The guys asks "Can you point to something I can observe that proves evolution" the answer is yes, the fossil record - several million years ago we see... And he cuts them off and says "I can't observe that".
Did you see the prophet Mohammed? With your own eyes? Did your parents see him? Your grandparents? No? Well, then how can you believe he existed, let alone that his teachings are true?
I'm an atheist - but I believe Mohammed existed. Why? Historic record. It seems pretty indisputable that Mohammed existed. But I didn't see him. Did you? I don't think so.
Did I see him myself? No. But you have a record of his existence, which you can believe - like there is a fossil record.
I also believe in the battle of Hastings. And the existence of Neanderthals. And Dinosaurs. None of which I've seen first hand.
Why do you think this guy's argument is a good one? It's absolute nonsense. If I were religious, I would be embarrassed that people like this were fighting my corner.
I can see the Quran, the Word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). If that isn't enough proof then I don't know what is. I can also see how the Islamic religion came about and how the Muslims conquered so many countries in a few centuries, this is historically confirmed. The Quran is the proof of Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم 's prophethood. It is the unchanged word of God.
As for evolution, the evidence is not complete or rather, not there. You have proof of dinosaur's existence from the many fossils that are found - even whole dinosaur fossils. But where are complete fossils of interspecies (transitional fossils) to prove that different species evolved into other species? There are none. Had evolution been true, like dinosaurs, there would be plenty of interspecies fossils. Can you accept that dinosaur fossils could exist but transitional fossils could not?
According to scientists, evolution didn't happen overnight. It took millions of years. As such, there should be plenty of transitional fossils to show interspecies organisms. But there are none. Not one. WHY?
The simple answer is that the whole theory of evolution is false. While organisms may adapt (if Allah wants) and there can be slight changes to their features (beak, etc), but it's not possible for organisms to evolve into other species. Although Allah could also make that happen. But the fact is (as proven by the lack of transitional fossils) that that isn't how it happened. Each species was created separately.
There's always some interesting new discovery going on in this area. Right now, the most fascinating is with human evolution. In the last few years scientists have managed to extract dna from bones up to 50-60,000 years old, with the potential to push this back even further. At last we can answer some questions with certainty that would always have been in dispute otherwise.
We now have dna from two species of humans which have died out - Neanderthals (mostly Europe) and Denisovans (mostly Asia/Polynesia). In addition we have evidence of a third as yet unidentified species, which may be homo erectus (from which modern man is believed to have descended).
We also know that we were able to interbeed with these species and (depending on where you live) you may have a small percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovan dna in you. The interbreeding was small, either because of limited opportunity or limited fertility, we don't know.
This proves beyond all doubt that these other species are indeed human relations. The story of our relationship is complex and still being argued, but of the central fact there is no doubt. All of this is exactly as you would expect if TOE were correct.
(It remains the case that everything we have discovered in all fields of science is consistent with TOE, although there is much still to be done. It is perverse to focus on the incomplete parts and ignore the massive accumulation of evidence in the other direction. It would be like refusing to accept the logic of 1-100, just because 20 of the numbers hadn't been 'discovered' yet.)
For Creationists, these discoveries cause two problems. One, it provides further evidence of human evolution. Two, it makes some Creation stories hard to reconcile. For instance, I have seen some daft suggestions that one of the people who went on the Ark was a Denisovan and another a Neanderthal, the rest modern humans. This is clutching at straws.
Please note, TOE is not the same as a theory of origin of life. TOE describes how it changes, not how it starts. It's possible to accept TOE but still believe in divine creation of life. (And many Christians and Muslims do.) You are defending a position that doesn't need defending.
My problem with evolution is not the biological progress, but the evolution of movement. Somehow mutations would have to produce bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that give a biological and chemical advantage to the organism as a priority. Somehow these mutations coincidently would have to be a good shape size, and connect to other components to aid movement.
A billion years ago there were no species with bones, eight hundred million years later, there are species with complete working skeletons comprising around 500 muscles, 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.
If you take just a two to one chance that each one of these two thousand components is the right size and shape to fit in with its neighbours, and it connects to the right place, you end up with an astronomical number that is beyond impossible.
I reckon that the evolutionary process would not give you a billion successive chances of passing advantageous mutations forwards from one generation to the next. Every mutation has to be passed through a population. Then there is the matter of the brain and sensors, it is pointless for biological change to make all these bones, muscles, nerves etc. If you have no guiding system these things are just a heap of junk.
I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.
As Independent has said, every detail we have found in every area of science supports the theory of evolution. Too often, the religious response is basically "It seems impossible so I don't believe it". That's not a counter-argument.
As Independent has said, every detail we have found in every area of science supports the theory of evolution. Too often, the religious response is basically "It seems impossible so I don't believe it". That's not a counter-argument
Thanks for your response, I took a look at those links, they suggest ways muscles could have formed, this is not a problem for me. If a muscle is to be formed in the first place, I would imagine its shape and size would be governed by the biological advantage it gave to the species, this biological shape and size might not be the best shape and size to aid movement. This problem facing evolution is how 500 muscles formed the right size and shape, and they coincidently just happen to be attached both ends, in a way that formed movement. An explanation is needed as to how 200 bones. 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons, also happen to be a good shape, size and they all connect together to aid movement.
I think evolution had less than a billion years to do this since the first bone formed, to the completion of a full working skeleton. If a beneficial mutation happens once a year, that gives a billion successive generations for evolution to do its work. This would be slowed down somewhat because each mutation has to pass through a population, that might only give a hundred million successive generations for a beneficial mutation to be passed forwards.
I don't know what odds could be applied, but they seem impossible without God.
In the spirit of searching for God
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
I believe evolution cannot happen without God to guide it, I just don’t believe that God created life through evolution.
Yet we can now say as a matter of fact that we have a proven ancestral relationship to Neanderthals, Denisovans and a third species (perhaps homo erectus). How would you explain this?
This problem facing evolution is how 500 muscles formed the right size and shape, and they coincidently just happen to be attached both ends, in a way that formed movement.
Hi Eric - I think you're perhaps looking at this slightly askew. 500 muscles appearing suddenly, yes, that would be a surprise. But the evolution of muscle over vast timescales is very different. Anything which conveys an advantage will be passed on. We see muscular evolution all over our body. We see muscles in our feet which are the same as our primate cousins but which have changed over time as we don't use our feet in the same way. We see the remnants of our tails in our tail bone which we used to need for balance but which lost its purpose when we started to walk upright. Evolution is everywhere.
Now, do we know exactly how the evolutionary process happened, 100%? No, we don't. But we do know that every bit of evidence we find points to the theory of evolution being correct. If you are waiting for the theory to be 100% proven before accepting it then, well, you'll be waiting a long time! However, it seems unfair to expect a theory to be 100% certain (if such a thing can even be said to exist in science) before you accept it. I went for an MRI scan a while ago - the scanner uses principles outlined by quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is less well developed than the theory of evolution yet you never hear religious people attacking it in the same way. Is that because the theory has immediate practical uses? I don't know. But I do know that the theory of evolution explains our development in a logical, consistent way and that every piece of observational or experimental evidence that we uncover adds further weight to it. Is it perfect? No. Will it change somehow? Yes. But is it the only theory which is logically consistent with what we see? Yes.
I am not a particularly scientifically minded person myself, but one thing I really appreciate about scientists (and many of the atheists I know, for that matter (although that is not to say that only atheists can be scientists, of course!)), is that they are never satisfied with the answers they have received and always looking out to find out more.
Also they have an awareness that what science might hold true TODAY, may be proven to be false TOMORROW.
There is a constant openess to travel towards the truth - even if it meant abandoning old truths and convictions.
I am not a particularly scientifically minded person myself, but one thing I really appreciate about scientists (and many of the atheists I know, for that matter (although that is not to say that only atheists can be scientists, of course!)), is that they are never satisfied with the answers they have received and always looking out to find out more.
Also they have an awareness that what science might hold true TODAY, may be proven to be false TOMORROW.
There is a constant openess to travel towards the truth - even if it meant abandoning old truths and convictions.
Actually those who promote evolution are blinded and closed minded. They are not at all open to the truth.
Please describe how it is proven. I don't see any proof for what you are claiming.
As I described above, in the last few years scientists have managed to extract intact ancient dna from a number of bones, including Neanderthals and Denisovans, which are two of the most recent extinct human-like species. Dna from a third unidentified species is also present.
They can compare this dna with modern human dna. They can see that a small amount is shared, depending on where you are born.
This proves that there has been some interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals and Denisovans (which was always in dispute before). For this to be possible, we must be related further back in our ancestry. (it is believed Neanderthals and Denisovans are the descendants of earlier migrations out of Africa, which were then isolated from the continuing development of modern humans within Africa. This is a complex story of multiple migrations.)
So, we are beyond doubt related to at least 3 extinct human-like species,of which Neanderthals are the best known and understood. Neanderthals are one of those groups that used to be called 'ape men'. It turns out they are our relatives.
Last edited by Independent; 12-22-2013 at 04:08 PM.
I can accept 'survival of the fittest' if we were animals, but as human beings, a totally different 'kind' from the rest, we had a duty pen-ultimately to take care of the weak, which would eradicate the animalistic nature of survival of the fittest. The ultimate duty, of course, is to please Allah and then to earn an honest living, to better our knowledge . . .
Evolution, there is. But within a species. But does not explain changes of specie.
I have never been a scientist but having to study it, I put my hours but that was along time ago. I came to this conclusion, - if it smells it's chemistry, if it's alive and kicking it's biology and if it does not work it's physics. Joke!
Science in the beginning was a general sporadic research and only recently separated into those distinct subjects. So if generally falls into an area it would would be assigned to a specific field. Man made classification to understand Allah's work. So they try to define parameters, groups, things that bind observations and processes, results, empirical findings and try to make sense of what they observe. They make laws that govern the findings. Then they find exceptions to those laws.
As I say, I ain't no scientist, but I believe Allah is the Creator and He has His rules. Kun fayakun - Be! And it is. We know very little of His knowledge. For Allah, there is no time limit. The creation can take its time, let everything have time to settle. Let the dinosaurs and whatever organisms and also minerals be arranged in such way that they become resources for us when it was time to for us to dwell here so we may reflect that our presence here on earth is indeed temporary.
I can accept 'survival of the fittest' if we were animals, but as human beings, a totally different 'kind' from the rest, we had a duty pen-ultimately to take care of the weak
'Survival of the fittest' is one of the most misunderstood phrases in evolution (and actually didn't come from Darwin).
It does not mean survival of the strongest'.
'Fittest' is used in its nineteenth century sense of 'most appropriate' or in this context 'best adapted'. 'Fit for purpose' would be a better phrase.
It has been demonstrated many times that altruistic behaviour (eg looking after the weak) can give the community an advantage, or at least not disadvantage it.
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
A Question which Atheists could not answer
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks