theory is true," he doesn't or shouldn't mean it in the religious sense of "I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don't try to change my mind, here I stand."

Instead, he means or ought to mean "I've tested this theory, and I've seen the results of other people's tests, and I'm as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted."

Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like 'faith' and 'truth'. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than "probably close enough," scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.


If your parents told you that your great grandfather saw a ghost, would you ask for scientific evidence (even though such an incident could not be proven by science!) or would you believe them? If preservation of knowledge by truthful people, along with truthful texts tell us that there lived a Prophet and thousands like him, we believe! (Not only that but we have the tool of inborn conscience and logic to believe in God. He did not leave us to form our own opinions but created signs to guide us.) Point being, faith is not wrong. Science has limits and is merely a tool, not a criterion of right and wrong.

I don't beleive in ghosts :-)

Muhammad
07-31-2005, 11:48 AM
Greetings root,


I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work..................................
Exactly, someone needs to manufacture the aeroplane, someone with the capability... things don't happen by themselves, no matter how small they might be.


It's high time creationists stop saying this downright LIE. Science does not support a creationist view.
Firstly, not all creationists believe in the exact same things or rely on the same evidence so I hope you are not grouping them all under one Umbrella - something which came to mind when I glanced at your site.

Science cannot disprove the existence of God, and I guess the real question that should be asked is how well science truly supports the evolutionist view, since I have already tried to explain that creationists do not believe in what they do because they have scientific evidence. Among the evidences that we do believe in is the Qur'an - something which non-religious people immediately cast aside even though they have not taken time out to actually consider it as being acceptable. I shall quote from an article from Dr. Zakir Naik:

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

From http://www.irf.net/irf/comparativereligion/index.htm.




In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.
No actually faith is not automatically good or else all religions would be acceptable. Faith in the truth is what really matters, i.e. Islam - belief in the existence of One God. And if you don't believe in the truth then obviously that is a failure.


In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to "have more faith" that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of 'letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence' is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he's murdered them.
This is where you are getting confused. The fact of the matter is that if you believe in something that is true, and when it does have adequate evidence, then you are not letting yourself be persuaded into anything. You are making it seem as though, with faith, one can believe in anything, when in actual fact there is right and wrong, just like how the bridge either stays up or it doesn't.


Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It's their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they're already right, pretty much, close enough.

If a scientist says "I have faith this theory is true," he doesn't or shouldn't mean it in the religious sense of "I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don't try to change my mind, here I stand."
And similarly if something contradicts what is right then we reject it also. And our criterion of what is right and wrong is of course the Ultimate Guidance - the Qur'an and the Last Prophet's teachings (pbuh) - and such guidance is good enough evidence, although people don't like to believe it - the ones who don't like to change their minds and therefore will not accept anything unless it can be proven in a test tube. Let me ask you, how can you disregard a source if you have not read it?


Instead, he means or ought to mean "I've tested this theory, and I've seen the results of other people's tests, and I'm as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted."
There are some who will forever lie in wait for evidence from every direction to prove what they wish to be true, yet they will refuse to look at the evidence that is already complete before their eyes in disgust that such ideas do not agree with their desires.


Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like 'faith' and 'truth'. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than "probably close enough," scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.
Well in that case, why are we being taught that the Big Bang is the ultimate reason why we are here and expected to just "gloss over" the fact that you can't even explain how its constituents arrived?! I wouldn't be so sure to state science is the side so confident! You know as well as I do that there are realms of science that cannot be fully explained nor proven, yet scientists have faith to believe in them because they need an answer to life's questions. Yet with religion we are not held back by slow scientific progressions as we can reach the truth with tools that penetrate beyond the bounds of the laboratory.


I don't beleive in ghosts :-)
Which is totally besides the point!

Regards.

root
08-09-2005, 07:33 PM
All Quotes by Mohammed


Exactly, someone needs to manufacture the aeroplane, someone with the capability... things don't happen by themselves, no matter how small they might be.

Nice answer, but I was referring to finding a plane in an imaginable era where flight was not possible. By not understanding the laws of flight one could never imagine it "flying"


Firstly, not all creationists believe in the exact same things or rely on the same evidence so I hope you are not grouping them all under one Umbrella - something which came to mind when I glanced at your site

Your right. And only adds to my suspicions because it is not individual beleif in the same things but religous, your idea of ID will be based on the faith you follow....


Science cannot disprove the existence of God, and I guess the real question that should be asked is how well science truly supports the evolutionist view,

Evolution is science, creationism is not.


since I have already tried to explain that creationists do not believe in what they do because they have scientific evidence. Among the evidences that we do believe in is the Qur'an

OK, "Among" implies more than one source. Your either deliberately misleading or you can post "evidence" other than the Koran!


- something which non-religious people immediately cast aside even though they have not taken time out to actually consider it as being acceptable.

Of course they don't. For they would need to establish which one of the many religions was actually truthull............ We don't teach religion in Science class for a reason. Have you ever been taught evolution in religous education..... It's a nonesense.



At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

If this is true, and I don;t think it is can you explain why prominent Islamic scholars thought the earth was flat if the koran clearly stated the opposite!!!!


The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

This is strange, the Moon does not ommit it's own light. it only reflects and the odds are 50/50!!!!! the earth being spherical is another issue


The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation

The Koran is interpreted as knowing the truth after the discovery is made. never before

This is about evolution v creationism, so far


There are some who will forever lie in wait for evidence from every direction to prove what they wish to be true

and their are some who will beleive anything even without evidence.....

This has all gone off-topic, congrats for wasting the thread!!

No offence intended..........

Regards

Root

Uthman
08-14-2005, 03:38 PM
:sl:


This has all gone off-topic, congrats for wasting the thread!!
Isn't that the nature of discussion? Oh, this is even more off-topic . . .

:w:

Muhammad
08-14-2005, 05:28 PM
Nice answer, but I was referring to finding a plane in an imaginable era where flight was not possible. By not understanding the laws of flight one could never imagine it "flying" Hello again root,

OK with regards to this quote, I assume it originated in an attempt to illustrate creationist thinking, and therefore I don't think it is very accurate. Using the same example, I think the case is more like we have viewed the proposed explanation for laws of flight by some people and seen how, according to those, the aeroplane could never become airborne due to flawed reasoning behind it.

Initially we were discussing spontaneous formation but now that you have changed course to explain by "lack of understanding", I must correct your new analogy.


Your right. And only adds to my suspicions because it is not individual beleif in the same things but religous, your idea of ID will be based on the faith you follow.... And therefore each faith should be addressed seperately rather than as one entity.
Btw - What's ID?


Evolution is science, creationism is not. That kind of explains where you're coming from, although I am not so sure that it is true. The study of science is one thing, but belief in evolution is more like a proposed idea, after all, I believe it was you who said earlier that science is merely a tool rather than a belief.


OK, "Among" implies more than one source. Your either deliberately misleading or you can post "evidence" other than the Koran! Yes, definitely the Qur'an is not the only source from which we get our knowledge and understanding from. I thought I had elaborated on this earlier and did not want to seem repetitive - not to mention I explained a bit later on in my post but anyway: Throughout history, God has been sending Prophets and scriptures to countless nations in order to guide and remind them of the truth. The final Messenger, as you know, was Muhammad (pbuh) and he came with the Qur'an. The Qur'an abrogates all previous scriptures and remains the final guidance, along with the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (which were also revealed from God but not part of the Qur'an) and these are the last two revelations from God addressed to all mankind until the Day of Ressurection.

So in the context of our discussion, I am trying to explain that a Muslim's faith does not depend on scientific theories and what can be proven in a lab, but rather what God has taught us. And it follows that science can never be in contradiction with Islam when the Creator of the heavens and the earth is the One who revealed the Qur'an!



Of course they don't. For they would need to establish which one of the many religions was actually truthull............ We don't teach religion in Science class for a reason. Have you ever been taught evolution in religous education..... It's a nonesense. Well if I am not mistaken, I believe you haven't read the Qur'an yourself and I know there are plenty of others who simply take what they like and misinterpret at their will. If you really wanted to establish which was the truthful religion then you would look at each scripture in turn and examine it in the correct manner (note: this does not mean referring to articles of liars and ill-taught people). But how many people are actually doing this?

And yes I am capable of understanding that if you want to learn religion, you don't walk into a science class, even though science can be closely associated with religion if taught in the proper context.


If this is true, and I don;t think it is can you explain why prominent Islamic scholars thought the earth was flat if the koran clearly stated the opposite!!!! Can you please point out which "prominent" Muslim Scholars you are referring to?


This is strange, the Moon does not ommit it's own light. it only reflects and the odds are 50/50!!!!! the earth being spherical is another issue The article clearly says "The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light" so nobody is saying the moon emits its own light, but merely that it could have been thought to do so when it was not discovered. And it does say the chances of this being correct, if a guess, is 50:50, but if you take the chance of this being correct along with the chance that the guess the earth is spherical (which, if a guess, had a much smaller probability of being correct) being correct, the total probability becomes even smaller that both were guessed correctly. It's simple maths, not trying to compare two seperate ideas.


The Koran is interpreted as knowing the truth after the discovery is made. never before That is a lie: Muslims have believed every word of the Qur'an since its revelation and when discoveries proved its text, this only strengthened their faith. The Qur'an itself states it is the truth:
[2.252] These are the communications of Allah: We recite them to you with truth; and most surely you are (one) of the apostles.

Anyway I fail to see the reasoning behind your statement because it is not as though the Qur'an is changed in light of recent findings - it has always been the same script no matter what has been the belief of mankind.


This is about evolution v creationism, so far And seeing that is the topic of this thread, I don't know why you should state it again.



and their are some who will beleive anything even without evidence..... I spent half the post talking about evidence... hopefully it can clarify your claim.


This has all gone off-topic, congrats for wasting the thread!!

No offence intended..........Well sometimes you have to go off-topic to view the context or gain a deeper understanding of what is being discussed. Seeing as we are still having a discussion that is based around the topic of the thread, I don't see how it is wasted at all.

Regards.

Bittersteel
08-14-2005, 05:54 PM
Anyway I fail to see the reasoning behind your statement because it is not as though the Qur'an is changed in light of recent findings - it has always been the same script no matter what has been the belief of mankind.
and bro Muhammad surely umm...someone has studied the ancient Qurans and they are similar aren't they?The ones in Tashkent Topkapi?

they too contain the miracles don't they?

czgibson
08-14-2005, 06:00 PM
Btw - What's ID?

Sorry to butt in here - for the purposes of understanding, ID refers to "Intelligent Design Theory", which is a revamped version of the (very old) argument from design used by theists and creationists to defend belief in god.

root
08-14-2005, 06:27 PM
Sorry to butt in here - for the purposes of understanding, ID refers to "Intelligent Design Theory", which is a revamped version of the (very old) argument from design used by theists and creationists to defend belief in god.

To add to that. czgibson is correct, it is a revamped version of "Creationism". Finding a distinct lack of scientific support and by this I mean scientific proof the nature of the arguement went through a distinct change. Creationism is the view that the Genesis account for "creation" is correct and accurately describes how we came to be as humans. ID is the new brand that argues that complexity of design must have a designer (an intelligent designer). This then allows lots of manouvering and co-operation from various religions under an ID umbrella, often Intelligent Design can nearly always be debated upon without mentioning who the "creator" actually is. Thus scrapping the whole "who is god" hypothosis.

ID is classed as a non-scientific because it breaks many valuable laws of science in that the subject must be testable cross referenced and able to make several predictions. ID can do none of this and is the reason it is left out of the science class and used for religous teachings onlym, In science ID is a lie. because we cannot understand a complex issue, does not imply we will never understand such issues in the future.

Muhammad
08-15-2005, 01:26 PM
and bro Muhammad surely umm...someone has studied the ancient Qurans and they are similar aren't they?The ones in Tashkent Topkapi?

they too contain the miracles don't they?
:sl:
The Qur'an has been preserved throughout the ages in its original form as Allaah has promised to keep it that way.

Sorry, I don't know what Tashkent Topkapi is, but I do know that the Qur'an we read today is the same Qur'an that was revealed to Muhammad (peace and belssings of Allaah be upon him).

:w:

Danish
08-29-2005, 12:41 PM
:sl:
Harun yahya has refuted "Evolution in Quran" as well as the theory...it was in his website darwinwatchout.com i think where he refuted "Evolution in Quran" thesis

root
08-29-2005, 06:28 PM
:sl:
Harun yahya has refuted "Evolution in Quran" as well as the theory...it was in his website darwinwatchout.com i think where he refuted "Evolution in Quran" thesis

hmmm, refuting the theory of evolution. I tried the link but no luck. What is the URL please.

Regards

Root

Danish
09-01-2005, 03:30 PM
:sl:
he got several sites, he published many books on evolution...he is a famous anti-evolutionist scientist in turkey...his official site is http://www.harunyahya.com/

Ansar Al-'Adl
09-01-2005, 03:40 PM
:sl:
the links are actually:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

:w:

root
09-01-2005, 07:52 PM
Hi All

Thanks for the links, I never got past the first paragraph. The page in question is: http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/unique_deception_evolution.php


The way that for 150 years certain people have been devoted to such an extraordinarily illogical belief as the theory of evolution is a great miracle created by God by making use of Satan. Those with good sense and faith in God and who are aware of this miracle have been waiting for 150 years to see just when evolutionists would become aware of this deception of Satan's, and have been using various means of suggestion, employing scientific and rational methods, to awaken them.

OK, right from the word go. I don't think your average muslim would be in the right frame of mind to even begin on the basic principles of evolution. before he even reads a single word of evolution, he has already been told the origin of evolution is satans work. Of which is a question of belief and not science.


The way that hundreds of thousands of professors, scientists, university students and doctors have blindly believed in the exceptionally illogical claims of the theory of evolution is a historical phenomenon that will be remembered with astonishment in no more than 20 years, and will be the subject of jokes and sketches.

I like jokes and sketches, when appropriate that is. So I will save it for later.


Believers in evolution fall under the spell of the Latin terminology and pompous language employed by evolutionist scientists, saying, "whatever they say must be true," and do not think about the real meaning of what they are told. One of the most effective ways of getting these people to think is to explain what the theory of evolution actually maintains in a very clear and simple manner, and thus to remove the spell under which they have fallen.

Now, already I am bored with the constant attack on how evil and stupid I am and how I am either controlled by satan or under a magic spell. Can he just please talk the talk.


The Claims of the Theory of Evolution Are a Complete Violation of Reason and Logic

The big build up and drum roll please.


According to the unscientific and irrational claim of the theory of evolution, the nothingness in the infinite universe gradually gave rise to mankind as a result of chance developments.

Blatant Inaacuracy #1: The theory of evolution is the theory of a Gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex and better form. It has zippo to do with the origins of the first molecules, how life initiatially started and absolutely bugger all to do with the formation of the Universe as the writer implies.

How can you discuss "evolution" when you don't even know what evolution involves!!!

Now, as promised. if he like his jokes then so do I. Please find below the "Biology Exam" for proposed scientific school test.


Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]

If you answer "Yes" to any of the above please state references and sources.

- Qatada -
09-01-2005, 08:15 PM
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]

If you answer "Yes" to any of the above please state references and sources.


all praise is due to Allah (swt) and his beloved prophet (salallahu alahi hi wasalam) and the prophet (salallahu alai hi wasalam)'s family and all who follow them.

lol i can't believe it, a building can't be built without a creator yet the whole planets and the universe got created 'by chance?' yet at the same time all of them orbit the sun perfectly, theres always a certain number of months within a year and that never changes:


"It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory, and the moon to be a light of beauty, and measured out stages for it, that you might know the number of years and the count of time. Allah did not create this except in truth and righteousness. And He explains His signs in detail, for those who understand" (10:5).

if its just a accident then why is everything so perfect? why couldn't they have been 250 dayz in one year and 365 in another? even man made buildingz have flaws in yet the earths been here for thousands of years and everythings so perfect. - the reasons obvious: and thats cz theres a greater power who controls all this - and thats Allah (swt).

Allah (swt) knows best...

czgibson
09-01-2005, 08:42 PM
Greetings,

I've just finished reading the article linked by Danish. It's quite amazing really. One of the least scientific pieces of writing I've ever seen; filled with weak straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. It's one of the most blatant misrepresentations I've ever seen of what the theory of evolution actually is. If anyone thinks this writer's views actually have anything to do with evolution, I would suggest they go to the source and read some Darwin. It's best to find out what the theory actually is before deciding that it is unbelievable.

Peace

root
09-01-2005, 09:32 PM
The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes - until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Take the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.

But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.

We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says.

All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.

If you still find Test Two compelling, a sort of cognitive illusion that you can feel even as you discount it, you are like just about everybody else in the world; the idea that natural selection has the power to generate such sophisticated designs is deeply counterintuitive. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, once jokingly credited his colleague Leslie Orgel with "Orgel's Second Rule": Evolution is cleverer than you are. Evolutionary biologists are often startled by the power of natural selection to "discover" an "ingenious" solution to a design problem posed in the lab.

This observation lets us address a slightly more sophisticated version of the cognitive illusion presented by Test Two. When evolutionists like Crick marvel at the cleverness of the process of natural selection they are not acknowledging intelligent design. The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own.

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

To see this shortcoming in relief, consider an imaginary hypothesis of intelligent design that could explain the emergence of human beings on this planet:

About six million years ago, intelligent genetic engineers from another galaxy visited Earth and decided that it would be a more interesting planet if there was a language-using, religion-forming species on it, so they sequestered some primates and genetically re-engineered them to give them the language instinct, and enlarged frontal lobes for planning and reflection. It worked.

If some version of this hypothesis were true, it could explain how and why human beings differ from their nearest relatives, and it would disconfirm the competing evolutionary hypotheses that are being pursued.

We'd still have the problem of how these intelligent genetic engineers came to exist on their home planet, but we can safely ignore that complication for the time being, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence in favor of this hypothesis.

But here is something the intelligent design community is reluctant to discuss: no other intelligent-design hypothesis has anything more going for it. In fact, my farfetched hypothesis has the advantage of being testable in principle: we could compare the human and chimpanzee genomes, looking for unmistakable signs of tampering by these genetic engineers from another galaxy. Finding some sort of user's manual neatly embedded in the apparently functionless "junk DNA" that makes up most of the human genome would be a Nobel Prize-winning coup for the intelligent design gang, but if they are looking at all, they haven't come up with anything to report.

It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of substantive scientific controversies in biology that are not yet in the textbooks or the classrooms. The scientific participants in these arguments vie for acceptance among the relevant expert communities in peer-reviewed journals, and the writers and editors of textbooks grapple with judgments about which findings have risen to the level of acceptance - not yet truth - to make them worth serious consideration by undergraduates and high school students.

SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts.

The Discovery Institute, the conservative organization that has helped to put intelligent design on the map, complains that its members face hostility from the established scientific journals. But establishment hostility is not the real hurdle to intelligent design. If intelligent design were a scientific idea whose time had come, young scientists would be dashing around their labs, vying to win the Nobel Prizes that surely are in store for anybody who can overturn any significant proposition of contemporary evolutionary biology.

Remember cold fusion? The establishment was incredibly hostile to that hypothesis, but scientists around the world rushed to their labs in the effort to explore the idea, in hopes of sharing in the glory if it turned out to be true.

Instead of spending more than $1 million a year on publishing books and articles for non-scientists and on other public relations efforts, the Discovery Institute should finance its own peer-reviewed electronic journal. This way, the organization could live up to its self-professed image: the doughty defenders of brave iconoclasts bucking the establishment.

For now, though, the theory they are promoting is exactly what George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said it is: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content."

Since there is no content, there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?

Muhammad
09-03-2005, 11:27 AM
Hello root!



OK, right from the word go. I don't think your average muslim would be in the right frame of mind to even begin on the basic principles of evolution. before he even reads a single word of evolution, he has already been told the origin of evolution is satans work. Of which is a question of belief and not science.
No, I think you have misunderstood what has been said in the paragraph:

the theory of evolution is a great miracle created by God by making use of Satan. Those with good sense and faith in God and who are aware of this miracle have been waiting for 150 years to see just when evolutionists would become aware of this deception of Satan's,Thus he is not saying that evolution itself is a work of Satan, but rather the "extraordinarily illogical belief as the theory of evolution" is from the works of Satan. I am not saying I agree with this, but simply what the author of the article was saying. Yet seeing how Satan is trying his best to divert humankind from the True Path, I see no reason why he has nothing to do with misguiding people into believing in theories such as that of evolution.


Now, already I am bored with the constant attack on how evil and stupid I am and how I am either controlled by satan or under a magic spell. Can he just please talk the talk. There's no need to feel that way. For one thing, we as Muslims have to put up with people discrediting the Qur'an without reading it, and people making unfounded claims on our Prophet (pbuh) and yet you think you are the only one who is bored with attacks on your doctrine?!

And secondly, the author was not implying you were evil or controlled by Satan, so I think you have shown bias before you even gave the article a deserving open-mind. If you didn't like the opening, then you could have just ignored it and moved on rather than ignored the whole article.


Blatant Inaacuracy #1: The theory of evolution is the theory of a Gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex and better form. It has zippo to do with the origins of the first molecules, how life initiatially started and absolutely bugger all to do with the formation of the Universe as the writer implies.

How can you discuss "evolution" when you don't even know what evolution involves!!! theory of evolution
n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

Is not the origins of the first molecules related to the origin of the plants and animals? You might be talking about natural selection but I believe that is only a part of the bigger picture of the theory of how life started. You seem to be finding excuses to avoid the article...


Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? [YES] [NO]
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? [YES] [NO]

If you answer "Yes" to any of the above please state references and sources.I didn't really get that. I don't think anyone can answer 'Yes' and if they did, then they should rightly provide their sources. It only seems to illustrate the belief of atheists: that our world was created without a Creator!


One of the least scientific pieces of writing I've ever seen If you are referring to the same article that we are discussing here, then I believe it was not a good choice since it does not have much scientific content. There are many articles on that site, perhaps you can try some others.

Peace.

root
09-03-2005, 01:23 PM
Hi Muhammad,


theory of evolution
n : (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

Is not the origins of the first molecules related to the origin of the plants and animals? You might be talking about natural selection but I believe that is only a part of the bigger picture of the theory of how life started. You seem to be finding excuses to avoid the article...

What Evolution IS and IS NOT

there’s a lot of confusion about this. Basically, this is what evolution is:

The change in allele frequency in a population over time

Creationists generally define evolution thus:

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

This is not the scientifically definition of evolution. For a start, the last bit ('without the aid of a god') is not part of the theory of evolution. In addition, by defining evolution as every process that happened in the chain of events that, starting from nothing, resulted in mankind, you are including a lot of theories which are not covered by the scientist's definition of evolution. Since ultimately Evolution does not seek to explain in full the very origins of the Big Bang since one could cause contoversy in this area as an indirect means of causing controversy to the theory of Evolution. Indeed as you have indicated below:


Is not the origins of the first molecules related to the origin of the plants and animals? You might be talking about natural selection but I believe that is only a part of the bigger picture of the theory of how life started. You seem to be finding excuses to avoid the article...

If you start on the premis that for the evolution of man within primates requires the full understanding of how the first molecules related, then one can easily add that to support the theory of evolution one must be able to scientifically prove the birth of the universe which require the big bang theory.

I don't think you have read my last post before this one. (Look UP)!

Regards

Root

Muhammad
09-03-2005, 02:22 PM
Greetings root,

While you might not be the author of this article (in post no.13), I have still referred to him as "you" - just in case you got a bit confused. And in my opinion, intelligent design and creationism are hardly any different and seem to only complicate matters therefore I have treated the two as though they are almost one, and of course I am speaking from an Islamic viewpoint in the discussion :)


The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes - So you do admit that it's illogical to believe in a creation without a Creator!


until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: I don't think it's right to say "beyond all reasonable doubt". It has been mentioned earlier that

The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero.As is stated towards the end of the article, there are many controversies in science and thus its a grossly inaccurate assertion to say that there are no doubts.


that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs. The very words "trial and error" and "breathtakingly ingenious designs" don't seem to go very well together, logically speaking. It might be worth mentioning the definition of design:

To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form
To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect
To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
And so you are saying by blind experimentation, everything was created in an orderly, systematic procedure - all with a purpose and in a highly skilled manner?!

If we did an experiment in the lab based on trial and error, we would not expect to achieve good results without getting a random assortment of failures and successes first. If such an experiment were carried out on a large scale as the universe, would not the failures be that much more fatal and thus destructive to life? Yet the very fact that life keeps running so smoothly is evident of a clear design beyond mere trial and error.


But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while. Harun Yahya refutes these claims and explains how even primitive eyes could not have emerged by chance, at the same time and in the same being. Read here (http://that%20natural%20selection%20-%20the%20process%20in%20which%20reproducing%20enti ties%20must%20compete%20for%20finite%20resources%2 0and%20thereby%20engage%20in%20a%20tournament%20of %20blind%20trial%20and%20error%20from%20which%20im provements%20automatically%20emerge%20-%20has%20the%20power%20to%20generate%20breathtakin gly%20ingenious%20designs./).


We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have detailed computer models to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says. Unfortunately, Computer models are not the same as real-life scenarios.


All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer.

Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process. Oh, so now that you don't understand something, it's a fault of God is it, but anything that's too good to be true is down to a bit of luck and chance...


Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. Which goes to show that natural selection could not account for such marvelous design, for if it really is "without purpose" and "without intelligence", why are "ingenious designs" attributed to such processes?


This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things. That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. We might as well add in, "and eyes are not made up of tiny seeing things"! You are digging the hole deeper for yourself when you say "this is hard to understand", for indeed, the very concept that purposeless and random processes created working complexities is what people like me are wondering ourselves. Coloured objects might consist of colourless atoms, but those atoms did not spontaneously appear and form into that object of their own accord.


To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking. And having an understanding of the Islamic faith to some degree, I would have thought that you understood that we do not base our beliefs on scientific discoveries or else we would have published our own journals by now!


Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach. OK how shall I put this, its "one of the most blatant misrepresentations I've ever seen" and "one of the least accurate pieces of writing I've ever seen" and you know, I think I am getting tired of being told how I don't know what the theory of evolution really means or involves or how I am misunderstanding scientists.


Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details. Codswallop.


"You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Actually it is, because if you want a theory to be accepted then at least explain it to the full rather than leaving gaps here and there (when there shouldn't be any) for assumptions.


But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything. Yes it has, only that it doesn't use science to do it.


To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. I guess this is the difference between religion and science - we don't make our own hypotheses, we understand everything in light of what God taught us.


So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be. It's quite pointless arguing this, since we have already established elsewhere on this forum that believing in God is an act of faith, and therefore is not something that can be scientifically proven. There are Signs and Revelations, but not laboratory results or else the whole concept of life being a test somehow wouldn't seem to fit anymore.

The whole thing about the engineer coming from another galaxy is plain stupidity and I could not see its relevance in the discussion. Since we already know Who is the Creator and why we are here, that seems like something for you to ponder over in your own leisure time.


SO get in line, intelligent designers. Get in line behind the hypothesis that life started on Mars and was blown here by a cosmic impact. Lol, you know that sounds almost as absurd as the engineer-from-another-galaxy-coming-to-earth hypothesis!


Get in line behind the aquatic ape hypothesis, the gestural origin of language hypothesis and the theory that singing came before language, to mention just a few of the enticing hypotheses that are actively defended but still insufficiently supported by hard facts. Well at least the author admits the "insufficiently supported by hard facts" bit, which kind of disappoints the reader to say the least. After all this rubbish about "intelligent design proponents" not showing hard evidence, materialists can't even do it themselves and come up with such unbelievable conclusions and act as though they're the first thing that would come to mind when someone should wonder about the origin of life!

Peace.

P.S. Thankyou for clarifying the meaning of evolution; I will be more careful when discussing it with you. As an additional question, what name do you give the formation of the Universe - abiogenesis?

czgibson
09-03-2005, 02:32 PM
Hi Muhammad,

If you are referring to the same article that we are discussing here, then I believe it was not a good choice since it does not have much scientific content. There are many articles on that site, perhaps you can try some others.

Yes, I'm talking about the same article. It purports to be scientific, but it is not.

I've had a look at various other articles on the site, and aside from containing blatant factual inaccuracies, they use similar tactics to those in the article that attempts to refute evolution: Misrepresent the arguments and ideas of, say, Kant, Freud or Darwin, then demolish the weak misrepresented arguments. This is commonly known as the straw man fallacy, and the author is guilty of it in so many places that I don't know where to start in explaining his errors. Here are two, just for starters, both from the article "The Fall of Atheism":


Immanuel Kant: Proposed the idea of a universe without a beginning or an end. He was terribly wrong.

Kant did propose this idea, but he did not suggest at any time that this was his final view on the matter. He actually said that it is possible to construct arguments to demonstrate both that the universe is eternal and that it began at a finite point in time. Which of the two views somebody believes is, according to Kant, not something that can be determined by logic. This is one of his famous "antinomies" (paradoxes) of space and time.


In fact, a world without religion actually brought them to an unhappy end. The hippy leaders of the 1960s either killed themselves or died from drug-induced comas in the early 1970s.

This is such a load of nonsense it's difficult to see where the author got the idea from in the first place. For a start, "Imagine" by John Lennon, which talks about a world with no religion, was not released until 1971, so although it shares some of the ideals of the 1960s youth movements, to say that it was a guiding work for them is simply wrong. Also, John Lennon himself provides an obvious example against the author's assertion about how "hippie leaders" met their ends. Lennon, possibly the single person the hippies looked up to most, did not kill himself or die from a coma - he was assassinated in December 1980.

These two inaccuracies are just the tip of the iceberg. The author is clearly convinced of his position, and is prepared to distort the facts beyond recognition in order to support his case. This is clearly not how reasoned argument should proceed.

Peace

root
09-03-2005, 07:09 PM
While you might not be the author of this article (in post no.13), I have still referred to him as "you" - just in case you got a bit confused. And in my opinion, intelligent design and creationism are hardly any different and seem to only complicate matters therefore I have treated the two as though they are almost one, and of course I am speaking from an Islamic viewpoint in the discussion

I can accept that. Afterall, Creationists came first. Intelligent Design simply removes God from the equation. And simply debates on complexity, not through scientific evidence. ID or Creationism does not have any of that.


So you do admit that it's illogical to believe in a creation without a Creator!

If I believed in God, I would ask him to give me strength. As I said above, please read it before blindly posting. I answered this, drawing a paralell that an intelligent designed video camera does not have design flaws like a "blind Spot" in the human eye. (Post 13)


I don't think it's right to say "beyond all reasonable doubt". It has been mentioned earlier that
The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero.
As is stated towards the end of the article, there are many controversies in science and thus its a grossly inaccurate assertion to say that there are no doubts.

Again you are blindly ranting. Any Biologist with a PhD has to accept micro-evolution. Thus your objection is useless. It exists so get over it.


The very words "trial and error" and "breathtakingly ingenious designs" don't seem to go very well together, logically speaking.

Biology scientists disagree with you. I know who I have my money on with the choice of words and it is not you in this case. An organisms ability to beat antibiotics is quite breath taking and ingenious.............. You in this case are DEAD WRONG


And so you are saying by blind experimentation, everything was created in an orderly, systematic procedure - all with a purpose and in a highly skilled manner?

You really don't get the theory of evolution do you.


Harun Yahya refutes these claims and explains how even primitive eyes could not have emerged by chance, at the same time and in the same being.

I have no respect for anyone wishing to challenge a theory by starting out discussing Satan. Besides he does not refute it, merely tries to show complexity. He does not even mention if that the eye is so perfect, why does it have a blind spot. Surely no "Created" video camera would have such a flaw. Why does he not publish his work in peer reviewed scientific journals. The answer of course is that he has no theory, no testable data. Zippo, nothing. Just "Faith" which don't cut the mustartd when challenging sound scientific principles.



Unfortunately, Computer models are not the same as real-life scenarios.

Your joking are you not!!!!!!! When a computer simulation works out the load that a "theoretical" bridge can hold based on a theoretical design (the bridge is not built yet). It's accurate and complete. This is just a load of B/S. your talking.



Oh, so now that you don't understand something, it's a fault of God is it, but anything that's too good to be true is down to a bit of luck and chance...

Your misrepresenting ID here. I thought your claim the eye is a perfect creation without flaw, complexity far too complex not to have a creator. Why are you so upset when we point out a design flaw in your perceived perfect creation. Again, camcorder anyone!


Which goes to show that natural selection could not account for such marvelous design, for if it really is "without purpose" and "without intelligence", why are "ingenious designs" attributed to such processes?

Your repeating yourself. However, ingenious designs are observed in the lab without a designer.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. We might as well add in, "and eyes are not made up of tiny seeing things"! You are digging the hole deeper for yourself when you say "this is hard to understand", for indeed, the very concept that purposeless and random processes created working complexities is what people like me are wondering ourselves. Coloured objects might consist of colourless atoms, but those atoms did not spontaneously appear and form into that object of their own accord.

LOL, I think the point went straight over your head.


And having an understanding of the Islamic faith to some degree, I would have thought that you understood that we do not base our beliefs on scientific discoveries or else we would have published our own journals by now!

Faith ain't science so why are you debating a scientific theory with faith. Bring forth the evidence of ID or don't respond to this post of mine.


Codswallop.

OK, if it is codswallop. Please post me a scientifically credited peer reviewed theory supporting ID....... I dare ya!!!!!!!!! This is because there is none. zippo, dotto.


Actually it is, because if you want a theory to be accepted then at least explain it to the full rather than leaving gaps here and there (when there shouldn't be any) for assumptions.

The theory of evolution does not seek and nor should it provide theory to the formation of the universe. I have already posted the scientific defenition of Evolution. Your nuts to even support the idea that science should merge theories, that is called "natural History". Stop being ignorant.


Lol, you know that sounds almost as absurd as the engineer-from-another-galaxy-coming-to-earth hypothesis!

Yes I agree, however the truth is it cannot challenge the well understood theory of evolution. Yet by itself it CAN challenge ID (think about it)!!!!!!


Well at least the author admits the "insufficiently supported by hard facts" bit, which kind of disappoints the reader to say the least. After all this rubbish about "intelligent design proponents" not showing hard evidence, materialists can't even do it themselves and come up with such unbelievable conclusions and act as though they're the first thing that would come to mind when someone should wonder about the origin of life!

Again you miss the point by miles.


P.S. Thankyou for clarifying the meaning of evolution; I will be more careful when discussing it with you.

No problem,

As an additional question, what name do you give the formation of the Universe - abiogenesis?

Here are the four areas that different theories cover, despite the fact that you claim above that all or some are required for the theory of evolution to which you are so very wrong!

1. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics)

2. The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology)

3. The creation of life from non-life: abiogenesis (biochemistry)

4. he creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology)

5...The mechanism of the alteration/creation of the different forms of life: evolution (biology, genetics)

Regards

Root

czgibson
09-03-2005, 11:42 PM
Hello,

Sorry to interrupt; I think I may be able to help on one point:


The very words "trial and error" and "breathtakingly ingenious designs" don't seem to go very well together, logically speaking.

The words don't contain any logical contradiction, although there may be an apparent one. Since evolution contains random and non-random elements the two descriptions are appropriate in discussions about evolution: genetic mutation is random, while natural selection is not; certain mutations will be advantageous and some will not.

I'm not a scientist, but that's how I understand it.

Peace

Muhammad
09-04-2005, 02:04 PM
Greetings,


I can accept that. Afterall, Creationists came first. Intelligent Design simply removes God from the equation. And simply debates on complexity, not through scientific evidence. ID or Creationism does not have any of that. I fail to understand your reasoning behind these concepts. You say Creationism involves God and then you expect it to bring forth scientific evidence, when you know that belief in God is beyond such things.

ID might not specifically mention God, but it still points to Him and therefore does not seem any different to Creationism. It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence and can be discussed at length regarding the earliest protein molecules and such species.


If I believed in God, I would ask him to give me strength. As I said above, please read it before blindly posting. I answered this, drawing a paralell that an intelligent designed video camera does not have design flaws like a "blind Spot" in the human eye. (Post 13) I did read that article, or whatever it was, and disgusted as I was, I had the decency to read it. Yes I read that part about the flaw and perhaps you missed that part in my post where it said, quite clearly:


Oh, so now that you don't understand something, it's a fault of God is it, but anything that's too good to be true is down to a bit of luck and chance... I am glad that I am not as short-sighted as to state that something I don't understand is immediately a flaw. No matter how God created the Universe, we as Muslims accept it and acknowledge that it was done so with full Wisdom and Knowledge beyond our comprehension.

If evolution was indeed so strong a theory, then why is it that humans have appendices and other features that you kindly pointed out some time ago:


We also carry dormont characteristics no longer viable to the human body such as male nipples, wisdom teeth, tail-bones and ear muscles. From your method of thinking, one might (wrongfully) conclude that all these are mistakes! Yet evolution could not prevent them from being there so where's all this about selecting the best, "improvements automatically" emerging and "breathtakingly ingenious designs"?! If anything, its a fault of evolution theory but a wonder in light of God's creation. He created us with two eyes for seeing, and having a blind spot within each one never conferred anyone a hazard to their existence.


Any Biologist with a PhD has to accept micro-evolution. Thus your objection is useless. It exists so get over it. OK there was a slight misunderstanding here. My statement was not directly applicable to this context.


Biology scientists disagree with you. I know who I have my money on with the choice of words and it is not you in this case. I don't much care for the opinions of Biology scientists since they are most likely brainwashed into the theory to get their PhD, as you pointed out earlier.


An organisms ability to beat antibiotics is quite breath taking and ingenious.............. Why are we talking about resistance to antibiotics here when we were discussing natural selection?


You in this case are DEAD WRONG It's nice to see you like to be scientific and back up your claims. Other than rant about Biology scientists and PhDs, you couldn't even say anything constructive to your side of the argument.


You really don't get the theory of evolution do you. Well after reading your version of it and repeating it back to you, while only expanding upon your choice of words, evidently not.


I have no respect for anyone wishing to challenge a theory by starting out discussing Satan. Great. You read an article by a new author for the first time in your life and don't like a couple of words, it's enough to turn a blind eye to his whole career. Some fine scientist you turned out to be! If you actually bothered to read a decent article of his you might have read something different.


Besides he does not refute it, merely tries to show complexity.
Hence the title of the article: "Irreducible Complexity". He uses complexity to make his point:

The irreducibly complex structure of the eye not only definitively disproves the Darwinist theory, but also shows that life was created with a superior design.
He does not even mention if that the eye is so perfect, why does it have a blind spot. So? He refutes the claim of how the eye evolved from light-sensitive cells; the primary objective of the article.


Why does he not publish his work in peer reviewed scientific journals. The answer of course is that he has no theory, no testable data. Zippo, nothing. Why don't you ask him that rather than trying to make up your own answers?


Just "Faith" which don't cut the mustartd when challenging sound scientific principles. "Sound"? This is where we got slightly confused earlier when you used the words: "beyond reasonable doubt". Not much of science is beyond reasonable doubt, so I would be more careful when pretending theory is fact.


Your joking are you not!!!!!!! When a computer simulation works out the load that a "theoretical" bridge can hold based on a theoretical design (the bridge is not built yet). It's accurate and complete. This is just a load of B/S. your talking. I would have thought that building a bridge in the present day would at least be remotely different from trying to simulate conditions millions of years ago. We might be able to collect accurate data for bridge-making but I find it hard to believe such accuracy is preserved during historical studies, where many assumptions and guesses replace hard facts. Why don't you try sticking to the context and perhaps things won't seem so confusing for you.


Your misrepresenting ID here. I thought your claim the eye is a perfect creation without flaw, complexity far too complex not to have a creator. Why are you so upset when we point out a design flaw in your perceived perfect creation. Again, camcorder anyone! How is that misrepresenting ID? Indeed the eye is a complexity that could not have arisen by a few mutated cells, but it is you who call it imperfect! I have never perceived the blind spot as being a flaw, so the only thing that upsets me is your stupidity. For one thing, can you not see through your eyes or do you see black spots in your vision? Despite the fact that there are such features within our eyes, we still see as though they weren't even there - now that is a miracle of its own (SubhanAllaah!).


Your repeating yourself. However, ingenious designs are observed in the lab without a designer. You've repeated yourself around three times regarding your favourite line about the flawed eyes so I don't know what you're talking about! This last statement seems baseless already so there's no need to go about demolishing it.


LOL, I think the point went straight over your head. Evidently you did not understand what I was saying. And I doubt you understood the idea yourself, which is why you didn't bother clearing it up. A poor analogy to say the least...


Faith ain't science so why are you debating a scientific theory with faith. Bring forth the evidence of ID or don't respond to this post of mine. That's precisely what I am asking you! If you know that faith isn't science, then why do you keep raving on about -


No experiments with results ?
OK, if it is codswallop. Please post me a scientifically credited peer reviewed theory supporting ID....... I dare ya!!!!!!!!! This is because there is none. zippo, dotto. We're not talking about theories here but blatant lies and false information. Here's evolutionists misrepresenting what Creationists do and don't do. And here you are again repeating yourself, asking for scientifically credited theories as though we are scientists with a breakthrough!!


The theory of evolution does not seek and nor should it provide theory to the formation of the universe. I have already posted the scientific defenition of Evolution. Your nuts to even support the idea that science should merge theories, that is called "natural History". Stop being ignorant. I wasn't talking about merging theories, but explaining theories within themselves. For instance, The Big Bang: "it all came but we don't know where from". And you even mentioned this yourself regarding the evolution of the eye:


We can't yet say what all the details of this process were Perhaps you should focus on these gaps rather than trying to pass theories off as facts!


Yes I agree, however the truth is it cannot challenge the well understood theory of evolution. Yet by itself it CAN challenge ID (think about it)!!!!!! I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean other than being another baseless assertion.


Again you miss the point by miles. And lack of explanation shows that you do too! It's alright to believe in scientific theories that are insufficiently supported by hard facts but when it comes to believing in God you ask for scientifically credited reviews. What a load of nonsense!!


The words don't contain any logical contradiction, although there may be an apparent one. So there might be an apparent contradiction but there isn't a logical contradiction? I don't really understand the difference between the two here, and I still think the same as I did before.


Since evolution contains random and non-random elements the two descriptions are appropriate in discussions about evolution: genetic mutation is random, while natural selection is not; certain mutations will be advantageous and some will not. Right, but can we really say that ingenious designs all boil down to random and non-random events? Regardless of what the discussion is, it still seems illogical to believe that breathtakingly ingenious complexities could have arisen by trial and error.

Peace.

root
09-04-2005, 06:07 PM
Hi Muhammad

You have posted queries from both me and czgibson. (I am guilty of this myslef). So I will post at the bottom your response to him.


I fail to understand your reasoning behind these concepts. You say Creationism involves God and then you expect it to bring forth scientific evidence, when you know that belief in God is beyond such things.

OK, that is settled.


ID might not specifically mention God, but it still points to Him and therefore does not seem any different to Creationism. It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence and can be discussed at length regarding the earliest protein molecules and such species.

There are many floors is your reasoning here. The whole point to ID replacing creationism (and I actually don't care if you want to quote ID or Creationism) since in essence you are correct, they all point to God. But here is your floor, which one! Here is a link to the "Top 10" creationist "Gods" who are citing very different Gods to yours.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

I have real problems where you say "It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence" for it is not science at all and is a position of arrogance as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, you assume intelligent cause.


I am glad that I am not as short-sighted as to state that something I don't understand is immediately a flaw. No matter how God created the Universe, we as Muslims accept it and acknowledge that it was done so with full Wisdom and Knowledge beyond our comprehension.

If evolution was indeed so strong a theory, then why is it that humans have appendices and other features that you kindly pointed out some time ago:

As already stated, the theory of evolution can be defined as thus:

The change in allele frequency in a population over time

"Time" has a major role in Evolution, all out changes do not occur within a couple of generations!!!


From your method of thinking, one might (wrongfully) conclude that all these are mistakes! Yet evolution could not prevent them from being there so where's all this about selecting the best, "improvements automatically" emerging and "breathtakingly ingenious designs"?! If anything, its a fault of evolution theory but a wonder in light of God's creation. He created us with two eyes for seeing, and having a blind spot within each one never conferred anyone a hazard to their existence.

Your moving about all over the place it is hard to pin this thought down. Micro-evolution, an accepted fact within Biology moves at break-neck speed since such organisms as Bacteria will divide and reproduce every 20 minutes. Far more complex life-forms take up to 70 years for just 3 generations. Thus the confusing picture that your talking about only exists in your head. I think your understanding of time needs to be reconsidered.


I don't much care for the opinions of Biology scientists since they are most likely brainwashed into the theory to get their PhD, as you pointed out earlier.

I find this statement literally a sad reflection of your opinion on Science. I am not aware of your geographical location but I am wondering if you are carrying the Polio vaccine or any other vaccine. I wonder what medication you have ever taken to cure or eleviate any ailment. and if the future (god forbid) you are diagnosed with cancer or any other life threatening ailment will you not seek medical science to help save your life or will you just reside yourself to the fact that if Allah gave you life then it is Allah who will take it. Even if it is curable.

On this note, I think I will end my debate with you since this statement of yours only reinforces how dogmatic & closed your mind is.

"The mind is like a parachute. It does not work unless it is open"

Muhammad
09-04-2005, 08:18 PM
Greetings,



There are many floors is your reasoning here. The whole point to ID replacing creationism (and I actually don't care if you want to quote ID or Creationism) since in essence you are correct, they all point to God. But here is your floor, which one! Here is a link to the "Top 10" creationist "Gods" who are citing very different Gods to yours. OK the discussion is in essence about the scientific view of how the Universe originated and the religious one; one says the universe came into existence by itself, whereas the other says it was created by God. The reason that I likened Creationism to ID was because they both started from the concept that 'a' God created, hence to ask 'which' God created is a diversion from the topic and irrelevant to the current discussion (and a topic of its own).


I have real problems where you say "It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence" for it is not science at all and is a position of arrogance as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, you assume intelligent cause.
When we look at complexity, we begin to realise how unlikely it is for such species to have come into existence of their own accord within the boundaries of time and space. And when the details are really revealed, we see how there are conflicts with possibilites such as that of the evolution of the eye:

It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as "primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive-that is, they need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals; a nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge; and a visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to propose that all of these things came about by chance, at the same time, and in the same living thing. In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), which he wrote to defend the theory of evolution, the evolutionist writer Cemal Yildirim admits this fact in this way: ...Hence it is not arrogance nor is it lack of knowledge, but in reality it is reviewing the facts by actually using knowledge and revealing the truth thereby :)


"Time" has a major role in Evolution, all out changes do not occur within a couple of generations!!! But that's the thing, the history of mankind has surpassed much more than a "couple of generations" has it not?!


I think your understanding of time needs to be reconsidered. OK let's think about this: in the time that an organ such as the eye could be created and evolved into such a complex structure as it is today, a simple functionless organ like the appendix could not be removed?


I find this statement literally a sad reflection of your opinion on Science. I am not aware of your geographical location but I am wondering if you are carrying the Polio vaccine or any other vaccine. I wonder what medication you have ever taken to cure or eleviate any ailment. and if the future (god forbid) you are diagnosed with cancer or any other life threatening ailment will you not seek medical science to help save your life or will you just reside yourself to the fact that if Allah gave you life then it is Allah who will take it. Even if it is curable. This is ridiculously out of context and a huge misunderstanding on your part. Let's look at what I replied to:


Biology scientists disagree with you. I know who I have my money on with the choice of words and it is not you in this case. We were talking about a choice of words. I might not agree with Biology scientists with their view on evolution but when did I say that I did not agree with their research in modern medicine? I hope that clears it up - and just to answer your off-topic question, I would take all precautions and take all the medicines and at the same time place my trust in Allaah Insha'Allaah.


On this note, I think I will end my debate with you since this statement of yours only reinforces how dogmatic & closed your mind is. You may end your debate on false perceptions and accusations, yet it would only demonstrate the constriction of your own mind.

Peace.

mujahedeen2087
09-04-2005, 08:28 PM
www.harunyahya.com

good site for the evolution myth

Muhammad
09-05-2005, 01:13 PM
Greetings,

The discussion on evolution and creation/ID has been moved to this thread, where I thought it better belonged.

Peace

extinction
04-07-2006, 03:05 PM
Yo person who is an atheist thats why you are an atheist because you simply rely on statistics and logic.......there is a story that there was an atheist who was scheduled to debate with an Islamic scholar..at the appointed time of the debate the scholar was a 'no-show' the muslims were uneasy and the atheist was beyond himself in pride gloating "he's scared" and knows I'm right and so on...just then the scholar appeared ..the atheist said to him what is the meaning of such a late arrival the scholar said I'm terribly sorry upon coming here so late (as this is my 1st time coming here) on the way here I came across a wide river with no means to cross then out of nowhere a tree fell down made itself into planks and came together as a boat ...in that time I was waiting patiently when it was ready I went across this river....that is why I am late......the muslims were very uneasy with the scholars story doubting within the authencity of it......the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!! and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/ there you go...or go here http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm may Allah show you the right path.........Aameen

czgibson
04-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Greetings,

Yo person who is an atheist thats why you are an atheist because you simply rely on statistics and logic.......

Well, thank you for telling me what I think!

What do you rely on? Wishful thinking?


there is a story that there was an atheist who was scheduled to debate with an Islamic scholar..at the appointed time of the debate the scholar was a 'no-show' the muslims were uneasy and the atheist was beyond himself in pride gloating "he's scared" and knows I'm right and so on...just then the scholar appeared ..the atheist said to him what is the meaning of such a late arrival the scholar said I'm terribly sorry upon coming here so late (as this is my 1st time coming here) on the way here I came across a wide river with no means to cross then out of nowhere a tree fell down made itself into planks and came together as a boat ...in that time I was waiting patiently when it was ready I went across this river....that is why I am late......the muslims were very uneasy with the scholars story doubting within the authencity of it......the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!!

I'd be very surprised if the atheist felt defeated by that straw man argument.


and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/ there you go...or go here http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm may Allah show you the right path.........Aameen

Seen them. More assertions with no real evidence.

Peace

HeiGou
04-07-2006, 04:32 PM
Yo person who is an atheist thats why you are an atheist because you simply rely on statistics and logic.......there is a story that there was an atheist who was scheduled to debate with an Islamic scholar..at the appointed time of the debate the scholar was a 'no-show' the muslims were uneasy and the atheist was beyond himself in pride gloating "he's scared" and knows I'm right and so on...just then the scholar appeared ..the atheist said to him what is the meaning of such a late arrival the scholar said I'm terribly sorry upon coming here so late (as this is my 1st time coming here) on the way here I came across a wide river with no means to cross then out of nowhere a tree fell down made itself into planks and came together as a boat ...in that time I was waiting patiently when it was ready I went across this river....that is why I am late......the muslims were very uneasy with the scholars story doubting within the authencity of it......the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!! and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!!

Neat story. But what has it got to do with atheism?

Compare that "boat" story (actually it is Paley's Watch on the Moor story) with how evolution works. Assume that an ancestor of the girafe was alive and had a short neck. Now the group of them wandering the plains eat a lot of food. And some of them eat the lower leaves on a tree. But when they have eat all of those they go hungry. Except for the ones with the longest necks - now they are not very long, but the tallest ones with the longest necks can reach up into the trees and eat more leaves. So they get fed and the short ones do not. When a drought comes, the shorter-necked ones are going to be more likely to die and the longer-necked ones aren't. Even in the good times, the longer-necked one eat better and have more and more strong offspring. So over time the short-neck ones die, and the longer-necked ones live. But their children also eat all the leaves they can reach so the even longer-necked ones do better than the merely long-necked ones. Until after millions of years you have a giraffe. Does anyone doubt that story? Is there the remotest element of chance here? Do you think if you have billions and billions of years of time for evolution to work, you can go from a single celled creature to an elephant?

What random chance?

extinction
04-07-2006, 04:39 PM
because athiest's believe in weird theories like the 'big bang' and darwins theory of how we all evolved.........and wishful thinking??hmmmmmm I'll say to you what I said to someone else why are you even here? if you are going to dispute whats being said and not willing to accept the fact that Allah is the one and only God and that Muhammad S.A.W is his last messenger and slave............

HeiGou
04-07-2006, 04:43 PM
because athiest's believe in weird theories like the 'big bang' and darwins theory of how we all evolved.........and wishful thinking??hmmmmmm I'll say to you what I said to someone else why are you even here? if you are going to dispute whats being said and not willing to accept the fact that Allah is the one and only God and that Muhammad S.A.W is his last messenger and slave............

I think if this keeps up the thread will have to be moved to Science or even Refutations. Any Mods watching who can do that or offer some advice?

What is weird about the Big Bang or Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Wishful thinking? Darwin's theory has three basic premises: 1. The Earth has existed for a long time, 2. Children look like their parents, 3. Not all offspring will survive to reproduce or reproduce with equal success. Now who objects to a single one of those claims?

Why am I here? I am learning a lot about Islam. Oh you mean more generally. I have no purpose to my existence. I exist because I do. That does not mean I cannot find meaning in being a good person and that is, I think, its own reward. But if I do not find that meaning, it does not matter except to me and those nearest me.

If I dispute that what will happen to me? And how do you know?

root
04-08-2006, 09:29 AM
the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!! and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!!

I think this is a bad example. The boat is indeed a product of man and if we play along with "creation" what has actually happened to the wood? If the boat was never made would this mean the wood would never exist? And in order to build the boat the presence of wood must be available in the first place! Is the purpose of wood for the sole purpose of boat making, Man made creations still require the use of "Natural" material..........

I would question the direct misleading word "Existense" you and a boat exist, however your existence and any lifeform is very much different to the state of existence of your boat or any other "man made" creation.

root
04-08-2006, 09:33 AM
Muhammad - OK the discussion is in essence about the scientific view of how the Universe originated and the religious one; one says the universe came into existence by itself, whereas the other says it was created by God. The reason that I likened Creationism to ID was because they both started from the concept that 'a' God created, hence to ask 'which' God created is a diversion from the topic and irrelevant to the current discussion (and a topic of its own).

I had a real good giggle at this one. The scientific view of how the universe originated has got bugger all to do with Evolution, yet you claim to which god ID points to is irrelevent.

Priceless............

Muhammad
04-30-2006, 11:17 PM
I had a real good giggle at this one. The scientific view of how the universe originated has got bugger all to do with Evolution, yet you claim to which god ID points to is irrelevent.

Priceless............

I am glad someone is enjoying the discussion, though I can't say for the right reasons. In the above quote of mine, I don't remember making mention of evolution, and regarding ID: I said it was a diversion from the topic rather than being an irrelevant subject in itself.

Regards.

root
05-01-2006, 12:21 AM
Muhammad - OK the discussion is in essence about the scientific view of how the Universe originated

Exscuse me! Come again! read that one by me again.

This is a discussion on Creationism/ID (those two things are the same hypothosis v the theory of evolution.)

So I reiterate:

What the hell has "cosmology" (origins of the universe) got to do with "evolution" (The change in allele frequency in a population over time)?

Alphaseed
05-01-2006, 02:08 AM
Who cares who says we come from a monkey ?

All it matters to me is what i believe, that a powerfull God created the heavens and the earth and created an order that even science can't deny.

"The fool said in His heart ,There is no God."

R_Mujahed
05-01-2006, 02:49 AM
Harun Yahya - Categories - Refutation of Darwinism (http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php)

Trumble
05-01-2006, 09:25 AM
Harun Yahya - An Invitation to The Truth (http://www.harunyahya.com)

good site for the evolution myth


What the site itself peddles is the "myth". The 'arguments' have been around for years. What the creationists 'forget' to mention in the writing, however is that most of them got scientifically shot down years ago. There simply is no scientific argument in favour of creationism over evolution. None. At all. There is not a single piece of solid evidence in favour of creationism - just sniping (which in a few cases is actually justifiable, but in most is not) at the accepted theory because it happens to be religiously inconvenient.

There are, however, some perfectly good philosophical and particularly faith-based arguments in favour of creationism. If you believe, you believe and that's fine. "Science" just isn't the way for creationists to go.. just saying "the Qur'an (or Bible) says so-and-so, I believe that to be the Word of God, so so-and-so is true" is a far stronger position to take than dabbling in science... or indeed by (another common ploy) just attempting to re-define science to fit.

Creationists tried to take on the evolutionists on their own turf, science; most recently with a new "play" called 'intelligent design'. The evolutionists won, and won comfortably, the principle scientific claims of ID being left in tatters... if anyone still believes otherwise its only because their publicity machine was rather more effective than their science. It's pointless linking to sites like to Harun Yaha. There is nothing there, or in his books that would convince anybody who wasn't convinced already.. the same is true of many similar ones, Muslim and Christian. Convincing others isn't even their purpose... their purpose is reinforcing belief in those who already believe knowing that those people will not look too deeply below the surface of what they told.





What the hell has "cosmology" (origins of the universe) got to do with "evolution" (The change in allele frequency in a population over time)?

Nothing whatsoever, of course. That's part of the problem here; if people could only stop confusing cosmology and even abiogenesis with evolution by natural selection most of their problems with evolution would disappear. There is absolutely no reason that evolution and God can't co-exist and it always amazes me that people don't find the idea of God designing such a wonderful mechanism as part of his design much more attractive than some of the obviously mythical alternatives. Some evolutionists are atheists, true, but the theory itself is NOT inherently atheistic, it just contradicts some of the more absurd creation myths (e.g the world created in six days, six thousand years ago, or whatever it was supposed to be).

Man evolved from apes. That is indisputable (or at least very close to it) at least in scientific terms. But could somebody actually explain to me what is wrong with the idea that man evolved from apes because that's the way God designed things to be?! What is so wrong with the idea that from that first spec of life (forget probabilities - lets just assume God WAS responsible for that) things were meant to work out the way they have. Isn't that wonderful?! Who else but God could create such a thing? There is no worry about predetermination.. the arguments frequently used in connection with human free will are just as valid here. Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean He is controlling it every step of the way. He is God! He doesn't need to.

KAding
05-01-2006, 10:29 AM
Evolution does not clash with the principle of God, but it does clash with the Word of God.

Muhammad
05-01-2006, 11:37 AM
Exscuse me! Come again! read that one by me again.

This is a discussion on Creationism/ID (those two things are the same hypothosis v the theory of evolution.)

So I reiterate:

What the hell has "cosmology" (origins of the universe) got to do with "evolution" (The change in allele frequency in a population over time)?

Perhaps I did not accurately represent the title of the thread in that statement of mine, though I am sure you will remember that cosmology was discussed in quite some depth at some point in this thread. Regardless of this, the point I was making was that we were looking at scientific views against religious views of how we came to be, thereby pointing out that discussing the nature of God was not the crux of the discussion.

Regards.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-01-2014, 12:05 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-04-2010, 03:50 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 08:04 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 09:05 PM