Which side do you take in the debate and why?
Array
Which side do you take in the debate and why?
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.format_quote 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)?format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
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"?
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:
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: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.
1. On belief.
2. On Faith“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]
3. On Evaluative Thinking“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]
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:“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]
…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.
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.format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
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?
Same can be said for evolution theory assumption that;format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
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?
You could be correct.format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
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.
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"
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.“Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” [Ambrose Bierce]
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.
I have no problem with Clifford's statement and I do not know of any Muslim who would not agree with that.“It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” [William Kingdon Clifford]
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.
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.“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]
The Fact that Allah(swt) created all things will not cease, simply because you ignore it.“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” [Aldous 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.“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]
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.
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)
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.format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim KnightSame can be said for evolution theory assumption that;format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
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?
You could be correct.format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
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.
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
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):
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:“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.”
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.“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.”
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:
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.“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.”
Peace Zoro,
I'm not going to try to address all of your comments. I see our stumbling block is based upon my statement.
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.“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.”
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 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.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.
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.
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.
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.On the other topic you raise, I’d recommend that you study more physics!
I just noticed you are also a pilot.
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.when I co-piloted our research aircraft
I always have a special place in my thoughts for people that love the sky.
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.In my view, you use the words “belief” and “faith” too loosely, and such a procedure can have serious consequences.
Modern man did not evolve from neanderthal man. Neither evolved from homo erectus. And cro-magnons were homo sapiens (circa 40,000 years ago)!format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Knight
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.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?
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.
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.format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
SOURCEIn 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".
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.
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 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 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.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.
OK, let's have a look ehHi root, I'm sorry but your points don't cut the mustard they're full of Bias
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.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?Quote:
Originally Posted by root
1/ All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
- Do you accept micro-evolution accepting the creationist view as incorrect
- 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.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............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.
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.
Same as above, that is nonsense Steve because the tree of life includes multi-celular life which is macro-evolutionSteve - Well, that's only for the nests, the micro-evolution, not the macro-evolution.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.
How does multicellular lifeform fossils prove probable micro evolution, that is absurd.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.Quote:Root
4/ Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
AMAZING, Reference please!!!!!!!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.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.
Quote:Root
6/ Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.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.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.
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!!!!!!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 provenQuote: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. .
So whales and snakes or micro-cellular and not multi-cellular now Steve! How absurd a notionSteve - Again, micro-evolution, not macro evolution.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.
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.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,Steve - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. For the thousand time, you cannot argue that similarity is a proof for condescend.
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!Steve - Why should God have made different mechanisms when these obviously are great? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.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.
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.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 scrapingRoot - 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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.Steve - These only show us that micro-evolution is possible. As I said before, I don't have any problems with that.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
QUESTION TO STEVE
Is a fruit fly single cellular life AKA (micro-evolution)!!!!!!!
That's a gr8 way of saying "I dont have any evidence"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.Quote:Root
Could the creationists now post YOUR "EVIDENCE"
Thanks...........
Last edited by root; 02-27-2007 at 10:48 PM.
Pure speculation and unfounded nonsense....... Who ever said a neannderthal lacked the intelligence and social adaptation of modern humans!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
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.format_quote Originally Posted by root
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).
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 upCome again, your saying that the constructed tree of life does not include multi-celular life!
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.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.
Well take the Cambrium explosion for example.AMAZING, Reference please!!!!!!!
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.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.
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.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!!!!!!
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,
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?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!
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.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
Well, I hope I cleared up this misuse of terminology. Sorry for the confusion around the term micro and macro.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.
I like that statement. It reminds me that we can not judge perfection as we do not understand perfections.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 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.
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.Steve - hope I cleared up this misuse of terminology. Sorry for the confusion around the term micro and macro.
Thanks
Root
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.Woodrow - I like that statement. It reminds me that we can not judge perfection as we do not understand perfections.
Last edited by root; 03-05-2007 at 09:22 PM.
Ok let me try again.format_quote Originally Posted by root
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.
Last edited by Abdul Fattah; 03-07-2007 at 01:39 PM.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks