evolution refuted simply

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Evidence? I think not. I already debated and questioned most of the assumed "evidence" of evolution. The correct answer would be that nobody knows. Neither creationism nor evolution can be sufieciently proven and on the end of the day it's just a question of "which one seems more reasonable?"

Quite right. Did I ever say evolution had been proven?

Well if your an atheist, I can understand evolution seems more reasonable, but as a muslim creation seems more reasonable to me. It's not a matter of proof and disproof. It's just a difren point of view on things, a difrent paradigm.

Many theists believe in evolution too, but no atheists believe in creationism.

However, I do not doubt that God has created us for 1 mintute, because i myslef as a muslim have to believe that wether i like it or not.

This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?

Thats true about Adam and Eve....so what do scientists say about Adam and Eve...are they all athiest? Because i'm sure some of them are muslims or cristians etc therefore they must believe in Adam and Eve...wouldn't they?

I don't know about any Muslim scientists, but most Christians tend to view the "Adam and Eve" story of creation as a metaphor, and not as being literally true. That is how scientists of a Christian persuasion can reconcile the two beliefs.

Adam and Eve were the first human beings on this earth. Now, this is where science AND Islam both agree.

I think you'll find that the belief in Adam and Eve is very much a minority view among scientists.

Folks, let's think about this for a moment. Let's suppose that evolution by natural selection is entirely untrue. Why would scientists make it up? What could they possibly have to gain from doing copious amounts of research into animal breeding patterns, genetics and heredity? Is evolution simply a massive conspiracy by the scientific community to remove god and religion?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.

Peace

 

[Halima]

Greetings Professor,

Greetings,


This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?

You nor I, nor any living human on this earth was alive when God has created the first human being, the sun or the stars. There is no possible way. Why do we have to have the evidence to believe that there is a God who had create all of these things when he created us in the first place? This is not even from an Islamic perspective this is from a scientific point of view. There is no such thing as a human being with super natural powers to create something as extraordinary as the universe. That is just an absurd phenomenon. According to Islam, we as muslims have to have the faith to believe that there is a God. We cannot question about it, nor can we have any doubt about it otherwise it will make us a (kuffar) or an unbeliever. Thus, this can make us enter the hell fire.

Here are the 5 articles of faith:





There are certain things that every Muslim must believe in. Rejecting any one of these things is tantamount to disbelief. A person who doubts any of these things cannot be considered a Muslim.

These articles of faith are:
1. Belief in Allah.
2. Belief in His Angels.
3. Belief in His Books.
4. Belief in His Messengers.
5. Belief in the Day of Judgment.
6. Belief in Divine Decree



BELIEF IN ALLAH

Islam emphasizes that Allah is the Creator of all things. He is unique in every way and none has the right to be worshipped except for Him.


Source:www.islamtoday.com




According to the 5 articles of faith, it is obligatory for a person to believe in these divine rules in order to be a muslim. We cannot have any doubts, nor any questions about it.

I don't know about any Muslim scientists, but most Christians tend to view the "Adam and Eve" story of creation as a metaphor, and not as being literally true. That is how scientists of a Christian persuasion can reconcile the two beliefs.

It is impossible, because Adam was prophet. So in some aspects I would say it's true. It doesn't make sense how they would claim that Adam doesn't exist when in fact in the Quran it has said that Adam was a prophet.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?

Once one has established that Muhammad was a Prophet or that the Qur'an is the word of God, then there is nothing wrong with drawing further conclusions from these sources, so long as one has established these sources first. For an interesting lecture on the topic, one may listen to Gary Miller's Reason and Revelation.

Folks, let's think about this for a moment. Let's suppose that evolution by natural selection is entirely untrue. Why would scientists make it up? What could they possibly have to gain from doing copious amounts of research into animal breeding patterns, genetics and heredity? Is evolution simply a massive conspiracy by the scientific community to remove god and religion?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

Saying that the [punctuated equilibrium] theory of evolution is inaccurate is not the same as saying that it is the result of a conspiracy! I'm not sure how you connected the two. The theory is based on a statistical approach using extrapolation, all of which has inherent limitations. For an Islamic perspective, please refer to:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6570-biological-evolution-islamic-perspective.html

Regards

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Halima,

You nor I, nor any living human on this earth was alive when God has created the first human being, the sun or the stars. There is no possible way. Why do we have to have the evidence to believe that there is a God who had create all of these things when he created us in the first place? This is not even from an Islamic perspective this is from a scientific point of view.

I don't know what kind of science you're thinking of, to be honest.

There is no such thing as a human being with super natural powers to create something as extraordinary as the universe. That is just an absurd phenomenon.

It is. So much so, in fact, that I wonder why you bring it up.

According to Islam, we as muslims have to have the faith to believe that there is a God. We cannot question about it, nor can we have any doubt about it otherwise it will make us a (kuffar) or an unbeliever. Thus, this can make us enter the hell fire.

This is the point I was making in my last post. You have to have this faith.

Here are the 5 articles of faith:

There are certain things that every Muslim must believe in. Rejecting any one of these things is tantamount to disbelief. A person who doubts any of these things cannot be considered a Muslim.

These articles of faith are:
1. Belief in Allah.
2. Belief in His Angels.
3. Belief in His Books.
4. Belief in His Messengers.
5. Belief in the Day of Judgment.
6. Belief in Divine Decree

Are there five or six?

According to the 5 articles of faith, it is obligatory for a person to believe in these divine rules in order to be a muslim. We cannot have any doubts, nor any questions about it.

Of course, Islamic authorities want you to remain Muslim. If you had any questions or doubts you would cease to be a Muslim. It's the simplest method of social control imaginable.

It is impossible, because Adam was prophet. So in some aspects I would say it's true. It doesn't make sense how they would claim that Adam doesn't exist when in fact in the Quran it has said that Adam was a prophet.

And why would scientists who are Christian take any notice of what it says in the Qur'an?

Hi Ansar,

Saying that the [punctuated equilibrium] theory of evolution is inaccurate is not the same as saying that it is the result of a conspiracy! I'm not sure how you connected the two.

Um, I didn't. I haven't mentioned punctuated equilibrium at all.

I'm talking about evolution by natural selection, as described by Darwin and others after him. My point is, why would millions of scientists espouse this theory if they didn't have good reasons for doing so? I suggested a conspiracy to remove religion as a possible alternative motive. Do you think this is at all credible?

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Um, I didn't. I haven't mentioned punctuated equilibrium at all.

I placed punctuated equilibrium in square brackets because when we are talking about the theory of evolution, we are actually speaking about the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution which is the currently accepted model amongst much of the scientific community. Technically there is no single 'theory of evolution', and I wanted to make sure it was understood that we are discussing a specific theory of evolution.

I'm talking about evolution by natural selection, as described by Darwin and others after him.

Evolution, as described by Darwin is known as gradualism, as rejected by the modern scientific community as baseless. That is why I assumed you were speaking of punctuated equilibrium.

My point is, why would millions of scientists espouse this theory if they didn't have good reasons for doing so?

My answer remains the same. The idea is not that the scientists are lying or fabricating this concept, but merely that this is the result of their extrapolation based on the data they have collected. I am highly skeptical that a conspiracy is behind this, although I suppose not all Muslims would share the same view as myself.



ps. I don't have a problem describing Islam as a method of social control, but to say that it was invented as a method of social control, or concocted for the purpose of being a method of social control, ios utterly baseless when viewed in light of the life of Prophet Muhammad saws.

 

[waji]

Aslam u Alikum
A very usefull site for all.

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
see this site with open mind and eyes.
Walikum as Salam

 

[Halima]

don't know what kind of science you're thinking of, to be honest.

I am talking about science generally .

Greetings Halima,

Are there five or six?

Oh woops, I meant 6 but technically the last one is like the conclusion of them all to believe the whole entire creed. So basically it is just a summary of the ones already mentioned.

And why would scientists who are Christian take any notice of what it says in the Qur'an?

Incase if you haven't noticed, science and Islam both have alot of similar theories. Where does religion come in the picture? There were valid theories from the Quran that does indeed prove that religion and science are both harmonized. They go hand-in-hand. There are also 'alleged' contradictions but to make my point I'll show you the similarities. For instance Adam/previous prophets and what scientist have discovered from the past.





We can learn about the past in two ways:
1. Direct revelation from Allah to His Prophets and Messengers.
2. Studying the evidence left behind from the events of the past.
We know that Allah created Adam directly without the agency of parents. Allah says: “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 59]




We know from the Qur’ân that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from Allah. In the Qur’ân, Allah states clearly: “O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 1] Allah also says: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the one who is the most God-fearing.” [Sûrah al-Hujûrât:13]





Another example:

The sun and its relationship to the earth





This hadîth is found in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3199, 7424). Its text, as related by Abû Dharr al-Ghifârî, is as follows:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to me: “O Abû Dharr! Do you know where the Sun goes when it sets?”

I said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.”




He said: “It goes until it prostrates beneath the Throne. Then it seeks permission and permission is granted to it. Soon it will prostrate and it will not be accepted from it, and seek permission and will not be granted permission. It will be said to it: ‘Go back where you came from.’ Then it will rise from its setting place. This is Allah’s statement: ‘And the Sun runs on to its place of settlement. That is the determination of the Mighty the Knowing. [Sûrah YâSîn: 38]’.”

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Quite right. Did I ever say evolution had been proven?

Well stating the article on wikipedia has “evidence” for evolution kind of did that yes.

Many theists believe in evolution too, but no atheists believe in creationism.

That doesn’t change the fact that finding one theory more reasonable then another is a matter of paradigms. The difference you refer to does not suggest that one is more likely then the other. This is simply the result of atheism not going well together with creationism, whereas evolution can go together with creationism; but that would be ID then. So the point you raise is irrelevant.

This is one of the main difficulties I have with religion. Why should you have to believe in something even though you have no direct evidence for it?

You don’t “have to believe” but you can if you want. But again you’re looking at this from your atheistic paradigm. I could bounce the question right back: “Why do you believe that religion is false? Even if by occams razor it is true? I mean you can form an alternative theory of how religion originated, but why not simple assume it’s true? Let me redefine the problem of difrent paradigms as such:
A paradigm is as math. In it you have axioms. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident. In mathematics it is a basic assumption about a system from which theorems can be deduced. For example, the system could be the points and lines in the plane. Then an axiom would be that given any two distinct points in the plane, there is a unique line through them. It’s just an assumption on which mathematics is based. In fact there are people who came up with alternative mathematics relying on different axioms which are very logical and sometimes even useful! But when you take one single thing out of that alternative mathematics, and look at it from the standard mathematic point of view, it will seem illogical. It doesn't fit in this difrent theory, you have to consider the whole theory in totality, then it makes sense.

Folks, let's think about this for a moment. Let's suppose that evolution by natural selection is entirely untrue. Why would scientists make it up? What could they possibly have to gain from doing copious amounts of research into animal breeding patterns, genetics and heredity? Is evolution simply a massive conspiracy by the scientific community to remove god and religion?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

Well in general I would agree with the response Ansar gave to this; that it isn’t necessarily a conspiracy. But I tend to believe that it did happen for a reason; from my paradigm it seems like it grew out of an absence. Just like the ancient tribes who worshipped fire, I see evolution as an answer to a question wich is raised by a lack of knowledge (in Islam). You may answer that there are many religious evolutionists, but evolution did grow outside of Islam.

An Islamic authority does not need to be a government - it could simply be someone's parents who want to ensure the continuation of the way of life that they adhere to.

The same could be said for the atheistic point of view or for the agnostiastic point of view. Do you have any idea how the people of a free western country react when they hear that you reverted to Islam? When your son would revert to Islam, would you try to engage a debate with him? Try to convince him from your atheistic point of view? Will you raise your children with your atheistic point of view, when someone in their environment dies, will you tell them that that person is now in an afterlife, or tell him he is simply gone? Seems like an irrelevant question, but it shows that the argument you raised goes both ways.

 

[root]

Research into how evolution works has been named top science achievement of 2005, a year that also saw fierce debate erupt over "intelligent design".

The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year.

The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution.

The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.

Adherents of intelligent design, or ID, maintain that many features of the Universe and of living things are too complex to have been the result of natural selection.

Instead, the "theory" says, they must have been designed by a highly intelligent supernatural force.

The studies bestowed with the title "breakthrough of the year" by Science include the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome; recreation of the 1918 flu virus in a laboratory; and a study on European blackcap birds which demonstrated how two different populations can become two separate species

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm

I find the latter very interesting. Demonstrating how European blackcap bird species became two seperate species!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes it is indeed interesting. The part about the blackcap bird. And as I said before, I do believe there's an evolution of certain species, I just don't believe they all share the same ancestrial descent nor the the theory of abiogenesis. As for the chimpanzee genome helping us determine how certain viri work, that's a big maybe and a lot of assumptions, and even then it does not mean there's a direct lineage. Studying pigs for example, we can learn a lot about human diseases. this is because we share the same receptors on our cellmembrane as pigs, alowing the same diseases to infest our cells. But I think it's clear to any scientist that there's no direct lineage between pigs and humans. So again this teaches us:
1. Simularity does not proof one evolved out of the other.
2. Humans shouldn't eat pig. :coolious:

Of topic:
Not only do we share the same receptors and can thus take pig diseases. But apearently pigs also share a difrent receptor with birds. So a pig can get a bird disease, the viri multiply in the cell, some of them go out and grab a "human" receptor on the way out. And boom. The bird disease which normaly can't enter our cells can now do so!
Birds on there turn share some receptors with other species. so eventually we can get ANY animal disease trough pigs. :enough!:

Alhamdoelillahi for warning us not to eat pig.

 

[root]

I do believe there's an evolution of certain species, I just don't believe they all share the same ancestrial descent

And I can understand why you think that considering you don't believe accepted scientific fact that one can follow common ancestory via RVI. Still you raise an interesting question:

1. At what point do you call a species "evolved" or "Intelligently Designed"..... And what criteria do you apply?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There are quite a few points that have been raised by different people, and unfortunately I don't have time to answer them all just now. I'll try to get through them as thoroughly as I can in the time available.

---

I placed punctuated equilibrium in square brackets because when we are talking about the theory of evolution, we are actually speaking about the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution which is the currently accepted model amongst much of the scientific community. Technically there is no single 'theory of evolution', and I wanted to make sure it was understood that we are discussing a specific theory of evolution.

Well, there's considerable debate among the scientific community on this question. I certainly didn't assume we were discussing punctuated equilibrium.

Evolution, as described by Darwin is known as gradualism, as rejected by the modern scientific community as baseless. That is why I assumed you were speaking of punctuated equilibrium.

Not all scientists reject gradualism, as far as I know.

My answer remains the same. The idea is not that the scientists are lying or fabricating this concept, but merely that this is the result of their extrapolation based on the data they have collected.

True. And what's wrong with that?

I am highly skeptical that a conspiracy is behind this, although I suppose not all Muslims would share the same view as myself.

So why do you think scientists espouse evolution by natural selection? I agree with you that it's unlikely to be a conspiracy, so why would you say their extrapolations from research tend in the direction of evolution?

Incase if you haven't noticed, science and Islam both have alot of similar theories.

I hadn't noticed this, to be honest.

Where does religion come in the picture? There were valid theories from the Quran that does indeed prove that religion and science are both harmonized. They go hand-in-hand. There are also 'alleged' contradictions but to make my point I'll show you the similarities. For instance Adam/previous prophets and what scientist have discovered from the past.

I've read your examples, and thank you for providing them, but I don't see how they correspond to current scientific explanations. For example, what is this business of the sun "asking permission"?

Well stating the article on wikipedia has “evidence” for evolution kind of did that yes.

Saying that something has supporting evidence is not the same as saying it has been proven.

That doesn’t change the fact that finding one theory more reasonable then another is a matter of paradigms. The difference you refer to does not suggest that one is more likely then the other. This is simply the result of atheism not going well together with creationism, whereas evolution can go together with creationism; but that would be ID then. So the point you raise is irrelevant.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. Evolution can fit in with more world-views than creationism can. Doesn't that show that creationism is a limiting belief-system?

You don’t “have to believe” but you can if you want.

This is certainly not true in Islam, though, is it? Halima has just given a list of things that Muslims "have to believe" in order to remain Muslim.

But again you’re looking at this from your atheistic paradigm. I could bounce the question right back: “Why do you believe that religion is false? Even if by occams razor it is true?

Occam's razor can be used to support opposing positions - for instance, I would say that Occam's razor can be used to show that god is an additional complication that people introduce to their thinking; a complication that explains very little, and actually requires explanation itself.

A paradigm is as math. In it you have axioms. An axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident. In mathematics it is a basic assumption about a system from which theorems can be deduced. For example, the system could be the points and lines in the plane. Then an axiom would be that given any two distinct points in the plane, there is a unique line through them. It’s just an assumption on which mathematics is based. In fact there are people who came up with alternative mathematics relying on different axioms which are very logical and sometimes even useful! But when you take one single thing out of that alternative mathematics, and look at it from the standard mathematic point of view, it will seem illogical. It doesn't fit in this difrent theory, you have to consider the whole theory in totality, then it makes sense.

OK, I'm familiar with non-Euclidean geometries and so on. So are you saying that we simply start from different assumptions that give rise to our different beliefs?

Why would they want to do that? Many scientists who believe in evolution are religious, after all.

My point exactly! Why would they want to do that?

Well in general I would agree with the response Ansar gave to this; that it isn’t necessarily a conspiracy. But I tend to believe that it did happen for a reason; from my paradigm it seems like it grew out of an absence. Just like the ancient tribes who worshipped fire, I see evolution as an answer to a question wich is raised by a lack of knowledge (in Islam).

Evolution is very different from worshipping fire, surely? In fact, I'd say fire-worship is closer to Islam, since they both contain worship. I'd also say that religion in general developed due to a lack of knowledge about how the world works. Anything that could not be explained could be ascribed to a deity. With increased understanding about how natural processes take place, the need for religion is diminished. I'm obviously speaking from my "paradigm" here!

The same could be said for the atheistic point of view or for the agnostiastic point of view. Do you have any idea how the people of a free western country react when they hear that you reverted to Islam?

They might be quite shocked to begin with, but if they can see you're committed I would hope they'd be supportive. Incidentally, when you use the word "free" in that sentence, is that a good thing or a bad thing for society to be, in your view?

When your son would revert to Islam, would you try to engage a debate with him? Try to convince him from your atheistic point of view?

If I had any children, I would let them adopt any belief system that seemed reasonable to them.

Will you raise your children with your atheistic point of view, when someone in their environment dies, will you tell them that that person is now in an afterlife, or tell him he is simply gone?

I would tell them what different people believe about death, and my own view, and allow them to make up their minds. I certainly wouldn't say "my view is the only view, and you must believe it".

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

And I can understand why you think that considering you don't believe accepted scientific fact that one can follow common ancestory via RVI. Still you raise an interesting question:

Come on Root, I already showed you how ancestry via RVI is debatable, and still you choose to call it an “accepted scientific fact”

Saying that something has supporting evidence is not the same as saying it has been proven.

Yes that’s cute, but lets try not to waste our time in beating around the bush.

I don't see how it's irrelevant. Evolution can fit in with more world-views than creationism can. Doesn't that show that creationism is a limiting belief-system?

Well that’s not very logical is it? Since all these world views refer to the same world, at places were they disagree obviously only one can be true. So you’re saying your view is more likely true because it fits both with the accurate world view as with the inaccurate one? Is your point of view better because it’s compatible with an inaccurate theory? Yes you can mix the two up theories up, and it still seems to make sense, but that doesn’t mean one is better then the other.

Steve: you don’t “have to believe” but you can if you want.
cgibson: This is certainly not true in Islam, though, is it? Halima has just given a list of things that Muslims "have to believe" in order to remain Muslim.

Well you don’t “have to” be a Muslim against your will.

Occam's razor can be used to support opposing positions - for instance, I would say that Occam's razor can be used to show that god is an additional complication that people introduce to their thinking; a complication that explains very little, and actually requires explanation itself.

See, here it’s shown nicely how it’s just two people looking at the same thing from different angles. Try to follow my view for a second. I could say, when you start from an obvious fact: some centuries ago there suddenly appeared a book. Now in it is a theory, which is very advanced for it’s time. It claims to be the word of our creator the one and only omnipotence God. It builds a religion, and it makes perfect sense. It even has miracles in it. Now atheists would give an alternative explanation for that book. It was based on difrent sources, the one who wrote it down was very advanced, the miracles in it are misinterpretations and twisting of the words, and so on. And a third person could say that this is just a hoax for those aliens who live on mars their entertainment.
The third one is absurd. The second one lacks a motive. Why would you assume that alternative explanation? But the first one is still –by occams razor- correct. Now you may feel like the second is more likely because you’re not inclined to believe the metaphysical part of the theory mentioned in that book. But that’s a matter of personal preference, and is not by occams razor.

OK, I'm familiar with non-Euclidean geometries and so on. So are you saying that we simply start from different assumptions that give rise to our different beliefs?

Yes, exactly.

Evolution is very different from worshipping fire, surely?

They are difrent in form. One is the result of imagination, the other is the result of examination therefore one is called a theory and the other is called a belief. Yet both are believed in (well at some point in history at least) without undeniable proof. Both are the result of looking for an answer to brain-teasing questions.

In fact, I'd say fire-worship is closer to Islam, since they both contain worship. I'd also say that religion in general developed due to a lack of knowledge about how the world works.

Both contain worship? That’s the strongest criteria you can come up with to show similarity? It’s not because some worship has been proven futile and even silly that all kind of worship is as such. In fact many Muslims experience the result of their worship on a frequent basis.

Anything that could not be explained could be ascribed to a deity. With increased understanding about how natural processes take place, the need for religion is diminished. I'm obviously speaking from my "paradigm" here!

Well speaking for myself, I did not revert out of a lack of knowledge; no it was quite the opposite I reverted because I acquired new knowledge. Before that I was an atheist, and I had it pretty much all worked out and found an answer to any question that soothed my mind. So there were no open questions. And another major contributor to peoples believes which cannot be underestimated is personal experience; that goes a long way. As for your so called diminishing need for religion, how would you explain for the many believing people? They all lack your knowledge?

They might be quite shocked to begin with, but if they can see you're committed I would hope they'd be supportive. Incidentally, when you use the word "free" in that sentence, is that a good thing or a bad thing for society to be, in your view?

One would hope so yes, and most people do, or appear to do so at least. But some will try to “talk some sense” in this poor “brainwashed” soul as if their life depended on it. The free was sarcastic. Because I do not believe the west is free. The highest degree of freedom is gained as slave of Allah. Only when you listen to your soul, your gain freedom from the causality of your bodily urges and desires.

If I had any children, I would let them adopt any belief system that seemed reasonable to them.

Would you mind having a heart to hearth with my mother?

I would tell them what different people believe about death, and my own view, and allow them to make up their minds. I certainly wouldn't say "my view is the only view, and you must believe it".

But you will show them why you believe your view to be accurate, and you would also tell them why you find other views unlikely, right?

 

[TruthComesFirst]

Peace,
Yep, evolution is true, and its an accepted fact in Islam.What am I talking about?The fact that we are taught that Adam A.S. was 70 dhiraa3an(an average person would be about 4 dhiraa3).We are not monkeys, but tall people becoming short....

 

[root]

Come on Root, I already showed you how ancestry via RVI is debatable, and still you choose to call it an “accepted scientific fact”

No Steve, in our lengthy debate we reduced the origins of our differences in that Science today accept as scientific fact that RVA insertions are random by nature, and against this you argue that they are not random.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/2538-evolution-refuted-simply-5.html

Here is the current scientific answer to the question of Random Insertions, so please let us keep scientific facts as facts if we could. You are free of course to believe what you want. However, irrespective it is a scientific fact that RVI Insertions are "random"

Here is the current scientific understanding:

(b) A very few examples are known of retroposed sequences that have regulatory function. These represent examples of very rare favorable mutations, a class that creationists often claim cannot exist. We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today, as genetic accidents without apparent divine intervention, including insertions that can cause inherited diseases in subsequent generations or induce cancer in the individual in which they arise. If these insertions have no beneficial function, there is no reason to suspect any function for the similar insertions that are shared between species.

(c) As scientists, we do not declare dogmatically that no function will ever be found for most pseudogenes. However, we base our current conclusions on currently available data. And those data indicate that shared retroposons/pseudogenes are functionless genetic accidents and can best be explained as originating in a common ancestor. Indeed, no other credible scientific explanation has been proposed either in the scientific literature or in creationist or mainstream science

Are you suggesting, based on your current belief (i.e Insertions are not random) that recent cancer treatment advancement is based on flawed scientific understanding?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

How can the randomness of somthing be a scientific fact? Science cannot say: there is no order behind it. Chaos is a word we invented to define an order we fail to understand. At best a scientist can say there apears to be no order in it based on our limited knowledge. And the randomness of this proces is not a scientific fact, just because most scientist "believe" in it.

 

[root]

Steve - How can the randomness of somthing be a scientific fact? Science cannot say: there is no order behind it. Chaos is a word we invented to define an order we fail to understand. At best a scientist can say there apears to be no order in it based on our limited knowledge. And the randomness of this proces is not a scientific fact, just because most scientist "believe" in it.

That is just "Gibberish". We are simply stating that thier is no order where you state thier is order (and to which you cannot bring any credible scientific supporting evidence). The fact that you don't accept common ancestory over this issue is in my opinion because to accept this point is to rethink your opinion on the world around you and how it came to be.

Comparative, it's like someone trying to debate against that theory of general relativity as a mere theory and not a fact............

You also have a problem that models seem to match, for example the recent decoding of the "Woolly Mamoth"

The research, published in the online edition of Nature, gives an insight into the elephant family tree.

It shows that the mammoth was most closely related to the Asian rather than the African elephant.

The three groups split from a common ancestor about six million years ago, with Asian elephants and mammoths diverging about half a million years later.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4535190.stm

Do you not find it a tad convincing that the Wooly mammoth showed a number of distinct RVI traits in it's DNA with todays elephants. Yet we NEVER see a random pattern that displays any certain nonsense such as a common ancestor of the wooly mammoth being to that of a common dog for example. The fact of the matter is that this has never been seen, and all common ancestory assesed this way shows a distinct lineage of species that does not require any unimaginable leap of faith............... If such RVI's showed a seemingly mismatch of common ancestory then I would reconsider the whole issue and creationism truly would have a valid point. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not the case and does not look remotely like it will ever be.

The whole point comes down to your not accepting scientific fact because your faith is preventing you from doing so. I think the term for that is "Living in ignorance".............

Your arguement against this is so absurd that to accept your point is to accept that modern cancer research is flawed, and all data used on genetic diseases are also flawed and medical science is completely moving forward on flawed data. between your "Debate" and medical science, please don't be offended if I suspect you are wrong not to accept common ancestory based on RVI Insertions.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

That is just "Gibberish". We are simply stating that thier is no order where you state thier is order (and to which you cannot bring any credible scientific supporting evidence).

O please, when you don’t understand something, try to read it again thoroughly rather then dismissing it as gibberish. I simply stated that the current absence of knowledge of such an order does not mean that the absence by itself is proven! Yes I can’t show any proof but neither can you. I did state in our previous discussion how:

1. Such an order could take form. (The delta charges of molecules remember)
2. Why it would be extremely difficult to check for the existence of that order. (The complexity and importance of 3dimension large molecules)
3. Why it is more likely. (The unlikely ness of an ERV of an entire population to be the result of a single infection)
4. Why the current theory is easily augmented but difficult to debate ( because we ‘ve only mapped human DNA so far, the only things we know about ape DNA are some specific points that they looked up in order to illustrate this theory. )

Wheras you usually just dismissed my arguments as gibberisch, stupid, narrowmindedness or other name calling, because you fail to understand them.

The fact that you don't accept common ancestory over this issue is in my opinion because to accept this point is to rethink your opinion on the world around you and how it came to be.

No, you got that wrong. The reason I don’t accept it is because I don’t believe it. Should I be wrong however, I could easily adjust my point of view without any major consequences. I’m thinking in the line s of ID then. So there’s no hidden agenda. NO “need”. Just my opinions.

Comparative, it's like someone trying to debate against that theory of general relativity as a mere theory and not a fact............

Root …
Why do you do that? In our previous discussion you raised a similar point. And I already showed you why that comparison is inaccurate. Why do we keep going in circles? Anyway. I’ll restate my previous argument for the sake of other readers who don’t feel like scrolling all the way back.
First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations and predictions showing us it's usability and correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degree of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontaneous evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Second of all the theory of gravity makes part of a bigger scientific p.o.v. to claim it as wrong would bring down a whole other branch of scientific theory's because it's so deeply embedded into science. Even to that degree that we must ignore and deny the most obvious things in this world. The mentioned parts of evolution however (abiogenesis+ common descent) CAN be simply denied without any major repercussions in our scientific views.

You also have a problem that models seem to match, for example the recent decoding of the "Woolly Mamoth"

Well the thing is, these modals are usually very vague. Most of them only show direct lineage between 10 or 20 species out of the thousand existing animals and even more counting the extinct. Also note that I do believe in Evolution, but just don’t believe in the common descent of ALL creatures. In other words I don’t believe there are different branches in the family tree, but different trees altogether.

Do you not find it a tad convincing that the Wooly mammoth showed a number of distinct RVI traits in it's DNA with todays elephants. Yet we NEVER see a random pattern that displays any certain nonsense such as a common ancestor of the wooly mammoth being to that of a common dog for example. The fact of the matter is that this has never been seen, and all common ancestory assesed this way shows a distinct lineage of species that does not require any unimaginable leap of faith............... If such RVI's showed a seemingly mismatch of common ancestory then I would reconsider the whole issue and creationism truly would have a valid point. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not the case and does not look remotely like it will ever be.

Again I restate my case which is that I have no problem with elephants being an evolved form of mammoths.
As for the suggestion you make, that’s where you’re wrong. The truth is we don’t know. We haven’t mapped these ERV’s We haven’t even mapped any animal DNA so far we’ve only managed to map human DNA and still the database is very vague. Consider the methods of examination: In the given example they accidentally stumbled on an ERV with, then they start looking at the same place with elephants. (Note that there’s a huge difference in time for looking at a specific place and looking at the whole DNA sequence for a specific Virus). SO we haven’t discovered any inconsistent ERV’s because we don’t know where to look for them! It’s like looking for a needle in a hay stack. Also note that it’s very probable for a mammoth and an elephant to have the same virus due to similar biology. Whereas an elephant and a dog are not likely to share weaknesses for the same virus.

The whole point comes down to your not accepting scientific fact because your faith is preventing you from doing so. I think the term for that is "Living in ignorance".............

No it’s not a fact. It’s a possibility, and I can have the possibility and combine it with my faith, It just doesn’t seem likely to me. But I could bounce that ball right back to you. As an atheist, you just “have” to believe that we weren’t created but rather the result of mere luck.

Your arguement against this is so absurd that to accept your point is to accept that modern cancer research is flawed, and all data used on genetic diseases are also flawed and medical science is completely moving forward on flawed data. Between your "Debate" and medical science, please don't be offended if I suspect you are wrong not to accept common ancestory based on RVI Insertions.

The cancer examination actually strengthens my point! First you say it’s unlikely that there’s an order, a system behind the occurrence of ERV’s. I say that it’s likely that there is an order behind it. Now they are looking for an order behind certain mutations (= cancer) of the DNA. And you say that my point of view is antagonistic with their research? Now you’re the one talking gibberish.

And just for kicks, let me raise one other chain of thoughts. How certain are we that ERV’s where actually viruses once? Do they have a name tag that says: this was once a virus? Or are they still recognizable as being so. If they are completely embedded in our DNA, doesn’t that mean that our Cells; while making it’s necessary proteins; would also make that virus? Wouldn’t someone born with a complete virus embedded in his DNA be chronically ill? Well obviously the ERV’s they are referring to here are mutated to that extend that they are harmless, but how can they still be recognizable as a virus then?

 

[root]

O please, when you don’t understand something, try to read it again thoroughly rather then dismissing it as gibberish. I simply stated that the current absence of knowledge of such an order does not mean that the absence by itself is proven! Yes I can’t show any proof but neither can you. I did state in our previous discussion how

I really don't know how many times I need to quote the latest scientific position on this matter, yet still you persist in Gibbering on despite the fact you have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to support your claim......

"We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today"

Wheras you usually just dismissed my arguments as gibberisch, stupid, narrowmindedness or other name calling, because you fail to understand them.

Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the above statement than that I have bolded for you? As far as insertions of DNA by retroposition goes one must "Put up or shut up"................

No, you got that wrong. The reason I don’t accept it is because I don’t believe it. Should I be wrong however, I could easily adjust my point of view without any major consequences. I’m thinking in the line s of ID then. So there’s no hidden agenda. NO “need”. Just my opinions.

I think we understand that you do not "Believe", even if that belief has no supporting scientific evidence. Perhaps you have "faith" that RVI will be proven as being ordered despite the overwhelming evidence against it. I still have faith my empty tin will spntaneously turn into a robot and make me a cup of tea......... Or perhaps you employ that other great lie called "hope".

Root …
Why do you do that? In our previous discussion you raised a similar point. And I already showed you why that comparison is inaccurate. Why do we keep going in circles? Anyway. I’ll restate my previous argument for the sake of other readers who don’t feel like scrolling all the way back.
First of all the theory of gravity can be tested upon and even used to make accurate calculations and predictions showing us it's usability and correctness and thus elevating the "theory" into "certain" or at least a higher degree of certainty. The common descent of all creatures out of one being and the spontaneous evolvement of that first being out of lifeless matter is however NOT testable, and also not proven. It's a probability. That's why we should take the word theory with a grain off salt as opposed to the theory of gravity.

Pure gibberish again. And to cloud the otherwise specific subject matter we are debating. (RVI Insertions), you are attempting to create a smokescreen by mentioning spontaneous evolvement of life. Evolution is not the theory that explains the origins of how life seeded and very well you know that too. Yet another smokesceen peddled by the ID/creationist "believers"

Well the thing is, these modals are usually very vague. Most of them only show direct lineage between 10 or 20 species out of the thousand existing animals and even more counting the extinct. Also note that I do believe in Evolution, but just don’t believe in the common descent of ALL creatures. In other words I don’t believe there are different branches in the family tree, but different trees altogether.

I had a feeling you would state this, most ID/creationists do. Despite the fact that the wooly mammoth shared a high number of lineage to elephants and man shows a high number with apes. I guess you just don't "BELEIVE" again.

Again I restate my case which is that I have no problem with elephants being an evolved form of mammoths. As for the suggestion you make, that’s where you’re wrong. The truth is we don’t know. We haven’t mapped these ERV’s We haven’t even mapped any animal DNA so far we’ve only managed to map human DNA and still the database is very vague.

More creationist rubbish. If what you say is true then the following link is a lie perpetuated by the media then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3586573.stm

No it’s not a fact. It’s a possibility, and I can have the possibility and combine it with my faith, It just doesn’t seem likely to me. But I could bounce that ball right back to you. As an atheist, you just “have” to believe that we weren’t created but rather the result of mere luck.

No, I am free to believe whatever I want and still remain an atheist, something a Muslim cannot do eh! However, I assure you if we were created by an intelligent designer then why does all the evidence collected so far not support that case. Like the great Noah flood, geological evidence simply does not support that position, the same applies for a creationist belief, the little evidence we have does not support creationism.

The cancer examination actually strengthens my point! First you say it’s unlikely that there’s an order, a system behind the occurrence of ERV’s. I say that it’s likely that there is an order behind it. Now they are looking for an order behind certain mutations (= cancer) of the DNA. And you say that my point of view is antagonistic with their research? Now you’re the one talking gibberish.

I don't say it's unlikely. I say it's NOT! The only observable order is heredetary because the rogue RVI insertion is reproduced in the off-spring in an ordered manner, so the same insertion point is observed simply because it is a copy which is expected. We carry rogue RVI insertions at the same points as aoes because they are copies of the original insertion. Why we share the same "copy" at the same point is the proof that common ancestory exists? It does not strengthen your point at all but reinforces the validity of obtaining common ancestory by such means.

And just for kicks, let me raise one other chain of thoughts. How certain are we that ERV’s where actually viruses once? Do they have a name tag that says: this was once a virus? Or are they still recognizable as being so. If they are completely embedded in our DNA, doesn’t that mean that our Cells; while making it’s necessary proteins; would also make that virus? Wouldn’t someone born with a complete virus embedded in his DNA be chronically ill? Well obviously the ERV’s they are referring to here are mutated to that extend that they are harmless, but how can they still be recognizable as a virus then?

Perhaps you should ask a qualified biologist?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I really don't know how many times I need to quote the latest scientific position on this matter, yet still you persist in Gibbering on despite the fact you have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to support your claim...... Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the above statement than that I have bolded for you? As far as insertions of DNA by retroposition goes one must "Put up or shut up".

True, but there’s no supporting evidence for your point of view either! Just because there’s no evidence that a theory is wrong doesn’t mean it’s right by default. Why do I have to show a point of view is wrong, when it’s not proven in the first place? People assume it’s random because they do not find the order behind it. That doesn’t cut the mustard. If you want to pass this as scientific facts, show me the evidence. Put up or shut up.

"We know that sequences are randomly being inserted into our DNA by retroposition even today"

How do we know it is random???

I think we understand that you do not "Believe", even if that belief has no supporting scientific evidence. Perhaps you have "faith" that RVI will be proven as being ordered despite the overwhelming evidence against it. I still have faith my empty tin will spntaneously turn into a robot and make me a cup of tea......... Or perhaps you employ that other great lie called "hope".

I could have said the exact same thing to you, but it wouldn’t of helped either one of us in this discussion.

Pure gibberish again. And to cloud the otherwise specific subject matter we are debating. (RVI Insertions), you are attempting to create a smokescreen by mentioning spontaneous evolvement of life. Evolution is not the theory that explains the origins of how life seeded and very well you know that too. Yet another smokesceen peddled by the ID/creationist "believers"

Gibberish? Smokescreen? Ok then, so how is your point of view testable? How is it proven? How is it usable? How is it predictable? Evolution is commonly used to refer to the whole of four theories being: abiogenesis, common descent, possibility of mutation and survival of the fittest. And regardless of which part I mentioned. I just copy pasted the same response I gave to you earlier. SO maybe my reference was off, but my argument still stands regardless when you adapt it with the accurate reference.

More creationist rubbish. If what you say is true then the following link is a lie perpetuated by the media then?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3586573.stm

No mister gibberisch; it’s not a lie It’s cutting edge. And the ERV theory you refer to dates back from before that If I’m not mistaken. Did you actually read it? It proved my point. Rat are only the THIRD after human and mice. So all other animals aren’t deciphered. And that article is dated from only last year.

No, I am free to believe whatever I want and still remain an atheist, something a Muslim cannot do eh!

That’s where you’re wrong. As an atheist you’re not free to believe in a deity or anything that supports the existence of such because doing so would make you agnostic rather then atheistic.

However, I assure you if we were created by an intelligent designer then why does all the evidence collected so far not support that case.

WHAT EVIDENCE????

Like the great Noah flood, geological evidence simply does not support that position, the same applies for a creationist belief, the little evidence we have does not support creationism.

Only Christians believe that flood was global.

I don't say it's unlikely. I say it's NOT! The only observable order is heredetary because the rogue RVI insertion is reproduced in the off-spring in an ordered manner, so the same insertion point is observed simply because it is a copy which is expected. We carry rogue RVI insertions at the same points as aoes because they are copies of the original insertion. Why we share the same "copy" at the same point is the proof that common ancestory exists? It does not strengthen your point at all but reinforces the validity of obtaining common ancestory by such means.

What do you think they are looking for here Root? Exactly they are trying to find out WHY this happens (so they can prevent it). This suggests there’s a reason.

Perhaps you should ask a qualified biologist?

Well actually, it was a virologist who brought this to my attention.

Listen I don't mind that you have a limited knowledge of these things. I know they are complex matters, and do not expect everybody to be an expert on this. But I think I already sufficiently proved to know a lot about it. On top of that, I'm always to steps ahead of you. So please to save yourself from further humiliation, keep it civil and stop dismissing my arguments as gibberish when you cannot defeat them otherwise.