PDA

View Full Version : Evolution - Creationism



rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 04:27 PM
Which side do you take in the debate and why?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
wilberhum
02-19-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
Which side do you take in the debate and why?
Evolution is based in Science. Creationism is based on mythology.
Evolution is based on facts. Creationism is based on faith.

Fact of fiction, that's an easy choice.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Evolution is based in Science. Creationism is based on mythology.
Evolution is based on facts. Creationism is based on faith.

Fact of fiction, that's an easy choice.
How did you come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is based on facts? Can you elaborate?
Reply

Siraaj
02-19-2007, 04:36 PM
according to me, creationism is fact, and evolution is fiction. thats an easy choice.
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
wilberhum
02-19-2007, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
How did you come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is based on facts? Can you elaborate?
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Siraaj
according to me, creationism is fact, and evolution is fiction. thats an easy choice.
Would you like to present your argument? Why is it such an easy choice?
Reply

chris4336
02-19-2007, 04:45 PM
I am a medical student, and its pretty hard to deny the fact that our bodies contain gene sequences that are identical to those in bacteria. However, as a Muslim I find it quite possible to believe in both. The Quran says Allah created life from water, which agrees with science. It also says he created Adam and Eve, which I believe as well. There is nothing in the Quran that says there did not exist predecesors that share many qualities with humans before humans were created. But I think the development of Humans was separate event. Science can explain a lot in evolution, but there are a ton of complex human brain processes not seen in any other animals, that I think are gifts from Allah.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 04:47 PM
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
Those of us who want to study the creation/evolution debate need to understand the "dating" methods used in "historical geology" and the assumptions involved.

Do you pocess any knowledge in how things are "dated". If so, how can you call them facts?
Reply

Siraaj
02-19-2007, 04:47 PM
In the first place, we would like to stress that Allah is the Absolute Controller of every event that has taken place, is taking place, and will take place.

Every living thing in the universe has been given life by Allah, and Allah alone is sustaining every second of its life. If a species survives better than another in a particular environment, it is because Allah allowed it to live more days, and He willed for its posterity to continue.

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states the following:

There are many theories of evolution. Some of them are acceptable according to Islam, while there are others that are not acceptable. If by evolution one means the development and growth that Allah Almighty has placed in the nature of His creation, then this is acceptable and the Qur'an itself talks about it.

Allah has power to say "Be" and everything will become. But He created the heaven and earth in six days, as mentioned in the Qur'an (Al-A'raf 7:54; Yunus 10:3; Hud 11:7; Al-Furqan 25:59; As-Sajdah 32:4; Qaf 50:38; Al-Hadid 57:4; Al-Mujadilah 58:4).

The word "six days" does not necessarily mean six days of twenty-four hours duration each. It could also mean six periods whose duration is known to Allah alone. The word "day" is used in the Qur'an for various lengths or periods of time. It could mean 24 hours, or one thousand years (Al-Hajj 22:47) or fifty thousand years (Al-Ma`arij 70:4) or even more. However, this process of time does indicate some kind of evolution that was created by Allah and directed by Him.

The theory of evolution that postulates that the whole creation came by itself and nature evolved itself by mutation, selection and fixation, et cetera, is not acceptable in Islam. This is an atheistic theory and it has no sensible rational and logical foundation. Everyone knows that nature has so many possibilities and variables; how could all these variables have selected, mutated and fixed themselves in such a way that an orderly universe came out and continues to exist and flourish?

To say that all these things happened by themselves is nothing but absurd. It is like saying that words collapsed, mutated and then fixed into a wonderful encyclopedia by themselves. Or books mutated themselves and then fixed into a well-organized library. Nothing happened or happens by itself. There is a Creator Who has created everything, whether at once or through the process of growth and development.

Islam also teaches us that human beings are a special creation of Allah. Allah created Adam and his wife Eve (peace and blessings be upon them), and then through them created many men and women. We do not accept the theory (it is important to keep in mind that this is only a theory and not a fact) that says that all living organisms came from matter and man evolved from lower living organisms. There is a link between the human body and other living organisms, but this does not prove that one is evolved from the other.
Read Quran with deep understanding and authentic hadiths such as Bukhari, Muslim etc.

Allah Almighty knows best.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-19-2007, 04:48 PM
You just can't resist can you wilberhum.
Evolution based on facts? Give me one fact that proves common descent.
Evolution is scientific? Ok, then falsify it, then show me empirical testing, then present me mechanistic theories.

Just one of each will do :)
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 04:55 PM
The word "six days" does not necessarily mean six days of twenty-four hours duration each. It could also mean six periods whose duration is known to Allah alone.
I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. The Torah clearly states "6 days". I am not sure what the Quran teaches if the Torah is right on creation or not. But saying that 6 days does not mean 6 days is really odd, and many apologists will say this.

Imagine if I said this:

Islam also teaches us that human beings are a special creation of Allah.
By "special" you really mean "equal" to other animals. Saying 6 days equals billions of year makes no sense. Can you point to me where your holy book says a day can be a year?
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-19-2007, 05:23 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
Theory means it can be disproved. It means it is not a fact. A fact is like one of the Laws of Physics. So far nobody has been able to disprove the Newton's Laws of Gravity or the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

If Evolution theory is a fact it means it cannot be disproved nor disputed. It would be called Law of Evolution or Darwin's Laws. For the time being there's no such thing. It is being debated over and over again. It means it still isn't a fact.

Get your facts right.
Reply

Siraaj
02-19-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
Can you point to me where your holy book says a day can be a year?
"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning." (Qur'an 22:47)
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by chris4336
I am a medical student, and its pretty hard to deny the fact that our bodies contain gene sequences that are identical to those in bacteria. However, as a Muslim I find it quite possible to believe in both. The Quran says Allah created life from water, which agrees with science. It also says he created Adam and Eve, which I believe as well. There is nothing in the Quran that says there did not exist predecesors that share many qualities with humans before humans were created. But I think the development of Humans was separate event. Science can explain a lot in evolution, but there are a ton of complex human brain processes not seen in any other animals, that I think are gifts from Allah.
Very good point. Not many religious people realize that their belief systems may not be in conflict with evolutionary theory. They just see evolution and knee jerk "Oh that can't be!"

It is refreshing to see an outlier. I think more such outliers are inevitable with a better educated populace.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by Siraaj
"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning." (Qur'an 22:47)
I suggest you read this:

http://www.albalagh.net/general/evol...creation.shtml

Your own holy book delcares Adam was created from clay!
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2007, 05:36 PM
Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence pieced together to suggest it, which is why it is pretty close to being unversally accepted by biologists. There are few if any remaining who still doubt that it is part of how we came to be.

That being said, it isn't 100% for sure. Little in science is. And there are still a lot of questions about how it happens and how it happened. We're improving out knowledge about it all the time, but I doubt we'll ever have the complete picture.

Creation is exactly the opposite. It offers you the complete picture. Religion in general plays this role, answering all of life's unanswered or unanswerable questions. I very much doubt that any religion has the picture right, but I'm not sure that really matters in the end. It offers what science can not, and so it will always be around and accepted.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence pieced together to suggest it, which is why it is pretty close to being unversally accepted by biologists. There are few if any remaining who still doubt that it is part of how we came to be.

That being said, it isn't 100% for sure. Little in science is. And there are still a lot of questions about how it happens and how it happened. We're improving out knowledge about it all the time, but I doubt we'll ever have the complete picture.

Creation is exactly the opposite. It offers you the complete picture. Religion in general plays this role, answering all of life's unanswered or unanswerable questions. I very much doubt that any religion has the picture right, but I'm not sure that really matters in the end. It offers what science can not, and so it will always be around and accepted.

You must understand the difference between scientists and science itself:

Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.*

And so, the “proof” cited for evolution by scientists, from so-called “vestigial” organs, that is organs in the human body (and animals bodies) that have no purpose, but are similar in design to a organ in an animal that does have a purpose, shows that our bodies are later vesions of those animal bodies, and those organs are kind of “left overs” from the olden days when we needed them.

Here is an example of how scientists like to make believe that their own words, even if unsubstantiated and unverified, constitute “science”.

Of course, there is no scientific evidence that any organ has no purpose.
The most scientists can say is that they have not found a purpose. As if the fact that they haven’t found a purpose means that there is none. As in the above example, they have been wrong many times, even when they were so sure of themselves. This is why, not long ago, they would cut out your tonsils if they got inflamed with tonsillitis. They were so sure that because they could not find a use for the tonsils, that means there is no use, that they would actually remove hundreds of thousands of them from the human body as if they were, well, useless organs. The scientists have made several other mistakes in this area as well, relying on their arrogance to conclude that “Since WE don’t know of a purpose for this organ, therefore, it has no purpose”

How arrogant, and how ridiculous!

Here is where the Torah’s view of science diverges from that of the scientists.

Says the Rambam: “How does one come to love and fear Him? When one ponders His actions and His creations, and sees in them intelligence that has no measure and no end.” (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:2)

The wisdom of Hashem Himself is manifest in the wonderful world we live in, and since His wisdom is infinite, the wisdom contained in the world is infinite.

And so, no matter how much wisdom scientists discover in the universe, it is nothing compared to what they have not yet discovered . Therefore, the idea that “if we big shot scientists, with our great knowledge of the universe, cannot find a purpose for this organ, it must have no purpose”

Scientists may understand a lot, but compared to what there is to understand, they know nothing. The scientist – not science, but the scientist, in his arrogance – has no idea how much more he has yet to discover, how wonderful and immeasurable and boundless are the wonders of Hashem’s world.

And the fact that these organs “are similar” in structure to organs in other animals does nto constitute any evidence of one organ “descending” from the other. The real reason why organs a resimilar in different species is because they were made by the same Designer. A nickel is similar to a quarter but it doesn’t mean one evlved form the other. This reasoning of theirs, that similarity in structure and appearance implies a relationship is based on the assumption that there is no single designer for both. Once you take the Designer out of the picture, it is indeed a weird coincidence that two organs in apparently unrelated species, one of which seems not to have a purpose, bears an uncanny similarity to the other. The “logic” of evolution – what of it that can be called logic – is all based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Now the quesiotn is: IF there is no creator, how did we get here? IF there is no Creator, then why do these ogans seems so similar? The entire nonsense is only assumptions and wishful thinking, not logic or reason.

Science is infinite. Scientists are finite. For scientists to say that because they do not see intelligence in an organ therefore there must be no intelligence is not base on any scientific evidence; it is nothgin but the asusumption of the scientists, based on the arrogant idea that if they don’t see it, it’s not there.

Such an attitude does not honor science; it reduces science to a discoverable, finite subject matter, whose llimits are somehow measurable by the yardstick of what “scientists” have figured out. None of that is the result of any scientific evidence at all – just the arrogance of the scientist.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2007, 06:25 PM
It makes logical sense that if an organ is removed and there are no adverse consequences, then it was a useless organ. Do the study on animals similar to humans, rats then maybe monkeys, and measure the results over the remaining lifespan. If there is no significant difference between the goup that had it removed and the control group, then any purpose the organ had was meaningless. No?

The utility of approach certainly beats listening to the folk tales of some farmers and fishers of a hundreds of years past. Jehova's winesses follow their interpretation of what one of those goat herders wrote, and refuse blood tranfusions. They sometimes die as a result. Then there are faith healers :)
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-19-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It makes logical sense that if an organ is removed and there are no adverse consequences, then it was a useless organ.
It certainly does not make any logical sense. Our understanding of the human body, is not deep enough to be able to say 'because we see no consequences these consequences do not exist'. In the early 1900's, you could find thousands of statements that dispute our current findings. Scientists are assuming something. It by no means makes it a fact with their limited understanding.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
It certainly does not make any logical sense. Our understanding of the human body, is not deep enough to be able to say 'because we see no consequences these consequences do not exist'.
You're right. We can't say that consequences do not exist. Only that they do not make any meaningful difference, as observed and compared between the experimental and control groups.
Reply

wilberhum
02-19-2007, 07:35 PM
Originally Posted by steve
You just can't resist can you wilberhum.
Evolution based on facts? Give me one fact that proves common descent.
Evolution is scientific? Ok, then falsify it, then show me empirical testing, then present me mechanistic theories.

Just one of each will do :)
You are right. I couldn't resist. That is one thing we have in common. We both know that you are more stubron than me and will never accept even to most obvious statements. As you know there is no "Proof" of common desent, just millions of indications. For me a million indications outweight a cupple of old books.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
02-19-2007, 08:31 PM
Evolution... ah... my favorite debate!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-19-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
You are right. I couldn't resist. That is one thing we have in common. We both know that you are more stubron than me and will never accept even to most obvious statements. As you know there is no "Proof" of common desent, just millions of indications. For me a million indications outweight a cupple of old books.
I marvel at the way you play with words.

First you say that I'm stuborn not to accept an obvious statement.
The statement was: Evolution is based on facts.
Then I ask give me one fact that proofs common descent, and you reply there is none, so which one is it? Millions of litle facts that can be interpreted both ways but you chose to see as proof out of convenience?

Anyway, how about the empirical testing and the mechanistic theories to make it scientific... you didn't say anything in respond to that ...
Reply

root
02-19-2007, 11:10 PM
Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty.

However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

1/ All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.

2/ Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

3/ Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

4/ Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

5/ The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.

6/ Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

7/ Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

8/ Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

9/ Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

10/ When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

11/ The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

12/ Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

13/ Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts

Could the creationists now post YOUR "EVIDENCE"

Thanks...........
Reply

Muezzin
02-19-2007, 11:13 PM
Not another evolution debate...

I don't think people should get so fired up about it. Live and let live, think freely, and be excellent to each other.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-20-2007, 12:05 AM
5/ The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
I would love to hear about the dating methods of the fossils.
Reply

snakelegs
02-20-2007, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Not another evolution debate...

I don't think people should get so fired up about it. Live and let live, think freely, and be excellent to each other.
too sane.
go back to your wabbits.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2007, 12:32 AM
Tons of sites on google boast your "high degrees of certainty" How embaressing for you this cut and paste job!.. Do you have a mind of your own or is this where your rudimentary vestigial remnant presides?

common ancestors, genetic drift, morphological change, survival of the fittest, Embryology, yeast, change over time, adaptation, natural selection. ..........scatology. you have met the quota of most convuloted words per day.... Do you understand half of the stuff you posted up there? why or why not it would remotly negate the existence of a creator?

You decide to use your right hand all the time, it hypertrophies --you neglect and disuse your left and it atrophies so much it becomes non-functional-- and you being a natural leader decide to invade a tribe and run a little experiment ...where you won't be judged harshly for your freakish arms; and view of a new superior one armed human race! All the people in the village in which you are now king follow in your lead until their left hand falls off over time from disuse... yipee yay kayay.. & with this you have now proven that G-D doesn't exist?

......a few generations down the line new folks come strolling in your town with two arms and intermarry with your village of freaks and voila Atavism woho a couple of you have arms G-D exists yet again and man in perfect form?

....... you open a state of the art lab and go in a double blinded random study indiscriminately sampling folks, animals and plants from various sites and discover all the components from the various tissues are made of the exact same organic substances and proteins in different isometric structures and spatial arrangements, and suddenly you conclude we've all come from monkeys and whales and share common ancestry? and oh let me throw in there that it should also denote that G-D doesn't exist?

creatures have existed millions and billions of years and are fossilized they share common genetic makeup with us made of the same stuff...these new books about G-D are a fairly new so that must mean he couldn't exist?

what do you know of creation except cliff notes from various blogs of which you have mustered the art plagiarizing ? a shame all you write is someone else's eloquent view... I don't understand remotely how you can tie humans acquiescing to the environment, creatures acquiescing to nature and all the events that run like clock works, changing, morphing acquiescing, losing or gaining traits having traits in common genetic drifiting, dominance or recessiveness of genes to mean that a governing deity doesn't exist? Have you actually read the Quran or any books preceding it? If for nothing else just simply to loan credence to your drivel! or for curiosity' sake.. like you would casually read a history book or the Canterbury tales, So that when you write you'd be more insightful and less abraisive...

It is tiresome this recycled hyperbolic rhetoric "proof", "truth" behaving like a clever 2 year old who has run an adult in a corner... -------

-- I can't believe I wasted my time on this... I really have no one to blame but myself--I am ready to take another hiatus, please take all the time in the world to come up with one of you derisive & expected replies!.... I have lost all interest in this ad hominem!
........ beam me up scotty....
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-20-2007, 12:52 AM
Who exactly are you referring to in your tirade?
Reply

جوري
02-20-2007, 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
Who exactly are you referring to in your tirade?
to root who is a hoot... glad you enjoyed my tirade :confused:
Reply

Siraaj
02-20-2007, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
I suggest you read this:

http://www.albalagh.net/general/evol...creation.shtml

Your own holy book delcares Adam was created from clay!
I do not need to read it.....because I being a Muslim already know that Allah created Prophet Adam (pbuh) from clay.

Allah knows best.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-20-2007, 02:42 PM
Hi root, I'm sorry but your points don't cut the mustard they're full of Bias

Originally Posted by root
1/ All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
That fact is equally consistence with creationism, if it aint broken, don't fix it. Why would God have gone trough completely different mechanisms when obviously these are quite effective?

2/ Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
That's a straw man, the nest only proves micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. A person who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution would just as well have predicted the emergence of such nests. So that emergence doesn't necessarily prove common descent, in fact the many missing links tend to suggest that common descent is false.

3/ Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Well, that's only for the nests, the micro-evolution, not the macro-evolution.

4/ Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Yet at the same time there are incredible gaps in the fossil record, again showing us that micro-evolution is probable, but macro is improbable.

5/ The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Yet at the same time there are cases of unexplainable fossils who were found in layers they don't belong in, or different fossils of different alleged steps of evolution almost all originating from the same time-period.

6/ Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
But the intermediate stages still make it troublesome to explain the evolutionary step in between them in a mechanistic theory as it is still likely that such a change would involve mutation in several genes at once who are located on different spots.

7/ Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
In a way, atavism could just as well be held as an argument of inconsistency with the evolutionary three. The theory that it was dormant in the in between species is just a way out of the inconsistency until it is proven.

8/ Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Again, micro-evolution, not macro evolution.

9/ Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. For the thousand time, you cannot argue that similarity is a proof for condescend.

10/ When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
Why should God have made different mechanisms when these obviously are great? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

11/ The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimal is extremely difficult to establish. I'm not saying our bodies are perfect in the Utopian sense, but I do think they are perfect in the sense that they more benefits then all alternatives. To suggest otherwise one would have to come up with a hypotetical "better" alternative. And of course it's incredible hard determining whether or not it would be "better" since we have no way of testing the hypothetical alternative.

12/ Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Just because we haven't found the use of it doesn't mean it's useless. A lot of genes that were considered garbage DNA could still have certain use.
As for ERV (endogenous retro-viruses) proving our common descent, have you read my latest post in the Evolution-ERV-sticky-topic? Recent studies have shown that Aids (a retrovirus) most likely carries enzymes with 'm that dictates the insertion point it takes when infecting a cell's DNA. So The theory that different species have similar insertion points due to similar methods of infection rather then condescend again rises in credebility.

13/ Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002). The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts
These only show us that micro-evolution is possible. As I said before, I don't have any problems with that.



Could the creationists now post YOUR "EVIDENCE"
Thanks...........
I don't see why I should post evidence. I never claimed that the theory of creationism was based on facts and was scientific. Instead wilberhum said that about evolution, even though he knows only micro-evolution is proven and common descent isn't at all proven and isn't at all scientific. I think my replies to your arguments have shown that sufficiently.
Reply

NoName55
02-20-2007, 02:52 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
There are millions of facts that support evolution. I assume that you don't understand the concept of a "Scientific Theory". If not, you are debating against what you don't understand.
:sl:

Is evolution still going on or has it stopped now?
If it has since when?
Is anyone one here today who knows that his/her great, great, great grandpappy was a monkey?
also could you elaborate a bit about, which field of science you have your masters degree?

Thank you kindly
Reply

wilberhum
02-20-2007, 05:09 PM
Is evolution still going on or has it stopped now?
It will continue as long as there is any life form.
Is anyone one here today who knows that his/her great, great, great grandpappy was a monkey?
Statements like this proves that either you don't understand what is said about human evolution or you chose to distort it.
also could you elaborate a bit about, which field of science you have your masters degree?
No degree, just average intellegance and I don't suffer from Self Imposed Ignorance.
Reply

duskiness
02-20-2007, 05:14 PM
this evolution vs. creationism discussion is something I don't. in my country Church has much too much influence, but we never had such a discussion. I had to attend religion classes since I was 7 until I was 19. And never ever there was any discussion about creationism.
Let's scientists do their job. They say it is probably evolution. I hope they know what they are saying.
Whatever phenomena they will discover in this world I believe that God in behind it. He is the Creator. even if He "used" evolution.
Reply

rebelishaulman
02-20-2007, 08:29 PM
Let's scientists do their job. They say it is probably evolution. I hope they know what they are saying.
Whatever phenomena they will discover in this world I believe that God in behind it. He is the Creator. even if He "used" evolution.
Then by your statement I can assume that you do not believe the story of Genesis, on how the world was created?
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2007, 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
Then by your statement I can assume that you do not believe the story of Genesis, on how the world was created?
Maybe the garden of eden was a puddle and Adam and Eve were bacteria? :D

Maybe God was a scientist in an alien lab and the Garden of Eden was contained within a petri dish.

Good sci fi topic we got goin here now.
Reply

strider
02-20-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Maybe the garden of eden was a puddle and Adam and Eve were bacteria? :D

Maybe God was a scientist in an alien lab and the Garden of Eden was contained within a petri dish.

Good sci fi topic we got goin here now.
I laughed, despite myself.

I take the middle ground, in this debate. That is to say, i believe in the existence of God and i believe that He created all things but i also believe that He uses evolution via natural selection as His tool. Contrary to what a lot of people may think, science and religion doesn't necessarily have to be at odds especially Islam which confirms a lot of the theories found within science such as the theory of the Big Bang.
Reply

Count DeSheep
02-20-2007, 09:38 PM
Drastically condensed version:

Creationism; according to the Bible, Allah made whales, cows, and so on. Then He made man. The man, Adam, named things for a while, was lonely, so Allah put him to sleep. During the sleep, rib taken, woman made. The end.

Me thinks that evolution wasn't used by Allah. It says in the Bible that Adam did his own thing for a while, and then AFTER a bit, Allah made woman. Me thinks that if evolution was used by Him, man and woman woulda been there at the same time.
Reply

Woodrow
02-20-2007, 09:58 PM
I see 3 problems.

1. Nobody has the ability to replicate creationism.

2. Nobody can replicate evolution

3. Until one of us can replicate our belief we will never be able to convince the other how our belief can work.
Reply

Malaikah
02-21-2007, 06:33 AM
Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. The Torah clearly states "6 days". I am not sure what the Quran teaches if the Torah is right on creation or not. But saying that 6 days does not mean 6 days is really odd, and many apologists will say this.
Hi,

I just wanted to clarify that the word used in the Quran to refer to the heavens and the earth being created in 6 'days', the word used doesn't mean only days, it can also mean something like 'long time periods'.

The word has both meanings, and could mean either one, hence why Muslims do not necessarily have to believe that the universe and earth was created in six 24 hour days.
Reply

Malaikah
02-21-2007, 06:40 AM
Islam says nothing against evolution except for two things:

1. Humans did not evolve, they were created directly as humans.
2. If evolution did occur, it wasn't an 'accident', it was planned by God.

Having studied a little but of evolution at uni... I must say it is really interesting, and I don't see why it couldn't be a possibility for how bacteria, fungi, plants and animals (excluding humans) were created.

In other words- Muslims can not use Islam to disprove evolution of anything other than humans!
Reply

Count DeSheep
02-21-2007, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
1. Humans did not evolve, they were created directly as humans.

In other words- Muslims can not use Islam to disprove evolution of anything other than humans!
What does the Q'uran say about evolution? If you could give me the verse numbers, I'd be really greatful. =D

And why can't Islam be used to disproved the evolution of everything else? I have a guess at what you're going to say, though...>.<
Reply

Woodrow
02-21-2007, 10:26 PM
And why can't Islam be used to disproved the evolution of everything else? I have a guess at what you're going to say, though...>.<
The Qur'an does not specifically tell us how the animals were created. there is nothing in the Qur'an that could be seen as a refutation for the evolution of animals.
Reply

Malaikah
02-22-2007, 01:00 AM
^Exactly. We only know how humans were created, and nothing at all about how animals and plants were created.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2007, 01:15 AM
Does the Quran specifically state that humans were created as they now exist? Or just that they were created in the image of God or something like that? Could they have evolved since creation?
Reply

NoName55
02-22-2007, 01:57 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Does the Quran specifically state that humans were created as they now exist? Or just that they were created in the image of God or something like that? Could they have evolved since creation?
hello & peace

I believe that Adam was created as we look now.

edit:
Hadith - related by Muslim, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa'i, and at-Tirmidhi who calls it sahih (authentic).
Abu Hurairah reports that the Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H.) said: "The best day on which the sun rises is Friday. [On Friday] Adam was created and on that day he entered paradise and on that day he was expelled from paradise. And the Hour will come to pass on Friday."

The Holy Qur'an Al-A'raf 7:189
It is He Who has created you from a single person (Adam), and (then) He has created from him his wife [Hawwa (Eve)], in order that he might enjoy the pleasure of living with her. ...

The Holy Qur'an Al-'Imran 3:59
Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before All&#226;h is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

Hadith - Abu Dawood. Imam Ahmad has narrated from Abu Musa that the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) said:
"Allah has created Adam from a handful (soil) which He had gathered from all over the earth. That is how the children of Adam came according to the (colour and nature of the) earth. There are white among them, as well as red and black, and cross colours. There are those among them who are of bad nature and good nature, soft as well as harsh and in between".
Sheikh Al-Albani (rahimahullah) declares the hadeeth authentic in Saheeh Al-Jaami' As-Sagheer wa-Ziyadatuhu (No. 1759) as well as in Silsalatul-Ahaadeeth-as-Saheehah (No. 1630).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is an excerpt from the story of creation of Man from The Qura'an:


2.28. How can you disbelieve In All&#226;h? Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, Then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him You will return.
2.29. He it is who created for you all that is on earth. Then He Istaw&#226; (rose over) towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything.
2.30. And (remember) when Your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." they said: "Will you place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify you with praises and thanks (Exalted be you above All that they associate with you as partners) and sanctify you." He (All&#226;h) said: "I know that which you do not know."
2.31. And He taught Adam All the names (of everything), Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful."
2.32. They (angels) said: "Glory be to you, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Verily, it is you, the All-Knower, the All-Wise."
2.33. He said: "O Adam! Inform them of their names," and when He had informed them of their names, He said: "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen in the heavens and the earth, and I know what you reveal and what you have been concealing?"
2.34. And (remember) when we said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam.” And they prostrated except Satan, He refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to All&#226;h).
2.35. And we said: "O Adam! Dwell You and Your wife In the Paradise and eat both of You freely with pleasure and delight of things therein as wherever You will, but come not near This tree or You both will be of the Z&#226;lim&#251;n (wrong-doers)."
2.36. Then the Shait&#226;n (Satan) made them slip therefrom (the Paradise/Eden/Janah), and got them out from that In which they were. We said: "Get You down, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time."
2.37. Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned Him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the one who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.

Ma'asalaama
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2007, 02:19 AM
Where in that quote does it give you the indication that Adam looked like we do today?
Reply

NoName55
02-22-2007, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Where in that quote does it give you the indication that Adam looked like we do today?
oopsie

Ammended!

thanks for correctig me!
Reply

Malaikah
02-22-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Does the Quran specifically state that humans were created as they now exist? Or just that they were created in the image of God or something like that? Could they have evolved since creation?
Adam was a lot taller than modern humans. That is all I know.
Reply

Siraaj
02-22-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Adam was a lot taller than modern humans. That is all I know.
yeah, exactly ! Also, I know that people of those times used to have long life spans, they used to live for about thousand years, unlike today, where the average life span is about 60-70 years.

Allah knows best.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-22-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally Posted by Siraaj
yeah, exactly ! Also, I know that people of those times used to have long life spans, they used to live for about thousand years, unlike today, where the average life span is about 60-70 years.

Allah knows best.
Do you have any hadeeth to back that up? Seems rather odd
Reply

InToTheRain
02-22-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I see 3 problems.

1. Nobody has the ability to replicate creationism.

2. Nobody can replicate evolution

3. Until one of us can replicate our belief we will never be able to convince the other how our belief can work.
:sl:

True. Both are based on faith. In my opinion the possibilty and probabilty of creationism by far outweighs, to the extent to which it becomes a certainty, the probability of the evolution theory. One only needs to look at the world and its events rationally. I also feel sorry for those who follow the evolution theory for they will never find answers to many questions.

I think if Allah(SWT) wanted or needed (Astaghfirullah) us to worship him then he would have "be" and it will be as he wishes. But he wants us to worship him of his own free will so the signs and messages are designed in such a way as to avoid forcing all of humanity to worship Allah(SWT) due to its unavoidable facts that only become apparent to those truely seeking guidance... If that makes sense :rolleyes:
Reply

Woodrow
02-22-2007, 01:22 PM
I think if Allah(SWT) wanted or needed (Astaghfirullah) us to worship him then he would have "be" and it will be as he wishes. But he wants us to worship him of his own free will so the signs and messages are designed in such a way as to avoid forcing all of humanity to worship Allah(SWT) due to its unavoidable facts that only become apparent to those truely seeking guidance... If that makes sense
Of course that makes sense. The difficult part is that for us no proof is necessary. We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know. A person can not understand how that can be knowledge unless they do believe.
Reply

Siraaj
02-22-2007, 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by steve
Do you have any hadeeth to back that up? Seems rather odd
hey steve, its true ! yeah, i will find a source for that as soon as possible insha'Allah.
did you know steve, that the Prophet Adam, Nuh, Musa, Ibrahim and many other prophets of Allah lived for more than hundreds of years.....

Allah knows best.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by steve
Do you have any hadeeth to back that up? Seems rather odd
And have you not heard the story of Nuh who gave dawah for 950 years to his people?
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-22-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Of course that makes sense. The difficult part is that for us no proof is necessary. We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know. A person can not understand how that can be knowledge unless they do believe.
And we know because of the scientific facts that are presented in the Quran and the stories which have 100 percent accuracy to todays Established Science work.
Reply

Trumble
02-22-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah

True. Both are based on faith. In my opinion the possibilty and probabilty of creationism by far outweighs, to the extent to which it becomes a certainty, the probability of the evolution theory. One only needs to look at the world and its events rationally.
I agree 100% with everything there with the one exception of exchanging the positions of 'evolution' and 'creationism'. I am simply not aware of anything other than faith (in something or other) that rationally supports creationism at all. In my opinion (and like faith - or not - that's all it can be, as you say) creationism is a myth designed to account for what was, when that myth was created, something totally inexplicable. Possibly not much, but things have moved on, and we are now making those first, difficult, steps along the road to real understanding. The quicker we can shed the excess intellectual luggage, the faster we will go. And, yes, I am quite concious that some would say exactly the same about my own spiritual beliefs!
Reply

zoro
02-22-2007, 08:07 PM
It's so sad to see adults behaving like children. You want to live forever in paradise, so you "believe" whatever those who promise it to you tell you -- just like little children who "believe" in Santa Claus and therefore do whatever their mothers tell them.

And thus the clerics of the word keep repeating their silly, prehistoric "science" called creationism (as well as their equally silly ideas about gods and souls and eternal life in paradise) -- "like parrots on a dead branch of knowledge, endlessly repeating the same old lines" -- because the clerics consider it to be far easier to recite what they've memorized than actually go out and work for a living, e.g., doing science.

In contrast to the claim made by Woodrow, the Latin word for 'knowledge' is science, and to gain knowledge about the world there's no known alternative other than to apply the scientific method, which as Feynman said, is simply a way to try to make sure you're not fooling yourself: 1) Analyze all relevant and reliable data (e.g., about gods or souls or eternal life or paradise); if no data are available, then move on to some idea for which data are available. 2) Formulate a hypothesis that succinctly summarizes the data, that's consistent with well-tested scientific principles, and that provides testable predictions; if the hypothesis doesn't provide testable predictions (e.g., about life after death), then trash the hypothesis (because it's meaningless). 3) Test the predictions of the hypothesis by performing new experiments, analyze the new data, and continue, without end. In short: guess, test, and reassess.

The theory of evolution is an example of such a hypothesis that continues to survive the rigors of the scientific method. Creationism is a useless, untestable idea (concocted by the Ancient Sumerians and Egyptians) that belongs in the trash can of human speculations -- "useless", that is, except for clerics, who use it to con people out of their money.

People (such as Woodrow) who buy into the clerics' ideas that "belief" and "faith" are ways to knowledge about the world, rather than the scientific method, are prefect "marks" for the clerics' con games. But, that the clerics have duped you is primarily your own fault. As all con artists know, there's no way to cheat someone who's honest, i.e., someone who doesn't want more than he or she has earned. And if you think that you "deserve" eternal life in paradise simply because you do what the clerics tell you, then I've got some great ocean-front property in Arizona that I'd be willing to sell you, even for just half the money that you're now using to keep your clerics fat and happy.
Reply

root
02-22-2007, 08:54 PM
Snip
Reply

InToTheRain
02-22-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
I agree 100% with everything there with the one exception of exchanging the positions of 'evolution' and 'creationism'. I am simply not aware of anything other than faith (in something or other) that rationally supports creationism at all. In my opinion (and like faith - or not - that's all it can be, as you say) creationism is a myth designed to account for what was, when that myth was created, something totally inexplicable. Possibly not much, but things have moved on, and we are now making those first, difficult, steps along the road to real understanding. The quicker we can shed the excess intellectual luggage, the faster we will go. And, yes, I am quite concious that some would say exactly the same about my own spiritual beliefs!
And again I can repeat the argument that as time passes more steps are taken to a greater understanding for creationism hence against evolution. So Ditto but for creationism :D
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2007, 09:12 PM
Evolution is our best guess at how we came to be.

Creation is our best story of how we came to be.

Evolution appeals to truth and discards desire and tradition.

Creation appeals to desire and tradition and discards truth.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
And again I can repeat the argument that as time passes more steps are taken to a greater understanding for creationism hence against evolution. So Ditto but for creationism :D
I'm having a difficulty time rading this statement. It is borderline incoherent.

"more steps are being taken to a greater understanding" means what? Religion is stuck in dogma and mired with holy books that are "innerant". Forward movement is considered a flaw, not a virtue as in science.
If steps are being taken "towards a greater understanding", what are these steps? Science is in the news everyday. I've never heard of religious progress besides heresy.

"greater understanding for creationism" means what?
You are inventing more to the story as time goes on?

"hence against evolution" makes no sense. As noted above creation and evolution need not always conflict.
Reply

root
02-22-2007, 09:19 PM
PurestAmbrosia - google boast your "high degrees of certainty" How embaressing for you this cut and paste job!.. Do you have a mind of your own or is this where your rudimentary vestigial remnant presides?
Google! (LMAO), I prefer better sources. Yes, "High degree of certainty" is what is on offer here. for example: (and before I do I shall reiterate it once again, just for you. "high degrees of certainty"

Fact 4

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin
.
WARNING - The above qoute was cut and pasted by myself since I could not be bothered to re-type what I already wrote, even though this seems to bring the wrath of our favourite custard "Ambrosia" in it's purest form, or should that be ignorant form.

Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

As for having a mind of my own, I am agnostic on that. Perhaps you might google a few articles on free will eh!

PurestAmbrosia- common ancestors, genetic drift, morphological change, survival of the fittest, Embryology, yeast, change over time, adaptation, natural selection. ..........scatology. you have met the quota of most convuloted words per day.... Do you understand half of the stuff you posted up there? why or why not it would remotly negate the existence of a creator?
I could add additionally, survival of the luckiest or even Avatism since you negated them. I research very intensely as a hobby evolutionary developments so assure you I do understand what I quoted. This said, why are you asking why or why not it remotely negates the existence of a creater. Evolution and religion are compatible, however you have only revealed your own warped psycology than to believe in evolution is to be atheistic which of course like your post is utter nonsense.

PurestAmbrosia - You decide to use your right hand all the time, it hypertrophies --you neglect and disuse your left and it atrophies so much it becomes non-functional-- and you being a natural leader decide to invade a tribe and run a little experiment ...where you won't be judged harshly for your freakish arms; and view of a new superior one armed human race! All the people in the village in which you are now king follow in your lead until their left hand falls off over time from disuse... yipee yay kayay.. & with this you have now proven that G-D doesn't exist?

......a few generations down the line new folks come strolling in your town with two arms and intermarry with your village of freaks and voila Atavism woho a couple of you have arms G-D exists yet again and man in perfect form?
I worry about your state of mind when you wrote this dribble, after reading it I too felt like evolution was just a load of rubbish, then I realise. It was your assesment here that was rubbish and not representative of any evolution I know. Again, you imply wrongly that somehow evolution falsifies god. Perhaps I should shout it to help u:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT FALSIFY GOD............

I prey it may get through to u.


PurestAmbrosia - ...... you open a state of the art lab and go in a double blinded random study indiscriminately sampling folks, animals and plants from various sites and discover all the components from the various tissues are made of the exact same organic substances and proteins in different isometric structures and spatial arrangements, and suddenly you conclude we've all come from monkeys and whales and share common ancestry? and oh let me throw in there that it should also denote that G-D doesn't exist?
I liked the whale reference, however it's closest living ancestor is the Hippopotomus. And your state of the art labs is sadly lacking to the key facts that all scientific institutes have signed to. your words here are what some would call CRAP, others simply misguided.

PurestAmbrosia - creatures have existed millions and billions of years and are fossilized they share common genetic makeup with us made of the same stuff...these new books about G-D are a fairly new so that must mean he couldn't exist?
Who is "he" perhaps the spaghetti monster who is responsible for creating the universe:

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

PurestAmbrosia - what do you know of creation except cliff notes from various blogs of which you have mustered the art plagiarizing ? a shame all you write is someone else's eloquent view... I don't understand remotely how you can tie humans acquiescing to the environment, creatures acquiescing to nature and all the events that run like clock works, changing, morphing acquiescing, losing or gaining traits having traits in common genetic drifiting, dominance or recessiveness of genes to mean that a governing deity doesn't exist? Have you actually read the Quran or any books preceding it? If for nothing else just simply to loan credence to your drivel! or for curiosity' sake.. like you would casually read a history book or the Canterbury tales, So that when you write you'd be more insightful and less abraisive...
We all know who created "US". here is a diagram of "him" (just for you)



PurestAmbrosia - It is tiresome this recycled hyperbolic rhetoric "proof", "truth" behaving like a clever 2 year old who has run an adult in a corner... -------
Agreed, this is tiresome. After this post all I can say is. Welcome to my iggy list.

-- I can't believe I wasted my time on this... I really have no one to blame but myself--I am ready to take another hiatus, please take all the time in the world to come up with one of you derisive & expected replies!.... I have lost all interest in this ad hominem!
........ beam me up scotty....
Perhaps you should read Steve's response and learn the meaning of being civil and actually debating as opposed to the rubbish you have churned out

Steve - Thanks for the response, reply is in the making.

Regards

root
Reply

جوري
02-22-2007, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by root
PurestAmbrosia - google boast your "high degrees of certainty" How embaressing for you this cut and paste job!.. Do you have a mind of your own or is this where your rudimentary vestigial remnant presides?

Google! (LMAO), I prefer better sources. Yes, "High degree of certainty" is what is on offer here. for example: (and before I do I shall reiterate it once again, just for you. "high degrees of certainty"

better sources than what? putting your own mind to work G-D forbid?


Originally Posted by root
Quote:
Fact 4

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin.

WARNING - The above qoute was cut and pasted by myself since I could not be bothered to re-type what I already wrote, even though this seems to bring the wrath of our favourite custard "Ambrosia" in it's purest form, or should that be ignorant form.
Are you tired of posting the same thing over? we got it! you get excellent third party information from the Smithonian.... as for ignorance glad you picked up on this adequate assessment of self....

Originally Posted by root
Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

As for having a mind of my own, I am agnostic on that. Perhaps you might google a few articles on free will eh!
lol... Now here is something original... you really stand out from the pack of other agnostics... although I'll give you that much free will to be more obnoxious....


Originally Posted by root
Quote:
PurestAmbrosia- common ancestors, genetic drift, morphological change, survival of the fittest, Embryology, yeast, change over time, adaptation, natural selection. ..........scatology. you have met the quota of most convuloted words per day.... Do you understand half of the stuff you posted up there? why or why not it would remotly negate the existence of a creator?

I could add additionally, survival of the luckiest or even Avatism since you negated them. I research very intensely as a hobby evolutionary developments so assure you I do understand what I quoted. This said, why are you asking why or why not it remotely negates the existence of a creater. Evolution and religion are compatible, however you have only revealed your own warped psycology than to believe in evolution is to be atheistic which of course like your post is utter nonsense.
How have I revealed evolution to be atheitsic? Why are you posting here if you so agree evolution and religion are compatible. It is our sincere hope that you find a hobby you can muster! -- ... ...so which is your hobby--evolution, psychology or Psychobabble?


Originally Posted by root
Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - You decide to use your right hand all the time, it hypertrophies --you neglect and disuse your left and it atrophies so much it becomes non-functional-- and you being a natural leader decide to invade a tribe and run a little experiment ...where you won't be judged harshly for your freakish arms; and view of a new superior one armed human race! All the people in the village in which you are now king follow in your lead until their left hand falls off over time from disuse... yipee yay kayay.. & with this you have now proven that G-D doesn't exist?

......a few generations down the line new folks come strolling in your town with two arms and intermarry with your village of freaks and voila Atavism woho a couple of you have arms G-D exists yet again and man in perfect form?

I worry about your state of mind when you wrote this dribble, after reading it I too felt like evolution was just a load of rubbish, then I realise. It was your assesment here that was rubbish and not representative of any evolution I know. Again, you imply wrongly that somehow evolution falsifies god. Perhaps I should shout it to help u:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT FALSIFY GOD............
Please don't worry yourself too much. I wouldn't want you to spontaneously implode... =)--- "rubbish rubbish rubbish" Does this hyperorality fit usually come to you preceeded with an aura? I think you need to get that checked out.
Originally Posted by root
I prey it may get through to u.
I wouldn't want you to pray or "prey" <<<which would be a little frightening ... from you it would be just plain wasteful.......



Originally Posted by root
Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - ...... you open a state of the art lab and go in a double blinded random study indiscriminately sampling folks, animals and plants from various sites and discover all the components from the various tissues are made of the exact same organic substances and proteins in different isometric structures and spatial arrangements, and suddenly you conclude we've all come from monkeys and whales and share common ancestry? and oh let me throw in there that it should also denote that G-D doesn't exist?

I liked the whale reference, however it's closest living ancestor is the Hippopotomus. And your state of the art labs is sadly lacking to the key facts that all scientific institutes have signed to. your words here are what some would call CRAP, others simply misguided.
Glad our refrence bemused you... and who signed to what? what are you trying to say here? does answering crap with more crap cause them to nullify each other?

Originally Posted by root
Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - creatures have existed millions and billions of years and are fossilized they share common genetic makeup with us made of the same stuff...these new books about G-D are a fairly new so that must mean he couldn't exist?

Who is "he" perhaps the spaghetti monster who is responsible for creating the universe:




Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - what do you know of creation except cliff notes from various blogs of which you have mustered the art plagiarizing ? a shame all you write is someone else's eloquent view... I don't understand remotely how you can tie humans acquiescing to the environment, creatures acquiescing to nature and all the events that run like clock works, changing, morphing acquiescing, losing or gaining traits having traits in common genetic drifiting, dominance or recessiveness of genes to mean that a governing deity doesn't exist? Have you actually read the Quran or any books preceding it? If for nothing else just simply to loan credence to your drivel! or for curiosity' sake.. like you would casually read a history book or the Canterbury tales, So that when you write you'd be more insightful and less abraisive...

We all know who created "US". here is a diagram of "him" (just for you)
hmmmmmmmn... I think this is just your inner child writing-- and the drawing is cute!... hope you get first place in the little Ms. art project!



Originally Posted by root
Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - It is tiresome this recycled hyperbolic rhetoric "proof", "truth" behaving like a clever 2 year old who has run an adult in a corner... -------

Agreed, this is tiresome. After this post all I can say is. Welcome to my iggy list.
Thanks-- I gave up iggy pop some time in my teenage years! but you are welcome to do whatever you need to help you along! BTW. mecamylamine is making a come back for people who go into spontaneous Tourette!

Originally Posted by root
Quote:
-- I can't believe I wasted my time on this... I really have no one to blame but myself--I am ready to take another hiatus, please take all the time in the world to come up with one of you derisive & expected replies!.... I have lost all interest in this ad hominem!
........ beam me up scotty....

Perhaps you should read Steve's response and learn the meaning of being civil and actually debating as opposed to the rubbish you have churned out
You reap what you sow... so no need to bring third party examples into this because you can't handle yourself......You are a Pseudo intellect and a self-proclaimed illuminati. Your assurances and ready paste articles are as authentic as a three dollar bill. I don't see much in the making of a debate between "custard", "ignorance", "prey" , "spaghetti" not to mention tons of self aggrandizing humbug --I can only deduce you were hungry while watching a Geico cave man commercial? .. from your previous manifestos especially the " Are vaccines Haram?" I can tell how much depth and understanding you give to anything you write and how much knowledge you have of the sources you so readily Quote . My guess is you have been having a little sciatica lately and perhaps that part of your body is where all your afflications have descended?.....
peace
Reply

wilberhum
02-22-2007, 09:46 PM
For the skeptic, no amount of proof will be enough, and for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary.
???? no amount of proof will be enough ????????????
There is no proof.
Reply

InToTheRain
02-22-2007, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
"greater understanding for creationism" means what?
You are inventing more to the story as time goes on?

What is with your need to make inflammatory remarks with people who disagree with your belief? You do know that the stories being invented criticism works both ways because as I have mentioned before they are based on FAITH.

what I was saying to Trumble who I am sure (hope :D ) has greater intellectual abilty then you is that at times goes by more discoveries are bieng made. As those discoveries are bieng made Trumble says more steps are bieng made towards the discovery of reality, which in his opinion is based upon the Evolution theory. However there are also more findings which complement our beliefs.

for example some of the findings due to mordern advancements in science which confirm with our belief can be found here:

The Quran and Modern Science
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-22-2007, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by root
Steve - Thanks for the response, reply is in the making.
Regards
root
Thx, looking foreward to it :)

Ps: easy on the arguments ad absurdum, you gonna get people a heart attack ;)
Reply

Woodrow
02-22-2007, 11:07 PM
Please stay on topic.
Reply

Trumble
02-23-2007, 01:30 AM
Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
However there are also more findings which complement our beliefs.

for example some of the findings due to mordern advancements in science which confirm with our belief can be found here:

The Quran and Modern Science
That's just the same old Qur'anic 'scientific proofs' again. Which in all cases 'prove' nothing and in most are ridiculously vague and forced interpretations. You could create a completely new, fantasy, 'science' over-night and find just as many passages that force-fit that if you tried.

For example (taking one I haven't discussed before; a great many I have)

He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.”
[Al-Qur’an 55:19-20]

So sea water is always salty (you can't drink it), and river water is always not (you can drink it). Fair enough. But that's all that's there, anything about two oceans not mixing, pycnocline zones and such is only suggested because people desperately wish to see such 'proofs'. The rest are just the same. Hardly evidence for creationism!
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-23-2007, 01:56 AM
Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
What is with your need to make inflammatory remarks with people who disagree with your belief? You do know that the stories being invented criticism works both ways because as I have mentioned before they are based on FAITH.
I'm sorry that you are offended by my calling your stories stories. But this highlights a fundamental difference between religion and science. Science does NOT HAVE fundamental stories that are held to be innerant.

Evolution is our best guess, it isn't the complete truth, and could very well be a misunderstanding of what we observe. It is theory, not dogma. In fact, evolution as now theorized is likely NOT to be completely accurate. The whole point of science is to correct and adapt our understanding, the polar opposite of how religion operates.

what I was saying to Trumble who I am sure (hope :D ) has greater intellectual abilty then you
Don't go whining about me making inflamatory remarks when you write things like this. Don't be a hypocrite.

is that at times goes by more discoveries are bieng made. As those discoveries are bieng made Trumble says more steps are bieng made towards the discovery of reality, which in his opinion is based upon the Evolution theory.
Here again you highlight the fundamentl difference between science and religion. No scientist would ever claim as you put it here that reality is based on evolution theory. You are misapplying a religious mindset.
Reply

InToTheRain
02-23-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Don't go whining about me making inflamatory remarks when you write things like this. Don't be a hypocrite.
Apologies, but I expected this response. Wanted to make a point, we can all make deragatory comments about each other in many ways and it doesn't feel nice to be on the receiving end does it? let's try to keep the discussions civilised, prejudices aside and constructive.

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Here again you highlight the fundamentl difference between science and religion. No scientist would ever claim as you put it here that reality is based on evolution theory. You are misapplying a religious mindset.
This I find hard understanding, if science isn't the the study of reality and the worlld around us then what is it a study of? your belief in the evolution theory makes you pecieve reality the way you do, Of course it's a theory, but nonetheless how you choose to live your life revolves around this belief.
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-23-2007, 10:41 AM
The evolution theory says the survival of species depend on natural selection that is the introduction of new characteristics as adaptation to environment. However, aside from science fictions, is there real case scenario where humans have mutated new characteristics that will enable them to adapt to harsh environments?

We are aware that most mutations have resulted in pre-mature deaths and cancers, and none of them has given benefits.
Reply

InToTheRain
02-23-2007, 10:48 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
For example (taking one I haven't discussed before; a great many I have)

He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.”
[Al-Qur’an 55:19-20]

So sea water is always salty (you can't drink it), and river water is always not (you can drink it). Fair enough. But that's all that's there, anything about two oceans not mixing, pycnocline zones and such is only suggested because people desperately wish to see such 'proofs'. The rest are just the same. Hardly evidence for creationism!
Just to highlight what you have said bold, It clearly says in the QUranic verse

"...Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress" - the do not transgress the barrier, for if it did it would mix. The kind of detail you are looking for won't be found here as it's not a book of "science" but "signs". I agree that people do deperately want to see such proofs, because It reafirms ones faith, has there been a Quranic verse which goes against the scientific findings to date? NO! and bear in mind just as there is many who despeatley seek to reafirm there faith through investigations of the valdity of the quranic verses there are many who see it as an unwanted boon for which many will be grateful to get rid of. Then again it still boils down to faith, and how you choose to percieve something may not be the same as me as proven initially in this post.

Science is a part of Islam, not the end and all there is.

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Peace
Reply

brenton
02-23-2007, 11:28 AM
I find it interesting that the creation-evolution debate on Christian websites is hardly and different.

For my part, I'm a conservative Christian who reads the Christian Bible literally according to its genre. I've convinced that Genesis 1-2 was not written to prove Darwin wrong. It sounds crazy, but my hunch is that Moses or whoever wrote Genesis (it is anonymous) didn't even know about Genesis. It is polemical and apologetical--it argues against Egyptian idolatry as the poem progresses, and argues for YHWH's right to rule on earth and made image-bearers from the earth--but it is not polemical against Darwinism, nor is it apologetic for Creationism or any other pseudo-scientific or scientific theory.

Genesis and Job, the two main "creational" descriptions in the Christian Bible, were written long before science was any more than encyclopaedic lists, medical inquiries, agricultural and hunting guides, and proto-scientific observation. Its genre cannot be scientific--it wasn't invented yet!

The Bible does say that YHWH-God created the world; it does not say how in any scientific way.

I'm not a physical scientist, so I cannot say whether evolution is true. In some ways, as a layman, the story seems to fit, and the science that produces it bears fruit in medical areas--the main area I want to see advancement. So I'm glad it is happening.

I can speak to the philosophical aspect, and I think that the philosophy and sociology based on evolution are poorly built. Evolution says nothing positive toward secular humanism or eugenics--these are conclusions built on the scientific base, and not "scientific" in the same way.

Creationism or intelligent design or secular humanism or eugenic racism may offer historical or philosophical or sociological "proofs," but they are not scientific in the same way.

The scientists in the physical fields are, of course, invited to debate the science. Most of us on her are not able to do that.

For me, nothing in the scientific understanding of evolution contradicts my Bible or the belief that God created and is sovereign.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-23-2007, 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
We are aware that most mutations have resulted in pre-mature deaths and cancers, and none of them has given benefits.
THe vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. Mutation hurts far more than it helps. But every now and again a mutation IS beneficial. And if it is beneficial enough that it takes an individual to breeding age while others don't survive that long, or it leads an individual to breed more than others, that is how evolution operates.

It takes place over a very long period of time so it is difficult to observe, especially in humans who have very much taken over their environment. Modern science has impeded evolution of the human species in that we assist the weak and least adapted to the environment to live long enough to breed and have offspring.

Evolution is readily visible though if you look in the right places. Bacteria and viruses are constantly evolving, and very quickly. As we come up with new medicine to combat them, bacteria and viruses evolve new strains. This keeps the viruses alive and the researchers employed :)

There are thousands of viruses around today that didn't exist even twenty years ago.
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-23-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Evolution is readily visible though if you look in the right places. Bacteria and viruses are constantly evolving, and very quickly. As we come up with new medicine to combat them, bacteria and viruses evolve new strains. This keeps the viruses alive and the researchers employed :)
Yet evolution theory stresses about physical characteristics change, like reptiles into archeopteryx into birds. That is pretty significant. These are not simply changes at the molecular level but total rearrangement of muscular and skeletal structures.

Considering at least 2000 years of human history we ought to have some changes in our physical make up, if evolution is correct.
Reply

zoro
02-23-2007, 02:30 PM
It astounds me that so many people, such as "benton" and "Woodrow", are unashamed (even proud!) to admit that they form opinions based on zero evidence. "brenton" wrote: "For me, nothing in the scientific understanding of evolution contradicts my Bible or the belief that God created and is sovereign." Woodrow wrote: "We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know." Meanwhile, nothing in science contradicts the idea that all invisible flying elephants are pink; so, do you "think" that they are? By "believing" that they're pink, do you then "know" that they are? Does that belief give you faith to trust -- and is that trust all you need to know? People who form similar "beliefs" about being abducted by space aliens usually end up in the looney bin.

But I expect that there's more to it than that. I expect that people "believe" such silly ideas as creationism and the existences of various gods, without a shred of evidence to support such ideas, because their mothers and their clerics told them that they'd be good little boys and girls if they just "believed" and had "faith". And although some clerics may actually "believe" the nonsense they preach, I expect that many of them (especially the first ones to establish any religion) promote such nonsense solely because it's got all the necessary ingredients of a great con game, in which they promise people perpetual pardise in exchange for good, cold, hard cash. As Votaire said: "The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool."

Why don't people appreciate the fallacy of the "proof by pleasure" principle? Because it gives you pleasure, you may "believe" that there aren't millions of children in the world starving to death, but what does the evidence suggest? You may "believe" that some god snapped his fingers (or whatever), created the Earth and humans to populate it, and will give you eternal life in paradise if you obey the clerics, but what does the evidence suggest? And you may believe that, eventually, peace and prosperity will prevail in the world -- and it may -- but not courtesy any help from people who "believe" and "have faith" when no evidence supports such belief and faith.

That way is the path taken by the suicide bombers. I grant them that they have "the courage of their convictions", but they're blinded by their "beliefs". In reality, it takes no courage to kill yourself (and your many victims) if you've convinced yourself that you're going straight to paradise. What it does take is astounding stupidity: to believe any idea that doesn't have tiniest shred of data to support it -- but only the opinions of a bunch of con-artist clerics and those that they've managed to con.

And of course I don't care what perversions consenting adults practice in their own homes (or in their own minds), but come on people, there's work to do! "brenton" wants the "fruits" that evolution yields in the "medical area" -- and I bet he does -- but what effort has he put in to justify his eating the fruits of someone else's efforts? Islamic extremists use cellphones, the internet, airplanes, etc. to destroy, but what do they contribute to humanity -- besides terror and the promise to put the clerics back in control, to plunge humanity into another clerically induced Dark Ages, and this time for the entire world.

And if (as the evidence suggests) such people as "brenton" and "Woodrow" don't have the intellectual capabilities to contribute to advancing science, then not to worry, because there's still much useful work that such people can do -- and I don't necessarily mean just collecting garbage and cleaning toilets (although those are extremely important jobs to do). But to pollute other people by perpetuating their fallacious "proof by pleasure" garbage is a crime against humanity -- perhaps even worse than blowing themselves up as a terrorists, because after exploding their bombs, "brenton" and "Woodward" are still around to harm even more people.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 02:06 AM
I believe that all of the posts that were leading to personal arguements have now been removed so let us continue and keep it peaceful.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 02:46 AM
And if (as the evidence suggests) such people as "brenton" and "Woodrow" don't have the intellectual capabilities to contribute to advancing science, then not to worry, because there's still much useful work that such people can do -- and I don't necessarily mean just collecting garbage and cleaning toilets (although those are extremely important jobs to do). But to pollute other people by perpetuating their fallacious "proof by pleasure" garbage is a crime against humanity -- perhaps even worse than blowing themselves up as a terrorists, because after exploding their bombs, "brenton" and "Woodward" are still around to harm even more people.




I do have a few scientific credentials in at least the field of Biology. My major contributions and publications were in research of the basic engram of cognitive thought and the evolutionary processes of it's development.

I was very far removed from the religious world for much of my life and even further removed from Islam until 2 years ago.

I did not accept Islam blindly and actualy fought against it for over 50 years of my life. I came to accept it for several reasons and it was not out of blind faith. I have had more than sufficient independant verifiacation to prove to me that the Qur'an is true and is a valid teaching. I have found on my own and/or read more than enough scientific documentations that it is scientific.

I do have enough knowledge to know that Darwinism is not the Theory of evolution and that his work was simply an explanation of a possible process of the origin of species. I have absolutly no disagreement with evolution and accept it as a fact for plants and animals. I just do not find any evidence that mankind fits into the evolutionarily processes as explained by some of my former colleagues.



This statement is correct:

"Woodrow" don't have the intellectual capabilities to contribute to advancing science,
I am long retired and have done all of the scientific contributions I desire to. The remainder of my days are dedicated to the study of Islam and to try to undo many lost years I spent in the materialistic world of academics.

Now when you want to have a serious discussion about scientific evidence of the Qur'an please ask politly and if I have time I may fit you into my schedule.
Reply

Trumble
02-24-2007, 09:52 AM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
Considering at least 2000 years of human history we ought to have some changes in our physical make up, if evolution is correct.
Like what? Our species is something like 200,000 years old, and is just part of a sequence of hominids not that physically dissimilar that goes back over 2 million years. 2,000 years is peanuts. That doesn't mean changes haven't occured, but it would make them very difficult to identify in the absence of any live 2,000 year old people to use for comparison.
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-24-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Like what? Our species is something like 200,000 years old, and is just part of a sequence of hominids not that physically dissimilar that goes back over 2 million years. 2,000 years is peanuts. That doesn't mean changes haven't occured, but it would make them very difficult to identify in the absence of any live 2,000 year old people to use for comparison.
That's what I meant! How can evolutionists then, be so sure about beneficial mutations resulting from natural selection that have caused significant changes in physical characteristics in the species I've mentioned (i.e. reptile >> archeopteryx >> bird)?

How can they be so concrete that these species have evolved from one form to another, instead of being created as separate species on each own, considering "it's very difficult to identify in the absence of any live 2,000 or 2 million old specimens to use for comparison"?
Reply

zoro
02-24-2007, 01:16 PM
Woodrow: I don’t consider the important issue at hand to be “scientific evidence of the Qur’an”. In an earlier post (#54), you made a statement that I consider to be not only an affront to science and humanity but to be a toxic bomb:

Of course that makes sense. The difficult part is that for us no proof is necessary. We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know. A person can not understand how that can be knowledge unless they do believe.
In contrast to your statement, reflecting a mindset of “the true believer” that has caused enormous harm to humanity, please consider, carefully and deeply, the following statements:

1. On belief.

“Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known.” [Montaigne, 1533-1592]

“For what a man would like to be true, that he more readily believes.” [Francis Bacon, 1561-1626]

“Earthly minds, like mud walls, resist the strongest batteries; and though, perhaps, sometimes the force of a clear argument may make some impression, yet they nevertheless stand firm, keep out the enemy, truth, that would captivate or disturb them.” [John Locke, 1632-1704]

“The man scarce lives who is not more credulous than he ought to be. The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough.” [Adam Smith, 1723-1790]

“Belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge… We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves.” [Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832]

“Credulity is the man’s weakness, but the child’s strength.” [Charles Lamb, 1775-1834]

“The practical effect of a belief is the real test of its soundness.” [J.A. Froude,1818-1894]

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” [Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910]

“Today the intelligence of the world denies the miraculous. Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The foundation of Christianity has crumbled, has disappeared, and the entire fabric must fall. The natural is true. The miraculous is false.” [Robert Ingersoll, 1833-1899]

“Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or may be found a little draughty. [Samuel Butler, 1835-1902]

“We have only to believe. And the more threatening and irreducible reality appears, the more firmly and desperately must we believe. Then, little by little, we shall see the universal horror unbend, and then smile upon us, and then take us in its more than human arms.” [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,1881-1955]

“What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.” [Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970]

“The word ‘belief’ is a difficult thing for me. I don’t believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis.” [Carl Gustave Jung, 1875-1961]
2. On Faith

“The barbaric religions of primitive worlds hold not a germ of scientific fact, though they claim to explain all. Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground for his beliefs taken away, he doesn’t stop believing. He then calls his mistaken beliefs ‘faith’ because he knows they are right. And he knows they are right because he has faith.” [Harry Harrison]

“Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been able to move real mountains… But it can put mountains where there are none.” [Friedrich Nietzsche]

“Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves… [The] majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication or some passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves… Where there is the necessary skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that move mountains.” [Eric Hoffer]

“We may define ‘faith’ as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith.’ We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.” [Bertrand Russell]

“Faith in the sense that religionists use the term, it turns out, is equivalent to the loss of confidence of the individuals of the human species to achieve their goals on their own. This seems to be borne out by the adherence to religion among the poor, the spread of religion in times of depression and conflict, and the greater success of all religions to proselytize among deprived populations wherever they may be.” [Chester Dolan]

“I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat – an admission that the truths of religion [my italics, because “the truths of religion” is an oxymoron – he means “the assumptions (or assertions) of religion”] are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only undemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith… Faith, by its very invocation, is a transparent admission that religious claims cannot stand on their own two feet… I just lost faith in faith.” [Dan Barker]
3. On Evaluative Thinking

“Believe nothing… merely because you have been told it… or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” [The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), c. 500 BCE]

“The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see.” [Huang Po (a Zen master who died in about 850)]

“A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence.” [David Hume]

“To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and folly.” [Volney]

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” [Mark Twain]

“The house of delusions is cheap to build but drafty to live in.” [A.E. Housman]

“For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said “Think”; the many have said “Believe!” [Robert Ingersoll]

“Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” [Ambrose Bierce]

“It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” [William Kingdon Clifford]

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin… The foundation of morality is to… give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.” [Thomas Henry Huxley]

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” [Aldous Huxley]

“We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife, immortality, heaven, hell, etc.” [Julian Huxley]

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way… So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence [italics added], they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues.” [Bertrand Russell]

“Credulity is belief in slight evidence, with no evidence, or against evidence.” [Tryon Edwards]

“In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality.” [Clarence Darrow]

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” [Richard Dawkins]

“I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief.” [Dan Barker]

“We ought to do what we can towards eradicating the evil habit of believing without regard to evidence.” [Richard Robinson]

“The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination.” [Peter B. Medawar]

“Conviction is something you need in order to act… But your action needs to be proportional to the depth of evidence that underlies your conviction.” [Paul O’Neill]

“Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under ‘Low Probability’, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under ‘High Probability’. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely. [Robert A. Wilson]

“Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants.” [Arthur M. Jackson]
Given such thoughts, from some of the most brilliant people who have ever lived, perhaps you can comprehend my revulsion at your quoted statement and my earlier response, which I hereby reaffirm:

…to pollute other people by perpetuating their [viz., “brenton’s and Woodrow’s] fallacious "proof by pleasure" garbage is a crime against humanity -- perhaps even worse than blowing themselves up as a terrorists, because after exploding their bombs, "brenton" and "Woodward" are still around to harm even more people.
Reply

Trumble
02-24-2007, 01:45 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
That's what I meant! How can evolutionists then, be so sure about beneficial mutations resulting from natural selection that have caused significant changes in physical characteristics in the species I've mentioned (i.e. reptile >> archeopteryx >> bird)?

How can they be so concrete that these species have evolved from one form to another, instead of being created as separate species on each own, considering "it's very difficult to identify in the absence of any live 2,000 or 2 million old specimens to use for comparison"?
In the sense of meaning "certain", nobody is "sure". It's a theory that fits the observed facts (or to be precise that fits them better than any alternative theory), the facts in this case being the fossil record and analogous changes in species that we can observe because their life and breeding cycles are so much shorter. "Reptile >> archeopteryx >> bird" was over a considerably greater timespan enabling the development to be seen.

I may have misunderstood, but I gathered from Woodrow and others that Islam doesn't have a problem with evolution in general, anyway? I thought it was just the evolution of people that was not accepted?
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-24-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
In the sense of meaning "certain", nobody is "sure". It's a theory that fits the observed facts (or to be precise that fits them better than any alternative theory), the facts in this case being the fossil record and analogous changes in species that we can observe because their life and breeding cycles are so much shorter. "Reptile >> archeopteryx >> bird" was over a considerably greater timespan enabling the development to be seen.
Same can be said for evolution theory assumption that;

Apes >> earliest hominids >> homo erectus >> cro-magnon >> neanderthal >> homo sapiens (modern human)

200,000 years of human history ought to be considerable timespan to enable development that is equally observable, don't you think?

Judging from the physical characteristics changes I've mentioned earlier on, we should be able to expect beneficial mutations that will result in restructuring of physical structures. Consider this;

Apes (very hairy) >> earliest hominids (hairy, uses tools) >> modern human (facial hair, insignificant amount of bodily hair, modern technology) >> near future human (no hair at all?)

In addition to that, considerable changes in muscular and facial structure. As compared to earlier humans, which have greater muscular mass and very ape-like facial traits, modern humans have very much atrophied musculature due to reliance on technologies to lift objects and do works. Also, as the intelligence of modern human grow, we could expect bigger brains, and hence, bigger heads. But are we seeing these things occur over time now? Or has human remained pretty much the same since 200,000 years ago?

Originally Posted by Trumble
I may have misunderstood, but I gathered from Woodrow and others that Islam doesn't have a problem with evolution in general, anyway? I thought it was just the evolution of people that was not accepted?
You could be correct.

However, I am more inclined to believe that all creatures were created all at once without having evolved from one another, but at the present, nearly 99% of all species that have existed, have gone into extinction due many reasons, some being the encroachment into habitats, industrial pollution, species rivalry due to same food source scarcity. That means for every 100 species, only one remains today.

For example, in one of the manuscript of Ibn Fadlan, an Arab adventurer who traveled to Scandinavia during the time of the Vikings, he noted the existence of man-eating tribe of primitive humans. Present scholars have speculated that Ibn Fadlan may have found the last remnant of the Neanderthal humans, wiped out today because of competition with modern humans and eventual absorption into the human gene pool due to "losing out".

I am inclined to believe that the Neanderthal theory could be correct, but not to the extent that modern human may have evolved from them. Rather, my theory is that the two was created as distinct species but not evolved from one another. Then, the Neanderthals have gone to extinction for the same reason, competition with humans.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 04:19 PM
Peace Zoro,

I believe there are some areas that you do not quite comprhend in the concept of faith.


Oddly you quoted some of my favorite Authors, Scientists and philosophers. these are some of the very people that helped me on the path to develop Faith in the existence of Allah(swt). I'm not going to quote all of them now.

I'll begin with Amrose Bierce, he is one of my favorite cynical Journalists and authors. I still keep copies of "The Devils Dictionary" and "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" I find twisted irony in his last known Statement. He wrote an article at the beginning of the Mexican Revelution to the effect that it would be tanatamount to euthanasia for an American to go to Mexico. He then packed up his bags, went to Mexico and was never heard from again.

You selected one of my favorite definitions from "The Devils Dictionary"

“Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” [Ambrose Bierce]
In some ways that statement was one of the first stepping stones, that led me to where I am today. If I had not read that back in 1955 I might very well have completed my Days as A Roman Catholic and had become a priest as I was then drawn towards being.

However that was one the early things that led to understand that blind faith is wrong. While I encourage Faith and believe it is needed to truly understand Allah(swt) and his creations. I do believe it should be based on knowledge.

Later as I had the Luxury of being able to indulge in comparative religions and philosophies I became aware some of the key elements of Islam are that there is no compulsion in religion, we are all responsible for our own actions and that we are commanded to learn and not accept anything without knowledge.

“It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” [William Kingdon Clifford]
I have no problem with Clifford's statement and I do not know of any Muslim who would not agree with that.

Now, the Huxley's are an amazing family and I have very high regard for them and am fascinated as to how one family could be blessed with so much intellect.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin… The foundation of morality is to… give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.” [Thomas Henry Huxley]
Very Islamic thinking. As Muslims we do question all things. It is only after our questions have been satisfied do we truly have the ability to believe by Faith. I know the words of Allah(swt) are true because I have questioned and the questions have always been answered with provable facts.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” [Aldous Huxley]
The Fact that Allah(swt) created all things will not cease, simply because you ignore it.

“We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife, immortality, heaven, hell, etc.” [Julian Huxley]
Again no disagreement. If we can not find concrete proof for the validity of that which we can see, there would be no basis to put our trust in that which has yet to be explained to us. None of us has the ability of knowing all things. Our only choice is to seek out words that we find to be true about what we can learn and then once we understand that we are not being lied to, we need to be able to put trust and faith into what is not so easily seen or understood.


Faith is not blind and it comes from understanding and learning what and who can be trusted. This only comes about when we do seek true knowledge and we do question all that we do not understand, until we finally grow to the understanding of who we can trust, based upon His(swt) promises.

Hopefully as I learn more my Faith will increase in strength. Now I am still just a baby in Faith and have yet to say I have even approached the level of belief I admire so much in the believers. But, I am a very avid reader and have lots of time to study.

Creationism does not eliminate belief in evolutionary process, it is just the means by which all things happen. Creationism is, creation has a defined starting point and an ordained path in which all things are subject to.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 04:49 PM
Zoro,

In rereading your quotes. I just realised that there is only one I find to be contrary to Islam.

“I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief.” [Dan Barker]

Some of the very reasons I used to be an atheist and then and agnostic I now see as evidence for the existence of God(swt)

Back in my own evolution belief era i was convinced that the Fossil record and the fact that "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was sufficient evidence to show that God(swt) either did not exist, or that he did not play an active role in mankind.

I found it quite easy to find a path to show that at some point the ancestors of all mammals were marsupials. I had no problem in explaining how at the break up of Pangaea marsupials were left in Australia and all the rest of the worlds marsupials, except for opossums, evolved into uterine developmental mammals.

Then just one of many questions came up. That question being:

Why did none of Australia's Marsupials evolve past the marsupial stage? There was very diverse development, but they all stayed marsupials. The random rules of evolutionary thought demands that some of them at least should have developed beyond the primitive inferior stage of marsupialism, if evolution was a random process.

Then looking at the fossil records, what is really shown. Nothing except that in the past there were animals that have become extinct.

To me this is at least some evidence that things occur because they were planned to occur. I call the planner Allah(swt)
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
Originally Posted by Trumble
In the sense of meaning "certain", nobody is "sure". It's a theory that fits the observed facts (or to be precise that fits them better than any alternative theory), the facts in this case being the fossil record and analogous changes in species that we can observe because their life and breeding cycles are so much shorter. "Reptile >> archeopteryx >> bird" was over a considerably greater timespan enabling the development to be seen.
Same can be said for evolution theory assumption that;

Apes >> earliest hominids >> homo erectus >> cro-magnon >> neanderthal >> homo sapiens (modern human)

200,000 years of human history ought to be considerable timespan to enable development that is equally observable, don't you think?

Judging from the physical characteristics changes I've mentioned earlier on, we should be able to expect beneficial mutations that will result in restructuring of physical structures. Consider this;

Apes (very hairy) >> earliest hominids (hairy, uses tools) >> modern human (facial hair, insignificant amount of bodily hair, modern technology) >> near future human (no hair at all?)

In addition to that, considerable changes in muscular and facial structure. As compared to earlier humans, which have greater muscular mass and very ape-like facial traits, modern humans have very much atrophied musculature due to reliance on technologies to lift objects and do works. Also, as the intelligence of modern human grow, we could expect bigger brains, and hence, bigger heads. But are we seeing these things occur over time now? Or has human remained pretty much the same since 200,000 years ago?

Originally Posted by Trumble
I may have misunderstood, but I gathered from Woodrow and others that Islam doesn't have a problem with evolution in general, anyway? I thought it was just the evolution of people that was not accepted?
You could be correct.

However, I am more inclined to believe that all creatures were created all at once without having evolved from one another, but at the present, nearly 99% of all species that have existed, have gone into extinction due many reasons, some being the encroachment into habitats, industrial pollution, species rivalry due to same food source scarcity. That means for every 100 species, only one remains today.

For example, in one of the manuscript of Ibn Fadlan, an Arab adventurer who traveled to Scandinavia during the time of the Vikings, he noted the existence of man-eating tribe of primitive humans. Present scholars have speculated that Ibn Fadlan may have found the last remnant of the Neanderthal humans, wiped out today because of competition with modern humans and eventual absorption into the human gene pool due to "losing out".

I am inclined to believe that the Neanderthal theory could be correct, but not to the extent that modern human may have evolved from them. Rather, my theory is that the two was created as distinct species but not evolved from one another. Then, the Neanderthals have gone to extinction for the same reason, competition with humans.
I would like to clarify a little bit of what is in BOLD RED type above. I may be wrong. But in my understanding of what I read in the Qur'an is quite clear that man was created in much the same form as he is today. Some differences that occurred are very negligable, size, skin coloring, life expectancy etc. But man has always been man.

The Qur'an does not give any evidence that strongly supports the view that the animal and plant forms have evolved, but at the same time there is nothing that would be found to be contradictory to the Qur'an if they did. Astagfirullah
Reply

zoro
02-24-2007, 08:58 PM
Woodrow: Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful replies. There are four points, however, on which I would recommend that you give additional thoughts. These are enumerated below, in what I consider to be progressively increasing order of importance.

1. I don’t know enough about either Australian Marsupials or evolution to reply knowledgeably, but my first reaction is that, in your post #87, you missed a basic point when your conclusion was based on the conditional “if evolution was a random process.” As far as I understand it, ‘randomness’ is only a portion of the theory – and in fact, since randomness is ubiquitous, it’s only a small portion of the theory. Far more significant is that, for evolution to occur, selected few of the huge number of instances of randomness must yield some genetic advantage to the species; that (as I understand it) is the essence of “natural selection”, i.e., nature “selects”. Consequently, I would expect that, in the case you brought up, then for some environmental or other reason, there was no survival advantage for Australian Marsupials to evolve further.

2. In your post #86, you mention that “[faith] should be based on knowledge”, that “we are commanded to learn and not accept anything without knowledge”, and “the Fact that Allah (swt) created all things will not cease, simply because you ignore it.” But simultaneously, you are apparently ignoring “knowledge”, accepting “something without knowledge”, and claiming something as “Fact” that, as far as is known, is incorrect, namely, about what “created all things”.

In that regard, there’s now little doubt that the universe created itself when some (quantum) fluctuation in the original “total void” broke some symmetry, leading to the Big Bang. That explains why, in total there’s still nothing here in our universe; that is, everything in our universe has “just” been separated into positive and negative components – including positive and negative electrical charge, “positive” and “negative” momenta (although it, of course, is a vector), and the positive energy (e.g., all mass plus) is balanced by the negative energy of “space” or “the vacuum”. What the “symmetry-breaking fluctuation in the total void” was is unknown, of course, but knowledgeable physicists expect that it was some type of energy (e.g., a string of energy or some elementary particle). If you want further information about these ideas, then see, for example, Chapter A of my online book at www.zenofzero.net or see http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum...2&goto=newpost. And I’ll grant you that there is still question about whether there is positive entropy in our universe, but as you can see from the referenced “thread”, I have not yet received, from among senior physicists, any “takers” to my challenge that if entropy of “space” is defined appropriately (including using the idea that, there, time runs in the opposite direction), then I think that a case can be made that the total entropy of the universe is also zero, exactly as it was before the Big Bang.

That leads me to comment on your own search for knowledge, both ways in time. Although I totally agree that there’s much knowledge available in the past, that’s “running time backwards”. That is, as well as seeking knowledge in the past, let us admit that there is much that we don’t know – and look to the future, not the past, for answers to those things that still puzzle us. Further, I think it many cases (although not all), it’s unprofitable to worry if you’ve been “lied to.” Instead, surely it’s more profitable, in most cases, to realize that we were told much by people who, in reality, “didn’t have a clue” about what they were talking about. They were just guessing. It’s our job, for the future, to determine which of those guesses should be discarded and which might still profitably be pursued.

3. More significantly, in your post you ignored the extremely important issue of “evaluative thinking”, viz., estimating probabilities. Given space limitations, I can’t go into details about this topic here, but should you be interested, I devote multiple chapters to this topic in my referenced book. Nonetheless, let me outline a few points.

Importantly, realize that “proof” and “truth” are concepts appropriate only for “closed systems” (such as games, pure mathematics, and all religions); in reality, in “open systems”, “proof” and “truth” are concepts that can be approached only asymptotically – never reached. For example and Descartes’ silliness notwithstanding, you can’t prove that even you exist – we all may be just simulations in some giant computer game! Instead of such “absolutes”, the best we can do is use the scientific method.

Thus, in the case of estimating the probability that I exist, I find substantial evidence that I do exist, summarize the data with the hypothesis that I exist, make predictions based on that hypothesis (e.g., if I do exist, then I should be able to continue typing this sentence), and upon finding confirmation of that prediction (!), I then can ratchet up my estimate for the probability that I exist.

That method is called Bayes’ method. With it (as I show in my referenced book), I estimate the probability that I exist to be within 1 part in 10^25 of certainty, i.e., 0.999999999… (to a total of 25 nines). On the other hand, when I use the same method to estimate the probability for the existence of any god, then (correcting the large number of errors in Steve Unwin’s book entitled “The Probability of God”), I end up with an estimate for the probability of the existence of god to be somewhere in the range: certainly less than 1 part in 10^100 and quite likely smaller than 1 part in 10^1,000. I invite you to perform your own estimate, as honestly as you can, and then think again of the important point made by the physicist Robert Wilson (quoted in my earlier post):

“Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under ‘Low Probability’, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under ‘High Probability’. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely.”
4. And my final and most important point is the one that I’ve already made to you twice in earlier posts, dealing with your statement:

“Of course that makes sense. The difficult part is that for us no proof is necessary. We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know. A person can not understand how that can be knowledge unless they do believe.”
Think of the horrors such ideas have caused humanity. The Nazis “believed” and had “faith” and “trust” that they belonged to a superior and that the Jews to an inferior race (even though there was no evidence to support such stupidity), and think of the horrors that resulted. Many Israelites “believe” that some giant landlord in the sky gave them “the promised land” (even though no reliable evidence supports such stupidity), and think of the pains that the poor Palestinian people are enduring because of it. Hamas leaders “believe” that they can push the Israelites into the Sea (even though no evidence supports such stupidity), and think of the pains they cause both the Israelites and the Palestinians, especially the children. President Bush #2 “believed” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (even though there was insufficient evidence to support that “belief”), and think of the horrors his stupidity caused. And so on, on and on, of course including all the suicide bombers who “believe” that they’ll go directly to paradise if they blow up themselves and innocents – even though there’s not even the tiniest shred of evidence to support such stupidity.

Let me put it this way. Given that you (too) seem to be nearing the end of your life, please don’t leave as a legacy to the youngsters of the world your terrible statement:

“Of course that makes sense. The difficult part is that for us no proof is necessary. We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know. A person can not understand how that can be knowledge unless they do believe.”
Retract it, disown it, apologize for it, demolish it, do your part to see that such stupidly doesn’t damage or even destroy the lives of still more children.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 09:34 PM
Peace Zoro,

I'm not going to try to address all of your comments. I see our stumbling block is based upon my statement.

“Of course that makes sense. The difficult part is that for us no proof is necessary. We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know. A person can not understand how that can be knowledge unless they do believe.”
Proof is not necessary for us. It is available and a person should seek it. To trust with faith does take a considerable amount of knowing. It is only after we know can we honestly understand that proof is not necessary.

I would never discourage a person to question. In fact I feel obligated to tell people to question all things they see or hear. Belief and faith must be made as a conscious choice and not be the result of what any person tells us.

Belief and Faith does eliminate the need for knowledge as once we know the basis for our belief and faith has been verified, we can then relax and enjoy the peace and comfort of faith.

I do not know if you have ever piloted a plane. But if you have not, when you board a plane do you need to know more than the fact the pilot is qualified and the plane is mechanically sound. After that do you not sit back with faith and enjoy the flight to your destination. Do you really need to know the principals of Aerodynamics to enjoy the flight?

In that regard, there’s now little doubt that the universe created itself when some (quantum) fluctuation in the original “total void” broke some symmetry, leading to the Big Bang. That explains why, in total there’s still nothing here in our universe; that is, everything in our universe has “just” been separated into positive and negative components – including positive and negative electrical charge, “positive” and “negative” momenta (although it, of course, is a vector), and the positive energy (e.g., all mass plus) is balanced by the negative energy of “space” or “the vacuum”. What the “symmetry-breaking fluctuation in the total void” was is unknown, of course, but knowledgeable physicists expect that it was some type of energy (e.g., a string of energy or some elementary particle). If you want further information about these ideas, then see, for example, Chapter A of my online book at www.zenofzero.net or see http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum...2&goto=newpost. And I’ll grant you that there is still question about whether there is positive entropy in our universe, but as you can see from the referenced “thread”, I have not yet received, from among senior physicists, any “takers” to my challenge that if entropy of “space” is defined appropriately (including using the idea that, there, time runs in the opposite direction), then I think that a case can be made that the total entropy of the universe is also zero, exactly as it was before the Big Bang.
In my studies I was more convinced that our concept of matter was simply a warp in the space-time continuum. That matter existed simply because it had to exist. I won't go into much detail, but that theory was that essentially all what we call matter is simply Bubbles of nothing being out of synchronization of the overall fabric of space-time.

It was only after I accepted Islam as being the true Revelation of Allah(swt) did I come to the understanding that matter does exist and it was created.
Reply

zoro
02-24-2007, 10:37 PM
Woodrow: In my view, you use the words “belief” and “faith” too loosely, and such a procedure can have serious consequences. I recommend that, instead, you replace those words with what you really mean, that is, with estimates of probability.

Using your example, when I co-piloted our research aircraft or when I board a commercial airline, I estimate the probabilities either that the pilot will bail me out (if I get into trouble) or that the airline’s plane and pilot will get me to my destination safely. If those probabilities are acceptable, I then relax and enjoy “the peace and comfort”, not in “faith”, but in my estimates of the probabilities.

And the consequences of using the words “belief” and “faith”, when what you mean is your estimates for probabilities, can be (and have been) significant. For example, once a person states “belief” in god (or similar), then whereas such statements reflect intransigency, further discussion is not only stymied, but fists and bombs can (and do) start flying. In contrast, if you state that your estimate for the probability of the existence of god (or similar) is 0.99999… and I state that my similar estimate is 0.0000…1, then there’s room for discussion, namely, to examine details of each estimate, to find their strengths and weaknesses.

On the other topic you raise, I’d recommend that you study more physics! As far as I know, no knowledgeable person ever suggested, “matter was… a warp in the space-time continuum.” Rather, Einstein’s general relativity suggests that matter warps space-time. Further, my expectation is that, whoever suggested to you “matter is simply bubbles of nothing being out of synchronization of the overall fabric of space-time” must have been smoking something pretty powerful!

On the other hand, that “matter does exist and it was created” isn’t a very challenging statement. Accepting that hypothesis as having been validated sufficiently, then the challenge is to determine how matter came into existence – a challenge that it now being investigated by science, along the lines that I indicated in my previous post.
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2007, 11:02 PM
On the other topic you raise, I’d recommend that you study more physics!
At my age out of necessity I have to limit any studies to only one or two subjects. During these twilight years I prefer that it be to the gaining of more knowledge of Islam.

I just noticed you are also a pilot.

when I co-piloted our research aircraft
Flying has always been one of my greatest loves. I started with an old Cub tri-pacer when I was 14 and soloed when I was 16. In the late 50s and early 60s I piloted an F-86. That is still my favorite plane. Last time I piloted a plane was when I was 65 have not been able to pass the FAA physical since then.

I always have a special place in my thoughts for people that love the sky.


In my view, you use the words “belief” and “faith” too loosely, and such a procedure can have serious consequences.
Since I am now well beyond the age of my life expectancy I hope I am using the words Belief and Faith to the fullest extent of how I mean them and that my beliefs and faith will have the serious consequences I am striving for.
Reply

Trumble
02-25-2007, 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
Same can be said for evolution theory assumption that;

Apes >> earliest hominids >> homo erectus >> cro-magnon >> neanderthal >> homo sapiens (modern human)
Modern man did not evolve from neanderthal man. Neither evolved from homo erectus. And cro-magnons were homo sapiens (circa 40,000 years ago)!


In addition to that, considerable changes in muscular and facial structure. As compared to earlier humans, which have greater muscular mass and very ape-like facial traits, modern humans have very much atrophied musculature due to reliance on technologies to lift objects and do works. Also, as the intelligence of modern human grow, we could expect bigger brains, and hence, bigger heads. But are we seeing these things occur over time now? Or has human remained pretty much the same since 200,000 years ago?
As far as we can tell there have been significant changes in facial structure, or at least. That is seen in both analysis of the skulls and, simply, in the vast differences across the world in facial structure between different races of people.

A fit, active, human being today is little different in terms of musculature from one of 2,000 years ago or 200,000 years ago, although obviously the general level of fitness and muscular development would vary. What huge 'objects' were cro-magnons supposed to be lifting that turned them all into Conan the Barbarian clones? It is far more likely that their physique was determined by the need for stamina and speed than lifting power. Ancient peoples like the Egyptians constructed their architecture using brain power and engineering principles that are well understood today, as well as muscle. The human being has the potential for a huge range of musculature. It's not fixed from birth, you develop it as needed.

As to intelligence, what makes you think it has grown? Is George W. Bush any brighter than Caesar or Alexander the Great? (not a serious question). As to our most distant ancestors, who knows, but what we do know is that we use only a fraction of the power of the brain we already have. Larger ones might well not be needed for a while, even if an increase in the general intelligence level was occuring.



@ Woodrow,

Thank you for the clarification.
Reply

Muslim Knight
02-25-2007, 06:36 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Modern man did not evolve from neanderthal man. Neither evolved from homo erectus. And cro-magnons were homo sapiens (circa 40,000 years ago)!
That's why I've mentioned in my earlier post that I am inclined to believe there were these were distinct species as opposed to human evolving from neanderthal evolving from cro-magnon evolving from earliest hominids. Maybe at one point of time these species co-existed together but due to intense competition for resources (i.e. food and shelter) the other species lost out to humans, which have higher intelligence, better motor coordination, greater numbers and better social cooperation.

In November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team of European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred. Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains, "Closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." The study claims to settle the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Erik Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[27] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged through the 1990s is now dead".
SOURCE

However, it is interesting to note evolutionists thought what happened to the Neanderthals. Interbreeding could very well suggest that humans are not so dissimilar with Neanderthals. You cannot breed a man with a monkey because of the genetic difference anymore than you could breed him with a dog. But you can breed man with Neanderthal, which this article suggests, those two aren't so dissimilar.

As far as we can tell there have been significant changes in facial structure, or at least. That is seen in both analysis of the skulls and, simply, in the vast differences across the world in facial structure between different races of people.

A fit, active, human being today is little different in terms of musculature from one of 2,000 years ago or 200,000 years ago, although obviously the general level of fitness and muscular development would vary. What huge 'objects' were cro-magnons supposed to be lifting that turned them all into Conan the Barbarian clones? It is far more likely that their physique was determined by the need for stamina and speed than lifting power. Ancient peoples like the Egyptians constructed their architecture using brain power and engineering principles that are well understood today, as well as muscle. The human being has the potential for a huge range of musculature. It's not fixed from birth, you develop it as needed.
I'm sorry. My mistake. Using hair & musculature are bad examples to explain significant physical characteristics changes. We're talking about reptile >> archeopteryx >> bird. The changes would involve sprouting skeletal wings, later growing into wings with membranes going on to feather type of wings like the bird we see today. I'd expect if man is to evolve he would grow or degenerate something more significant than hairs. It could involve something as growing new organs (who knows? to digest all the processed foods we're eating, just to adapt from indigestion)

As to intelligence, what makes you think it has grown? Is George W. Bush any brighter than Caesar or Alexander the Great? (not a serious question). As to our most distant ancestors, who knows, but what we do know is that we use only a fraction of the power of the brain we already have. Larger ones might well not be needed for a while, even if an increase in the general intelligence level was occuring.
I agree because I am more inclined to the notion that these species existed separately and not evolved from one form to another. It is interesting to know that if we import a human from 3000 years ago and educate him about today's world, he would become as smart as any other person. However, import a Neanderthal and do the same for him, he would stay as dumb as he was thousands of years ago. Well, except that he might become as smart as a chimpanzee.
Reply

root
02-27-2007, 06:06 PM
Hi root, I'm sorry but your points don't cut the mustard they're full of Bias
OK, let's have a look eh

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
1/ All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Steve - That fact is equally consistence with creationism, if it aint broken, don't fix it. Why would God have gone trough completely different mechanisms when obviously these are quite effective?
It's interesting to note firstly, that you don't believe in creationism and you favour evolution less common descent, which this post (of mine) is about. Firstly, you propose that God would keep things simple by allowing chemical reactions (presumably) to allow micro-evolution and then adopt another stance altogether and physically create either multicelular life or just human life. Depending on your viewpoint here, already it's become complicated because you have just adopted two delivery mechanisms and logic to me would suggest that if God did wish to keep it simple then one evolutionary system for all would be the logical pov which stands against what you are claiming. It would be interesting to note from you a little clarity here.

  1. Do you accept micro-evolution accepting the creationist view as incorrect
  2. Do you accept multi-cellular evolution of life and do youy propose humans are or are not part of this evolutionary process or do you believe ALL multicellular life was created without any evolutionary forces acting upon multicelular life.


It would be interesting to see your response to 1 & 2 above.

Quote:Root
2/ Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Steve - That's a straw man, the nest only proves micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. A person who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution would just as well have predicted the emergence of such nests. So that emergence doesn't necessarily prove common descent, in fact the many missing links tend to suggest that common descent is false.
Come again, your saying that the constructed tree of life does not include multi-celular life! even so, gene comparisons within the nests reinforce an accurate relation for cross referencing. It was gene information that reclassified the hippo as being the closest living ancestor of the whale and not of the pig which many thought, geographical location can most times also provide another reference point and additionally archeology too. As for missing links, that seems a non starter. Say a plane blew up over the atlantic ocean, most of the plane would never be constructed, partial reconstruction would undoubtly be enough to investigate the reason, it would be a wierd world if we said the lockerbie was never blown up because we can't be sure since all the wreckage was not recovered............

All these reference points have lead to an accurate picture in line to what evolution predicts, and we learn more and more all the time without (yet) anything that has been able to falsify the tree of life.


Quote:Root
3/ Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Steve - Well, that's only for the nests, the micro-evolution, not the macro-evolution.
Same as above, that is nonsense Steve because the tree of life includes multi-celular life which is macro-evolution

Quote:Root
4/ Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Steve - Yet at the same time there are incredible gaps in the fossil record, again showing us that micro-evolution is probable, but macro is improbable.
How does multicellular lifeform fossils prove probable micro evolution, that is absurd.

Quote:Root
5/ The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Yet at the same time there are cases of unexplainable fossils who were found in layers they don't belong in, or different fossils of different alleged steps of evolution almost all originating from the same time-period.
AMAZING, Reference please!!!!!!!


Quote:Root
6/ Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Steve - But the intermediate stages still make it troublesome to explain the evolutionary step in between them in a mechanistic theory as it is still likely that such a change would involve mutation in several genes at once who are located on different spots.
Your looking at the sheer cliff at the front of mount improbable, and ignoring the gentle slope behind that you cannot see. Creationists cannot cite a single species that defies evolutionary steps. Remember how much the creationists shouted about the fire cracking beetle and how it was "impossible" to have evolved, then science discovered how it was able to evolve in smaller incremental steps.

Quote:Root
7/ Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories. .
Steve - In a way, atavism could just as well be held as an argument of inconsistency with the evolutionary three. The theory that it was dormant in the in between species is just a way out of the inconsistency until it is proven
Yet, we find fish having examples of avatism with distant fish ancestors, snakes with hind legs again within it's own branch of life. Consistent avatism within it's own constructed branch, seems water tight to me..... unless you find a snake with a set of atavism wings!!!!!!


Quote:
8/ Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Steve - Again, micro-evolution, not macro evolution.
So whales and snakes or micro-cellular and not multi-cellular now Steve! How absurd a notion

Quote:Root
9/ Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Steve - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. For the thousand time, you cannot argue that similarity is a proof for condescend.
Of course u cannot argue similarity is proof, if science did that the hippo would still be part of the pig nest eh, it does however prove that bone structure can and does have multi-functioning use across species and thus thier difference is not as vast as was once thought, climbing the steady slope of mount improbable fitting well with evolutionary theory,


Quote:Root
10/ When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
Steve - Why should God have made different mechanisms when these obviously are great? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
This goes back to my first point, why would god allow evolution and create his own, God would have done one or the other for ALL life, I'd say that was by far the simplist approach, your point reinforces the logic within evolution since you accept evolution via micro-evolution. If it ain't broken!


Quote:Root
11/ The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Root - Suboptimal is extremely difficult to establish. I'm not saying our bodies are perfect in the Utopian sense, but I do think they are perfect in the sense that they more benefits then all alternatives. To suggest otherwise one would have to come up with a hypotetical "better" alternative. And of course it's incredible hard determining whether or not it would be "better" since we have no way of testing the hypothetical alternative.
Now your saying creation of humans by a supreme intelligent designer designed us less than perfect, it's easy to see for example how the eye evolved a blindspot I don't buy your answer at all which is simply god made us less perfect and how do we know it's less perfect. Utter rubbish steve, and I am disappointed by which the level of the barrel u are scraping


Quote:
12/ Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Just because we haven't found the use of it doesn't mean it's useless. A lot of genes that were considered garbage DNA could still have certain use.
As for ERV (endogenous retro-viruses) proving our common descent, have you read my latest post in the Evolution-ERV-sticky-topic? Recent studies have shown that Aids (a retrovirus) most likely carries enzymes with 'm that dictates the insertion point it takes when infecting a cell's DNA. So The theory that different species have similar insertion points due to similar methods of infection rather then condescend again rises in credebility.
This is a biggie, I will look into your post. However, as avatism features are in dna code, I would tread carefully here along with junk dna. Nothing here would even remotely begin to undermine evolution, as it all supports the evidence far from falsifying it.


Quote:Root
13/ Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002). The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts
Steve - These only show us that micro-evolution is possible. As I said before, I don't have any problems with that.
OK. here u go again with this micro-evolution concept. We see a lot of species adapting to climate change and human forced pressures all the time these are all multi-cellular life.

QUESTION TO STEVE

Is a fruit fly single cellular life AKA (micro-evolution)!!!!!!!


Quote:Root
Could the creationists now post YOUR "EVIDENCE"
Thanks...........
Steve - I don't see why I should post evidence. I never claimed that the theory of creationism was based on facts and was scientific. Instead wilberhum said that about evolution, even though he knows only micro-evolution is proven and common descent isn't at all proven and isn't at all scientific. I think my replies to your arguments have shown that sufficiently.
That's a gr8 way of saying "I dont have any evidence"
Reply

root
02-27-2007, 10:55 PM
I agree because I am more inclined to the notion that these species existed separately and not evolved from one form to another. It is interesting to know that if we import a human from 3000 years ago and educate him about today's world, he would become as smart as any other person. However, import a Neanderthal and do the same for him, he would stay as dumb as he was thousands of years ago. Well, except that he might become as smart as a chimpanzee
Pure speculation and unfounded nonsense....... Who ever said a neannderthal lacked the intelligence and social adaptation of modern humans!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-28-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by root
It's interesting to note firstly, that you don't believe in creationism and you favour evolution less common descent, which this post (of mine) is about. Firstly, you propose that God would keep things simple by allowing chemical reactions (presumably) to allow micro-evolution and then adopt another stance altogether and physically create either multicelular life or just human life. Depending on your viewpoint here, already it's become complicated because you have just adopted two delivery mechanisms and logic to me would suggest that if God did wish to keep it simple then one evolutionary system for all would be the logical pov which stands against what you are claiming. It would be interesting to note from you a little clarity here.

  1. Do you accept micro-evolution accepting the creationist view as incorrect
  2. Do you accept multi-cellular evolution of life and do youy propose humans are or are not part of this evolutionary process or do you believe ALL multicellular life was created without any evolutionary forces acting upon multicelular life.


It would be interesting to see your response to 1 & 2 above.
Good questions, sorry if i wasn't clear about this. So basically I do believe in creationism. I believe a certain variety of species were created and placed here on earth. But here's the twist from classical creationists, I also believe that that variety of species evolved into a much broader variety of species once it got here.
As for my belief on how humans fit in here, I think they were created seperatly. They might have evolved from that original human a bit trough time though (different hight and so on).

Come again, your saying that the constructed tree of life does not include multi-celular life!
I'm sorry, I looked it up and it seemed like I confused some of the terminology. What I actually meant to say was that these nest do not prove evolution in between different groups of species (like reptile to bird or to mammal and so on), which I mistakenly called macro. Hope this clears it up

As for missing links, that seems a non starter. Say a plane blew up over the atlantic ocean, most of the plane would never be constructed, partial reconstruction would undoubtly be enough to investigate the reason, it would be a wierd world if we said the lockerbie was never blown up because we can't be sure since all the wreckage was not recovered............
That's a very unappropriated metaphor. The "missing links" were not blown up in the air, neither did their parts scatter over the ocean. Instead they supposedly lived and died on this earth for many generations.

All these reference points have lead to an accurate picture in line to what evolution predicts, and we learn more and more all the time without (yet) anything that has been able to falsify the tree of life.

AMAZING, Reference please!!!!!!!
Well take the Cambrium explosion for example.

Your looking at the sheer cliff at the front of mount improbable, and ignoring the gentle slope behind that you cannot see. Creationists cannot cite a single species that defies evolutionary steps. Remember how much the creationists shouted about the fire cracking beetle and how it was "impossible" to have evolved, then science discovered how it was able to evolve in smaller incremental steps.
Actually, due to the lack of mechanistic theories science hasn't been able to show us that evolution from one specie to another was possible for any step. Instead, they just look at the fenotype, and suggest that since the animals look simular they must have evolved from one another.

Yet, we find fish having examples of avatism with distant fish ancestors, snakes with hind legs again within it's own branch of life. Consistent avatism within it's own constructed branch, seems water tight to me..... unless you find a snake with a set of atavism wings!!!!!!
Water tight? Well I don't know, the idea is circular. And circular ideas cannot be used as arguments in favor of a theory. Just because it is consistent within it's own theory doesn't make it an argument. Fairy tales can be consistent within their own theory to, but that doesn't make them real.



So whales and snakes or micro-cellular and not multi-cellular now Steve! How absurd a notion





Of course u cannot argue similarity is proof, if science did that the hippo would still be part of the pig nest eh, it does however prove that bone structure can and does have multi-functioning use across species and thus thier difference is not as vast as was once thought, climbing the steady slope of mount improbable fitting well with evolutionary theory,

This goes back to my first point, why would god allow evolution and create his own, God would have done one or the other for ALL life, I'd say that was by far the simplist approach, your point reinforces the logic within evolution since you accept evolution via micro-evolution. If it ain't broken!
So you're saying that if God would have created a variety of species, he wouldn't have allowed them to evolve into a broader variety?

Now your saying creation of humans by a supreme intelligent designer designed us less than perfect, it's easy to see for example how the eye evolved a blindspot I don't buy your answer at all which is simply god made us less perfect and how do we know it's less perfect. Utter rubbish steve, and I am disappointed by which the level of the barrel u are scraping
I didn't say God created us less then perfect. Instead I said our knowledge is to limited to understand perfection. You might think we are imperfect, but I argue that such a view comes from not understanding the motives behind certain features. Unless you can come up with a better alternative, and prove that it would indeed have more advantages and less disadvantages over the current life form, then I will accept that the current isn't perfect. However that task is nearly impossible since we are unable to test this hypothetical alternative for disadvantages.

OK. here u go again with this micro-evolution concept. We see a lot of species adapting to climate change and human forced pressures all the time these are all multi-cellular life.
Well, I hope I cleared up this misuse of terminology. Sorry for the confusion around the term micro and macro.
Reply

Woodrow
02-28-2007, 10:25 PM
I didn't say God created us less then perfect. Instead I said our knowledge is to limited to understand perfection. You might think we are imperfect, but I argue that such a view comes from not understanding the motives behind certain features. Unless you can come up with a better alternative, and prove that it would indeed have more advantages and less disadvantages over the current life form, then I will accept that the current isn't perfect. However that task is nearly impossible since we are unable to test this hypothetical alternative for disadvantages.
I like that statement. It reminds me that we can not judge perfection as we do not understand perfections.

I like to look at a turtle. A turtle is not very soft and cuddly. It has no great aptitudes. In fact the only things a turtle can do is what a turtle is designed to do. And for that it is the perfect design. A turtle is the best design possible to be a turtle.
Reply

root
03-05-2007, 09:20 PM
Steve - hope I cleared up this misuse of terminology. Sorry for the confusion around the term micro and macro.
Steve, It does not clear up any of the points you made. I think you just gave any response as long as it sounded viable, I hope next time you decide to engage in a debate that you give it more thought than you otherwise did on this occasion.

Thanks

Root

Woodrow - I like that statement. It reminds me that we can not judge perfection as we do not understand perfections.
I doubt I will use it when my boss accuses me of less than perfect programmimg, since it is the real world that I would be reflecting on just as in the points I made.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
03-07-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by root
Steve, It does not clear up any of the points you made. I think you just gave any response as long as it sounded viable, I hope next time you decide to engage in a debate that you give it more thought than you otherwise did on this occasion.

Thanks

Root
Ok let me try again.
I personally believe in creationism. And believe that Allah subhana wa ta'ala created a variety of species. However, I believe once those species got here, they evolved into an ever broader variety of species.

That means that my belief only contradicts common descent, evolution fits perfectly in it. Now forget macro in micro classifications. My believe is that although certain steps of evolutions are probable, not all steps of evolution are probable. So I accept some steps, and I don't except others. I messed up in my previous post by mistakenly calling the former micro and the later macro. Where in reality both some of the steps I agree on and the steps I disagree on are considered macro. I wasn't just "giving any response" to get rid of your evidence. I was genuinely mistaken in terminology. However, my arguments still stand as I will attempt to explain them again.

With that different interpretation of creationism in mind (=were different species were created which later evolved into different nests), all evidence that points out "nests" in the family tree of descent only makes my alternative more plausible instead of proving common descent.
Also, the fossil record -which has huge gaps of intermediate species that are supposed to link the nests together- also makes my alternative more plausible instead of proving common descent.

And that is really the silver lining in all my arguments against these so called proofs of common descent. All the things you listed as proof can be interpreted both ways (your way and my way). So they are not absolute proof.
Reply

wilberhum
03-07-2007, 09:47 PM
Why do Creationists always ignore all the other Creation Myths?
Every couture has there own Creation Stories.

[PIE]The Navajo story about the creation of their world.

The Insect People passed through four separate worlds, but in each world they displeased the gods and were forced to flee through a hole in the sky into the next world. In the Fourth World they met up with the Kisani people (the Pueblo Indians) and the Insect People created the first man & fists woman of the Dine. (Navajo people).[/PIE]
[PIE]Australian Aborigine Creation Story
Baiame and the First Man and Woman
Baiame walked on the earth ahe had made, among the plants and animals, and created man and woman to rule over them. He fashioned them from the dust of the ridges, and said.
"These are the plants you shall eat--these and these, but not the animals I have created.[/PIE]

Why are these any less creditable that the Adam & Eve myth?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
03-08-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Why do Creationists always ignore all the other Creation Myths?
Well you shouldn't judge all theories as the same just because they share a name.
My believe in creationism has nothing to do with an aboriginal believes in creationism. they are both called creationism because both include some form of creation, but that's where the analogy ends. Just because one is false doesn't mean the other is and vice versa. what you are doing here makes just as much sense as me arguing against you:
Why do neo-evolutionists always ignore the flaws in classical darwinistic evolution? Well the answer is very simple, because neo-evolutionists don't believe in classical Darwinism. Just as I as a creationist don't believe in every single creation story.
Reply

wilberhum
03-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Steve,
Well I think FSM is the most logical, well at least as logical. :D
It is all creation stories are just that. Stories.
Reply

czgibson
03-08-2007, 09:55 PM
Greetings, Steve,

I'm not sure wilberhum is making quite the point you're thinking of. There are lots of creation stories, just as there are lots and lots of different gods. The point is, it seems to me, there is just as much evidence for one of them as there is for any of them. Why do you assume that you have chosen the right god and the right creation story, given that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of each?

When it comes to evolution, the evidence has changed people's views. What has directed your view to the beliefs you've chosen over others?

[I have to say, the FSM is pretty suave and debonair as most gods go...]

Peace
Reply

Sinner
03-08-2007, 10:08 PM
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school".'

Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.

http://www.cft.org.za/articles/evquote.htm


Dr Niles Eldridge (2)

Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that no one will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what happens in biology:... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: "How did this ever happen?"


Dr Stephen J Gould, evolutionary palaeontologist from Harvard.

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book (Evolution). if I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly have included them... yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


Dr Michael Denton. (14)

Supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts and form a Boeing 747

Dr Pierre-Paul Grosse. (30).

.... the whole vast structure of modern naturalism [seems to] depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice [and is] devised not to get in facts but to keep out God.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...k/c-append.htm
Reply

Abdul Fattah
03-09-2007, 05:09 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings, Steve,

I'm not sure wilberhum is making quite the point you're thinking of. There are lots of creation stories, just as there are lots and lots of different gods. The point is, it seems to me, there is just as much evidence for one of them as there is for any of them. Why do you assume that you have chosen the right god and the right creation story, given that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of each?

When it comes to evolution, the evidence has changed people's views. What has directed your view to the beliefs you've chosen over others?

[I have to say, the FSM is pretty suave and debonair as most gods go...]

Peace
well hold your horses, I didn't reject common descend because I became religious. In fact, it happened the other way around. I rejected common descent because it has to many flaws in theory. After a while I became muslim (not only due to this, there were other factors. Now, whether or not I picked the right creation story is irrelevant, my case here is that there's flaws in the theory.

As for FSM, I won't indulge into arguments ad absurdum, all that FSM shows is that creationism is not falsifiable. So what? I never claimed it is!
Reply

Trumble
03-09-2007, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
There are lots of creation stories, just as there are lots and lots of different gods. The point is, it seems to me, there is just as much evidence for one of them as there is for any of them. Why do you assume that you have chosen the right god and the right creation story, given that there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of each?
True, but does it really matter? I think the essential point is that a creation 'story' is accepted. Precisely which one seems a fairly petty difference in terms of the overall debate, although I appreciate far smaller differences have caused a far more trouble between those of different religious persuasions!
Reply

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

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-27-2018, 05:19 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-13-2018, 01:31 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2010, 08:14 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 02:33 AM
  5. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 04:44 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!