Now, at every step here, those supporting ToE have clearly said "we don't know everything", "no scientific theory is ever 100% fact", have you not been reading?
I am not sure what you're doing here then? with one breath you're a staunch defender of the 'scientists' and the institutions but mum at best when the majority here point out the flaws and ask you to reconcile it. In other words what are you fighting for and what is your hope exactly when you speak of the 'we'? I find arguing with you --- not constructive in anyway and brings every dialogue down to a level I'd rather everyone elevate from. Perhaps you and your buddy should take it to PM and agree with each other there?
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
So, it is not a challenge for TOE either way whether prokaryotes or eukaryotes came first.
It is a challenge for Creationism because there are an estimated 100 million other species yet to come that do not appear in this period, and every one of them is more complex than either prokaryotes or eukaryotes.
This is no challenge for creationists, we simply say God created, .
Perhaps you think that is just luck?
No luck needed, God has power.
If you personally believe that TOE happened without God, then please say.
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
I am at a loss to what that guy sees as a challenge? Perhaps it is a reversal of responsibility- when people proclaim to know how they should evince & produce it!
29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I am not sure what you're doing here then? with one breath you're a staunch defender of the 'scientists' and the institutions but mum at best when the majority here point out the flaws and ask you to reconcile it. In other words what are you fighting for and what is your hope exactly when you speak of the 'we'? I find arguing with you --- not constructive in anyway and brings every dialogue down to a level I'd rather everyone elevate from. Perhaps you and your buddy should take it to PM and agree with each other there?
best,
Yep, I'm a staunch defender of scientists. Yep, the evolutionary theory is incomplete. Does that make it not true? No. Are you suggesting that only theories which are 100% certain should be accepted as science? Because in that case, you would reject all science.
Last edited by Muhammad; 01-19-2014 at 11:52 PM.
Reason: quoted post edited
Because in that case, you would reject all science.
I am not following, and I suspect you'd no more than intro to bio as your entire 'science' education.
We've amply explained what we want here, if you keep missing the purpose, then it is something you've to work on your private time. I don't need to change the requirements to match your abilities!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I see this thread is starting to deteriorate and we are not getting anywhere in particular. Thread closure is well overdue... my next post will be to close the thread.
******
Greetings Independent,
Although you will not admit it, it is clear from your post that we are dealing with assumptions, not facts. You speak of strong indications, balance of probabilities and hope for future consensuses. I therefore return to my earlier point that you cannot push these things as fact upon Creationists. Only until facts are established will it become a problem not to accept them.
Also, we must acknowledge that science is not homogeneous; some theories are stronger than others. Some things are accepted as fact whilst others are grey areas subject to further research and scrutiny. We witness the effects of gravity every day. We do not see macroevolution in a whole lifetime. It doesn't make sense to treat these two things as one when they are so different.
To respond to some specific points:
We can't 'see' the Big Bang either, an unimaginably more distant event. We can only see some things consistent with it having happened. Yet many Muslims believe in the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is a different discussion. The point here was how you were using the analogy of something we witness everyday to illustrate the case with TOE.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
If you reject evolution on the ground that it's 'unfinished' or changing, you must logically reject all science. (And some of the posts in this forum come very close to that.)
This is not what I, or anyone else as far as I can tell, are saying. It's over-simplifying some of our arguments, as you also do with the argument from irreducible complexity. The Cambrian explosion was not mentioned to argue about unfinished explanations. It was a specific response and example to what you said about everything appearing in the way TOE predicts. I'm not sure why we keep going in different directions with this.
100% of the many millions of fossils so far discovered are consistent with TOE, none disprove it.
If I understood this right, that is 100% of the 1% of the fossils found... how does one know that the remaining 99% won't reveal discrepancies?
Yes, but what we see are not the right stages.
Who is to define which stages are 'right' for God?
God told Muslims about our origins. He didn't tell Darwin or any number of other people.
Darwin was well aware of the religious view concerning man's origin. God's message is also universal, not just for Muslims.
The quality of observations was not irrelevant, it was crucial. The number and accuracy of astronomical observations was essential to Kepler's reasoning.
I meant it was irrelevant to the point I was making.
No. The mathematical data which Kepler uses to prove his theory of elliptical orbits cannot be solved by any other theory, no more than any maths sum can be made to add up to something different.
The analogy clearly differs to TOE then, which is fraught with statistical uncertainties.
There are two competing theories on the table. Evolution and Creationism. One of them fits the data much better than the other.
I don't see how.
I don't say questions should not be asked, either in the quote you give or elsewhere. But many Creationists are not asking questions - they are claiming evolution is impossible. Which itself is an impossible claim to justify with our current state of knowledge.
I'm not sure if anyone is saying evolution is impossible - some aspects like microevolution may be accepted. But evolutionists seem to want Creationists to accept the whole theory without asking about the detail. You brought up the Copernicus-Kepler analogy for this particular reason.
I don't understand why anyone makes the appeal of authority for Creationism. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of specialists in the field support TOE, as well as most other scientists. Many scientists quoted as anti TOE are based in other disciplines. Also, it's interesting to note that almost everyone who opposes TOE are religiously motivated. The argument is not persuasive in itself. Whereas TOE is supported by large numbers of Christians, Muslims and people of every faith.
It was not an appeal of authority. My point was regarding what you said along the lines of 'only one solution is possible', which I questioned by mentioning many within the scientific community are questioning the evidence. There is nothing to suggest religious motivation here. Their disciplines are also about as relevant as one can get - professors in genetics, molecular biology, geology, physical biochemistry etc.
Because TOE is incomplete, it leaves room for lots of questions, the biggest question seems to be, is there the need for a God, in order that TOE can happen?
TOEists, claim it needed 1829 beneficial mutations, spanning about 400,000 generations; for the eye to evolve, in about half a million years.
Just to break those numbers down a bit, each mutation would need about 200 generations, in order to pass this benefit through a population. During those 200 generations, each improvement to the eye, would also need to send this message to a brain, the brain would also have to understand these messages within 200 generations. Then the brain would have to pass this message onto limbs, so they can respond to the information from the eye, again within 200 generations.
This has to happen 1829 successive times for the eye to evolve according to computer predictions.
If each and every beneficial eye mutation is not backed up with all the extras, and within 200 generations, then the eye cannot evolve; according to the laws of TOE.
I do not see how this amount of detail can happen, without God in control.
So why does he do that with bacteria etc. which become resistant to drugs and therefore continue to kill people and cause them suffering? Evolution explains this perfectly, your explanation suggests that god is purposefully killing people and stopping us fighting infections. Why would he do that?
If there is no God, bacteria kills, end of story. If there is a God, bacteria still kills, but we have the opportunity of a greater and everlasting life after death, this life is not the end.
I see this thread is starting to deteriorate and we are not getting anywhere in particular. Thread closure is well overdue... my next post will be to close the thread.
I would like to thank you, and all the admin staff, for the good work you do, I have to say this is my favourite forum. You have a tricky job trying to be fair and just, especially with topics like evolution, when we do like to argue, and sadly little is achieved on either side.
The timeline is derived mainly from the fossil record and it is not a lie, it's just a reporting of information
Before the thread gets closed I want to add (one more time) that the timeline is extremely unreliable. If evolutionists can't give accurate dating to the fossils, then how can anything they say be trusted? Regarding eukaryotes there are so many differing statements and they are by all by evolution scientists (not creationists). Some say eukaryotes first appeared 1.7 billion years ago and some say they first arose 3 billion years ago. That's a difference of 1.3 billion years! Not a short time period! The timeline that was posted shows the later time date which shows that it is biased. What other biased information has it presented? Really, taking advantage of people's ignorance and using fancy scientific words is not the scientific method!
Those scientists who for other reasons think that eukaryotes came first or at the same time need to explain that gap.
why should they be obligated to explain anything any more than the scientists (and the maker of the timeline) has to explain why they think eukaryotes appeared later or appeared 1.7 billion years ago and not 3 billion years ago? The same rules should apply to everyone and not to just those whose findings go against your claims! The timeline states that eukaryotes first appeared 1.7 billion years ago and other scientific findings show that eukaryotes first appeared 3 billion years ago. Why the two different dates? which is correct? How do you trust such varied statements? remember if eukaryotes first appeared 3 billion years ago, it pushes the whole record back 1.3 billion years!
there are other problems to with that timeline but I need a bit of time to analyze it.
So why does he do that with bacteria etc. which become resistant to drugs and therefore continue to kill people and cause them suffering? Evolution explains this perfectly, your explanation suggests that god is purposefully killing people and stopping us fighting infections. Why would he do that?
Supposing you get infected with an awful disease and there's just one medicine that cures it and the strain of bacteria that has infected you mutates and becomes resistant. Now tell me, why should God protect you if you can't so much as acknowledge His existence despite seeing countless of His Signs around you?
We shouldn't forget that a lot of diseases are caused by mankind's defiance of and disobedience to God's laws. Some are directly caused by defiance while others are indirect. For example, God told mankind not to drink liquor (or other addictive substances like cigarettes). When people continue to do so and get liver disease or lung cancer, who's to blame? When people get aids by fornicating, who's to blame? The aids virus is known to mutate and become resistant to treatment! Truly it is the greatest example of God's wrath.
Indirect diseases are like those that inflict a miserly person who ends up spending thousands on treatment.
God is the most Merciful and loves and cares for His creation but it is also an obligation on the creation to adhere to God's laws. Those who do adhere to God's laws and also show care and generosity to His creation are many times protected from afflictions and diseases. There are people who rarely go to the doctor! Furthermore, it isn't just medicine that has cure. Ruqya (recitation of certain Quran Surahs and Ayahs) also has cure and many are cured by it even from life-threatening diseases.
Finally, I agree with Eric's statement regarding the afterlife. Those righteous individuals who do get incurable disease are rewarded in the Afterlife for their suffering and patience.
why should they be obligated to explain anything any more than the scientists (and the maker of the timeline) has to explain why they think eukaryotes appeared later or appeared 1.7 billion years ago and not 3 billion years ago? The same rules should apply to everyone and not to just those whose findings go against your claims!
You misunderstand on several counts. First of all, i don't care which turns out to be be first, or if they were simultaneous. It modifies the detail of TOE but not the structure. Secondly, the 'younger' date for eukaryotes is derived from the fossil evidence. It's not in any way conspiratorial, it's simply a matter of not having any fossils for eukaryotes that appear earlier. If they are supposed to have existed all the way back to 3 billion years ago it's surprising there are no fossils and that's what needs 'explaining'.
The reason why some scientists argue for an earlier date is because they are approaching the issue from other criteria - such as molecular biology or other geological evidence (such as biomarkers which are not fossils, but the mineral remains associated with life). The whole thing is very complicated and there is no conspiracy to hide any evidence. This makes no sense for anyone, because none of the scientists involved are making the kind of inferences you are from the information and it certainly doesn't contradict TOE in any way.
We shouldn't forget that a lot of diseases are caused by mankind's defiance of and disobedience to God's laws. Some are directly caused by defiance while others are indirect.
Yet many of our most common diseases are the direct result of taking up agriculture. When we domesticated animals and lived closely with them, many diseases jumped species from the livestock to us (eg colds, flu, smallpox, TB). How is this a moral judgement? Animals even suffer from venereal diseases - and these too have mutated to afflict humans.
Although you will not admit it, it is clear from your post that we are dealing with assumptions, not facts..
We're dealing with both assumptions and facts.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
If I understood this right, that is 100% of the 1% of the fossils found... how does one know that the remaining 99% won't reveal discrepancies?
Wow. You're tough. I think even a few hundred select fossils would make a very strong case, let alone the millions we have.
Just to clarify, the fossils found represent an estimated 1% of all the species that have existed, not 1% of the fossils that could be found. Many species won't have left fossil remains, especially soft bodied creatures. (In fact that's one of the possible reasons for the Cambrian Explosion - conditions in this ear were uniquely suited to soft body preservation so more such species were fossilised than at any other time, leading to the impression that evolution was accelerating).
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
I'm not sure if anyone is saying evolution is impossible
It certainly looks that way from what they say.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
I see this thread is starting to deteriorate and we are not getting anywhere in particular
We had a good run, much better than most threads on this topic. It's amazing how many things there are to say about it. There's a lot more I could get into but, for the sake of time, I shall be happy not to.
Naive. We can always tell the difference between man-made and naturally occurring objects. So the example you give is evidence against creationism, not for it.
Refer to paragraph again for improved understanding.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Factually incorrect. Current explanations are not proven, but they are plausible. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this won't be solved as other scientific problems have been solved in the past. A defeatist attitude.
Current explanations are not even plausible.
If you are able to find a biologically sound and plausible discussion for 'how' evolution can occur, please provide with evidence.
(Not your own simplified speculations, but one that is provided with sufficient scientific and physiologic detail for us to understand this process.)
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
This makes no more sense than saying you can't identify an individual from a fingerprint.
A tooth cannot be compared to a fingerprint.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Where is your evidence that this was a deliberate fraud as opposed to error? You haven't shown any. What is your moral right to make such accusations without evidence?
Refer to alternative summary again.
If you are unable to see it, fine - the rest of us and very many others can.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
This was 'shown' by the idiot in the article you quoted earlier, a man with zero scientific reputation.
It's ---- to simply call Lucy literally a 'chimpanzee' as it is anatomically different and is plainly of an extinct species, whatever you choose to call it.
I've already said this. Sheer number of opportunities (ie replications) means it is statistically inevitable.
Lucy was not debunked by Foard.
Lucy is more known for being an ape than 'plainly of an extinct species'.
There are numerous questions and doubts surrounding the classification of Lucy as a human ancestor.
Lucy has curved fingers and toes (suited to a tree limb climbing lifestyle), stood less than 4 feet tall (more similar to current ape species),
and has head, jaw, and teeth dimensions far more related to known ape species than any known human-related species.
Additionally, analysis of the hip bone by Charles E. Oxnard revealed the hip bone would have supported only temporary upright walking, such as what can be observed by ape species today.[28]
Doubters of the evolutionary evidence of Lucy to humans use this evidence to claim that Lucy is more likely an extinct species of ape
Snowflakes are beautifully ordered and all unique. Yet all these structures come from underlying physical laws. You can say God made the laws, but it's the laws that made the snowflake. Similarly with TOE.
If you wish to bring the Almighty into this - He has already revealed the origins and development of man.
We dont need to learn it from scientists and their followers who are trying to force an ape ancestory upon us.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Yes, let's all give up science altogether.
---
Nobody has suggested this.
Many of us are from a scientific background.
This is not science. It does not fulfill its definitions - apart from having a hypothesis.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Your own posts are full of dishonest claims which you have repeated from elsewhere, such as your Foard article. You are impressed simply by an index of references as if that alone is enough to convince you. But his references are false.
Foard quotes various sources including some genuinely reputable scientists:
Foard on Leakey
Foard says this: 'Recent evidence has shown that the Taung child existed less than 900,000 years ago, yet Mary Leakey reportedly found footprints that indicated the presence of modern, bipedal humans as old as 3.5 million years ago'
But when we check the actual words of Leakey, that's not what she says:
'Dr. Louise Robbins of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, an anthropologist who specializes in the analysis of footprints, visited Laetoli and concluded: “The movement pattern of the individual is a bipedal walking gait, actually a stride—and quite long relative to the creature's small size. Weight-bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human ones ...”
She does not say they are modern human. She does say the footprints reveal functional bipedal evolution that enable a human-like gait (unlike any species of living ape). This fits with other fossils showing developments relating to bipedality in hominids - creatures which for some reason (unexplained by Creationism) have all disappeared. It is actively stupid for Foard to suggest that Leakey thinks modern humans date back 3.5 million years, a view not held by any TOE scientist.
Your attempts to discredit and insult someone who is far more knowledgeable in this field, by means of a few meagre web searches is truly sad and clutching at straws.
What Foard says regarding Leakey is completely true:
Mary Leakey returned to Laetoli with Tim White, an American paleoanthropologist in 1978. They found bones of what were likely Australopithecus afarensis dating 3.7-3.5 million years ago (several hundred thousand years older than Lucy). They also found 59 footprints of bipedal hominins (presumably afarensis) in a now hardened volcanic ash layer.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm
^ Verifiable from many other sites as well.
Im not going to bother with the rest of your false claims.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
You think it's going to happen in front of your eyes? What's the point in talking about TOE if you haven't attempted to understand the basics?
There is no basis for why we are not witnessing species in various stages of evolution today - even if it supposedly occurs over millions of years.
"A scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation and experimentation....." ~ Science Daily
Going back to the video in the OP: "Can you give us just ONE observable evidence that evolution is true."
The question is completely valid.
The answer remains: No.
**************
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
I see this thread is starting to deteriorate and we are not getting anywhere in particular. Thread closure is well overdue... my next post will be to close the thread.
JazakAllahu khair.
We would truly appreciate this.
Its unfortunately not possible to have this discussion with the type of responses that are being received.
For those who wish to base their existence on the findings of scattered bones - thus far, either belonging to apes or pigs - as well as a process of that cannot be logically explained or observed, then to them is their choice.
For my brothers and sisters here:
All Praise Belongs to Allah, Our Creator, Fashioner and Sustainer.
Supposing you get infected with an awful disease and there's just one medicine that cures it and the strain of bacteria that has infected you mutates and becomes resistant. Now tell me, why should God protect you if you can't so much as acknowledge His existence despite seeing countless of His Signs around you?
Are you saying that believers don't get these illnesses?
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
The aids virus is known to mutate and become resistant to treatment! Truly it is the greatest example of God's wrath.
The AIDS virus which is passed millions of unborn children every year? The AIDS virus that has infected those who have received blood transfusions? How are they deserving of god's wrath?
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
God is the most Merciful and loves and cares for His creation but it is also an obligation on the creation to adhere to God's laws. Those who do adhere to God's laws and also show care and generosity to His creation are many times protected from afflictions and diseases. There are people who rarely go to the doctor!
Do you really believe that the religious are more healthy than the irreligious? How is it merciful if unborn children can contract AIDS?
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
Furthermore, it isn't just medicine that has cure. Ruqya (recitation of certain Quran Surahs and Ayahs) also has cure and many are cured by it even from life-threatening diseases.
If you get sick, do you go to the doctor or the mosque? Plenty of atheists overcome life-threatening illnesses too, you know.
The time has finally come for this thread to become a fossil of its very own!
One of the things that caused much confusion in this thread was not defining clearly which aspect of evolution was being referred to. Everything was being thrown into the pot called 'evolution' and in some cases we may have been involved in needless conflict.
Some concluding remarks:
Yes, there are certain facts that science has discovered, but the way these are linked together is an opinion, not a fact. Creationists can take the same facts and attribute them to God.
Evolutionists cannot disprove the creationist worldview. They have faith in the scientists.
Science, reason, logic and scripture are all compatible. Science is the study of God's creation. Scripture is the speech of that same God. Therefore there can never be a true contradiction between the two.
Allaah knows best.
Thank you all for your participation and comments.
O Allah! Let us see the truth as truth, and bless us with following it. And show us the falsehood as falsehood, and bless us with staying away from it
Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is, over all things, Disposer of affairs. To Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth. And they who disbelieve in the verses of Allah - it is those who are the losers. [Qur'an 39:62-63]
Say, "Have you considered: if the Qur'an is from Allah and you disbelieved in it, who would be more astray than one who is in extreme dissension?" We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing. [Qur'an 41: 52-54]
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
A Question which Atheists could not answer (OP)
قُلْ سِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَانظُرُوا كَيْفَ بَدَأَ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ اللَّهُ يُنشِئُ النَّشْأَةَ الْآخِرَةَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
my next post will be to close the thread.
knows best.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks