A Question which Atheists could not answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samiun
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 537
  • Views Views 67K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Allah has power over all things, so even if micro or macro evolution is possible, it would not be without His intervention. Is it possible for men to be transformed into apes? Yes. Is it possible for a wooden staff to transform into a snake? Yes. Something is only impossible if it is intrinsically impossible (like a 4 sided triangle) or if it is revealed by Allah that it will not occur (like Abu Lahab going to Jannah). Other than that, I believe that anything is possible if Allah wills it.

Does this mean that human beings evolved from a lower species? No. As revealed in the Quran, Adam (as) was the first human being and he was created by Allah.

"And when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. He said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76).

So what is this dilemma creationists are supposed to be having? Is it because you found remnants of "human-like apes"? SubhanAllah, it was revealed in the Quran that there were human beings who were turned into apes.

Let's not forget that evolution is based on abductive reasoning(which I think Independent admits to) and there is no definitive prove for it. Just because you find broken a broken mug on the floor next to a table doesn't necessarily mean that it dropped from the table. Meaning your theory does not preclude others.

It's also important to note that as many of the muslim posters have mentioned in the thread but seems yet to be understood is that nothing happens without the Will of Allah. "Cause" alone has no power of it's own to have any "effect" unless it is by Allah's will. Fire burns because Allah wills for it to burn, if Allah wills He can make fire cool which was the case for Prophet Ibrahim (as).

Allahu alam
 
So what is this dilemma creationists are supposed to be having? Is it because you found remnants of "human-like apes"? SubhanAllah, it was revealed in the Quran that there were human beings who were turned into apes.

A good point to ponder. Never crossed my mind that way before this... I like:D

:peace:
 
Why does their have to be a god in order for there to be evolution? Creationists have presented no scientific evidence that evolution is wrong or that a god guided evolution. Noticed how I said scientific evidence (religious evidence or evidence from religious text does not count). Creationists often have little understanding of evolution. Evolution is very logical. Don't you agree that animals with the best ability to survive and reproduce do survive and reproduce more often then animals with worse of those abilities? Or that during sexual reproduction, an animal can have a mix of traits from their parents that gives it better ability to survive and reproduce? And even the fact that animals can have genetic mutations? This is basically what is behind evolution. There is lots of evidence for evolution. For example, in the Galapagos islands, birds across the islands don't have the same traits, but have different traits based on the environment. Of course, there is a slim chance that evolution can be wrong, but there is no evidence against it. Maybe if creationists actually provide legitimate scientific evidence against evolution, we would believe them. And even if someone did prove there was a god, that would not disprove evolution, unless they had scientific evidence against evolution. My point is, evolution will stay correct until there is evidence against it.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Science; welcome to the forum, and I hope you enjoy your experience here.

Creationists often have little understanding of evolution.

And evolutionists often have little understanding of God. Evolution does not give any meaning or purpose to life, on the other hand, God does.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
 
Last edited:
Weather or not there is a god does not have to do with evolution. I believe in a higher power, but I just don't think he created the world. If there is a higher power, it doesn't mean he had to have created the world. There are biologists who believe in god, it's just that the majority of them don't.
 
I believe in a higher power, but I just don't think he created the world

What does this mean? That the 'higher power' just stepped in somewhere along the way to and decided to take charge of a portion of the created world? Does not make sense at all.There is no half way. He either created the world or He didn't.


Noticed how I said scientific evidence (religious evidence or evidence from religious text does not count).
How can religious evidence not count if we are talking about 'creationists'? Even science has not proven how ape turned into man. So we cannot use all the observed data because it has not been proven, only inferences and that it kind of 'fits' our finding.

:peace:
 
Weather or not
why don't you follow the thread in its entirety instead of coming in like a deux ex machina to save the day for your pals and reintroduce material that was already covered?
And that should be 'whether' btw. It is hard to take your 'science' seriously when your syntax and grammar is off!

best,
 
Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

One area of debate is the mechanism. This is the least finished from a science point of view, yet it is almost the only area that gets talked about by Creationists

Whether science has the answer or not, is kind of not our problem, we just accept God is the mechanism for all things, but there does seem to be a determination to prove otherwise.

In 1994 Nilsson and Pelger published what was to become an oft-referenced classic paper on the evolution of the complex camera-type eye starting from a simple light sensitive eyespot.22 In their paper they argued that a series of insensible gradations, 1829 steps in all separated by 1% changes in visual acuity, could be crossed by an evolving population in about 350,000 generations - - or around 500,000 years. The following figures illustrate their theory:

Take the evolution of the eye, I believe the theory above may describe how about 20 percent of the working eye evolved in half a million years. But I do believe you need a mechanism for how the remaining eighty percent of the detail evolved alongside this.

The eye evolved in species that lived in the sea, so what tools does nature have to make this happen.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
 
Greetings,

Yes we can - read back in the thread. Neanderthals and Denisovans died out relatively recently and we now have actual dna from their remains. Sufficient to know that they were closely enough related for us to interbreed, but different enough for them to become extinct where we survived.

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unidentified species (supposed to be homo erectus)?

I think enough time has been spent on the supposed 'sub-species' of humans - the Neanderthals.
I hope this article can lay this extremely poorly-substantiated claim to rest:



Neanderthals Are Still Human!

by Dave Phillips

Download Neanderthals Are Still Human! PDF



Since the first Neanderthal fossil was discovered in the middle of the last century, their remains have been highly controversial. By the mid 1950s, some scientists were beginning to argue convincingly that Neanderthals are a sub species of modern humans (Homo sapiens) (Lewin, 1998), citing a wealth of evidence to support the view that Neanderthals were human.

Language


Some evolutionists have claimed that Neanderthals were incapable of modern speech, lacking the ability to produce the full range of vowels (Lieberman and Crelin, 1971; Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992), with flat non-flexing at the base of the skull, and the larynx positioned higher in the throat than in modern humans or even chimpanzees. The result of this computer reconstruction was that the resonating chamber at the back of the mouth was all but eliminated.

Many of these arguments have now been thoroughly refuted. A new and updated reconstruction done in 1989 by paleoanthropologist Jean-Louis Heim showed an essentially modern human flexation of the base of the skull (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992; Shreeve, 1995).

More recently, the La Chapelle skull was compared to a sample of modern human specimens from the middle ages and found to be quite human (Frayer, 1993).

In 1983 one of the most complete Neanderthal skeletons ever found was discovered at Kebara in the Levant, which included the first fossil hyoid bone of a Neanderthal ever discovered. This bone is located in the throat and is directly related to the structure of the human vocal tract and is indistinguishable from that of modern humans (Arensburg et al., 1987).


Neanderthal Brains


A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated

"I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own."

Although there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain volume certainly does not support views that argue for an evolutionary expansion of "Hominid" brains.


Neanderthal Anatomy


Neanderthal anatomy is essentially human in scope, with the same number of bones as humans, which function in the same manner (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). However, there are minor differences in robusticity (thickness and strength).

These differences are trivial and can be found on an individual basis in modern living populations (Lewin, 1998). Although there is no formal agreement of which physical characteristics are diagnostic of Neanderthal morphology, a suite of traits have been used to distinguish Neanderthal morphology. Cranial traits are listed in the table below.

Still one may wonder why the entire suite of traits are not found in modern populations, but consider that Neanderthals typically lived in extremely cold climate areas, genetically isolated by a post-flood ice age. That would have directly affected their anatomy and physiology (Stringer and Gamble, 1993).

Two ecological rules describe the relationship between the size and the shape of the extremities (limbs) and trunk anatomy. Burgmann's rule regarding surface area postulates that body weight tends to be larger in cold climates. With two bodies of similar shape, the larger will have less surface area per unit of volume and will retain heat better in cold climates. Allen's rule suggests that body limbs will be shorter in cold climates, reducing surface area that results in less heat loss. This is seen in the short tails, ears, or beaks in many animals living in cold climates. Humans that live in cold climates, such as Eskimos, are typically larger with shorter arms and legs. Since Neanderthals lived in near arctic conditions in many cases, one would expect them to have a stocky body build and short extremities (arms and legs) (Holliday, 1997). In fact, the limbs of Neanderthals from the warmer climates of Southwest Asia are relatively longer than the limbs of those living in ice-age Europe. When Neanderthal limb proportions, based on a mean index of tibia/femur length, called Crural Index, are plotted against mean annual temperatures. Neanderthals appear to be even more cold-adapted in their limb proportions than modern Eskimos and Lapps (Stringer and Gamble 1993; Stringer and Mckie, 1996).

In addition, Neanderthals lived a life style that put rigorous demands on their bodies as seen from numerous skeletal lesions, many the result of traumatic bone breakage. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992.) Further, it has recently been suggested, based on intense dental study, that Neanderthals may have had a greater longevity than modern populations. This may have also affected their anatomy (Cuozzo, 1998).


imp323a-1.jpg




Neanderthal Culture


There are a large number of cultural habits that distance Homo sapiens from animals.

No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all.

Deliberate burial of Neanderthal remains is well known from at least 36 sites with a geographical distribution over most of Eurasia (Gowlett, 1994), with at least 20 complete skeletons known (Lewin, 1998). Some graves have stone tools, animal bones, and flowers buried in the ground, along with the Neanderthal remains.

At the Uzbekistan Neanderthal site of Teshik-Tash, is a boy's grave surrounded by a ring of mountain goat bones, horns, and levallois tools indicating ritualism of some sort. Burial is known to have occurred in an unnatural posture, which demonstrates that a corpse was not simply dropped into a hole in the earth without preparation (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992). Burial implies an awareness of the after life and demonstrates the existence of formal ritual. Indication of strong social ties can be inferred from cases where Neanderthal individuals with severe crippling injuries were cared for (i.e., the Shanidar remains).

In 1996, pristine evidence of Neanderthal humanness came to light, when a cave in Slovenia produced a small flute made from the thigh bone of a cave bear. Four precisely aligned holes are punctured on one side of the four-inch-long bone (Folger and Menon, 1997).

Thus cultural evidence strongly supports Neanderthal humanness.


Neanderthal (mitochondrial) DNA

The recent recovery of mitochondrial DNA from the right humerus of the Neanderthal remains from Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, has been of great interest to evolutionists and creationists alike (Krings et al., 1997).
Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.

However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow (1998) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range.

Conclusion


Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.


References



  • Arensburg, B. et al., 1989. A middle Paleolithic human hyoid bone. Nature, vol. 338:758-60.
  • Cuozzo, J. 1998. Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man. Master Books.
  • Deacon, T. 1994. The Human Brain. In: Jones, S. R. Martin, D. Pilbeam, (ed.) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
  • Folger, T., and S. Menon. 1997 . . . Or Much Like Us? Discover, The Top 100 Science Stories (1996).
  • Frayer, D. 1993. On Neanderthal Crania and Speech: "Response to Lieberman." Current Anthropology 34:721.
  • Gowlett, J. 1994. Early human mental abilities. In: Jones, S and R Martin, D Pilbeam, (ed.) Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. New York: Alan R Liss Inc.
  • Holliday, T. 1997, Postcranial evidence of cold adaptation in European Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104:245-58.
  • Krings, M et al. 1997. Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90:19-30.
  • Lewin, R. 1998. The Origin of Modern Humans. Scientific American Library.
  • Lieberman, P. 1984. The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
  • Lieberman, P. 1989. The Origin of Some Aspects of Human Language and Cognition. In: P. Mellars and C. Stringer (eds.), The Human Revolution. pp. 391-414. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Lieberman, P. and E. Crelin, 1971. On the Speech of Neanderthal. Linguistic Inquiry, 2:203-222. Mayfield Publishing Company.
  • Lubenow, M. 1998. Recovery of Neanderthal mt DNA: An Evaluation. Creation Ex Nihilo, Technical Journal, vol. 12(1) pp. 87-97.
  • Shreeve, J. 1995. The Neanderthal Enigma. Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins. William Morrow and Company, Inc.
  • Stringer, C. and C. Gamble 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and Hudson.
  • Stringer, C. and R. Makie 1996. African Exodus: The Origin of Modern Humanity. Hold and Co. New York.
  • Trinkaus, E., and P. Shipman 1992. The Neanderthals: Changing the Images of Mankind. Alfred A. Knophf, New York.
  • Wolpoff, M. and R. Caspari. 1997. Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction. Westview Press.
* Dave Phillips earned the M.S. in physical anthropology from California State University, Northridge, in 1991 and is now working on his Ph.D. in paleontology.
Cite this article: Phillips, D. 2000. Neanderthals Are Still Human! Acts & Facts. 29 (5).


http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/
 
What does this mean? That the 'higher power' just stepped in somewhere along the way to and decided to take charge of a portion of the created world? Does not make sense at all.There is no half way. He either created the world or He didn't. How can religious evidence not count if we are talking about 'creationists'? Even science has not proven how ape turned into man. So we cannot use all the observed data because it has not been proven, only inferences and that it kind of 'fits' our finding. :peace:
He doesn't have to create the world. My definition of god might be different then yours. Religious evidence doesn't count since religion is not science. Scientists use real evidence to prove (and disprove) things, and religious evidence is not that. If you have actual, non-religious evidence against evolution, then it will count. Science has proven how ape evolved into man. 8 million years ago, we split into apes and humans. They both evolved through natural selection and genetic mutations, and they have evolved through many species.
 
جوري;1604118 said:
why don't you follow the thread in its entirety instead of coming in like a deux ex machina to save the day for your pals and reintroduce material that was already covered? And that should be 'whether' btw. It is hard to take your 'science' seriously when your syntax and grammar is off! best,
Is that really an argument?
 
جوري;1604005 said:

That's a non-question and a non-assertion. I don't know where you're going with this and don't care to humor delusions of your psyche.
So you do admit that you don't have idea what speciation is? Then how would you tell whether it happened or not if it indeed took place?
 
Science has proven how ape evolved into man. 8 million years ago

I beg to differ. Science has proven nothing. It merely connects the dots (with huge gaps missing still) and provides a 'best' and 'most plausible' conclusion to the partial data it has gathered. It is only what people want to believe.

:peace:
 
Greetings,

There are different types of evidence which are more or less complete. But in one respect it's 100% complete. Every single species we have discovered follows the consistent order explained by TOE in terms of location, chronology and attributes (development of individual characteristics). This cannot be chance.

If God is responsible for this, then He has created each species in the exact way to mimic TOE, which is a very odd thing to do.
A number of times you question God's wisdom in how He has chosen to create our world. However, there is much to account for when it comes to theories suggested by humans. With the current theory being discussed, one can find numerous articles and websites refuting it and providing counterexamples, some of which have already been posted. There may be supporting data (subject to speculation) as you have mentioned, but it doesn't equate to fact. In your own words, 99 pages out of every 100 are missing. How then can you question God before the theory has even been proven as a fact?

Moreover, there is ambiguity in the discussion. Evolution can refer to a number of different processes, occurring at the micro as well as macro level. Some creationists accept the concept of natural selection but they do not accept life evolving from lifeless matter or humans evolving from other species. So when you say we live in a 'lookalike TOE world', it is not clear whether your observations conflict with what some creationists have no problem in accepting in the first place.

You also say, 'this cannot be chance', referring to certain findings. Those who believe in religion can also use the same, if not stronger, arguments for their belief. It cannot be chance that every generation of humans has believed in a higher being that they call God. It cannot be chance that there exist evidences of historical incidents narrated in scripture. It cannot be chance that prophecies mentioned in scripture have been fulfilled. It cannot be chance that when God said He would preserve His final revelation, it would be preserved until this very day, word-for-word, memorised by millions. It cannot be chance that the Qur'an is inimitable and a miraculous book. The list can go on...

So, we cannot become blinded by particular findings without considering all other information. We certainly should not be making bold statements about what God should or should not have done. Is it any wonder why creationists may become disconcerted (not that I've seen many do in this thread) when the feeble attempts to deny His existence become increasingly obvious?

And even if He did...so what? If it looks and behaves like TOE, what's the difference? It's like saying we know there is gravity, but having created it, God doesn't use gravity to hold the planets in place, He intervenes instead. How does that make sense?
Indeed, at the end of the day, science can never truly contradict religion. Understanding to some degree the laws God has created within His universe does not detract in any way from the glory and magnificence of His power; rather it only serves to increase the faith of a believer.

By the way, here are two links which may be of interest:

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6570-biological-evolution-islamic-perspective.html
 
So you do admit that you don't have idea what speciation is? Then how would you tell whether it happened or not if it indeed took place?
If you enjoy drawing satisfaction out of overly simplistic conclusions, and posing non-questions in rhetoric and presuming to speak for the other person at the same time, then what is it that you're doing here? You seem happy with your soliloquy, and this is not the place for your catharsis to take place!

best,
 
So will we find out what speciation is? I already discussed it in this thread, to some degree. The rest isn't hard to learn about.
 
I think enough time has been spent on the supposed 'sub-species' of humans - the Neanderthals.
I hope this article can lay this extremely poorly-substantiated claim to rest:


http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

Have you checked where that article is from? The Institute for Creation Research: a group aiming to prove the accuracy of the Bible via science.

The also dispute the age of the Earth and suggest that it is, in fact, 6000 years old.

I'm not sure they're the most reliable of folk.
 
A lot of people here seem to think that atheists are desperate for evolution to be true, that it confirms our "agenda". That's just not true. If evolution is false, then that's incredible - whatever replaces it will be just as interesting. We push the case for evolution because, evidentially speaking, it is the only plausible case at the moment.

As someone previously said (can't find the post), the person who proves evolution incorrect will be known as one of the greatest scientists ever. But so far, there is no-one who can satisfactorily refute it.
 
I already discussed it in this thread, to some degree. The rest isn't hard to learn about.
Your discussions are sophomoric which is precisely why what you propose isn't hard to learn about, it is resolved in the same mindset that created it and unfortunately it is a sphere where you hover and expect that everyone either descend down to it or no expectations from your own person to look beyond your own concocted horizon!

best,
 
Wow, plenty added to this thread since I was last on.

A number of times you question God's wisdom in how He has chosen to create our world
No I don't. I'm suggesting that a God who is both logical and just would not have created a world that has the appearance of TOE, unless He actually used TOE to create it. It's the wisdom of humans I'm questioning, in their rejection of TOE. TOE is more internally consistent with islam and Christianity than non TOE.

In your own words, 99 pages out of every 100 are missing. How then can you question God before the theory has even been proven as a fact?
I gave that analogy as a specific reference to the number of species represented by the fossil record (an estimated 1%). This is one type of evidence, looked at from just one persepective (frequency). It's not a statistic for the evidence of TOE in general.

More importantly, it's not the number of fossils that is interesting, it's the pattern of development they show. We already have far more than we need to show this pattern.

Every single one of those identified species fits TOE according to chronological development, geographical distribution and orderly evolution of individual characteristics. Had any of them not done so, this potentially would have disproved TOE in one go. It is beyond chance that this pattern could have occurred except by TOE or by divine fiat.

If by divine fiat, that raises the question I posed above. Why trick us by making it look like TOE? God surely would not do this. If each species is being created by divine fiat, there is no logical reason to do it in such a pattern, and implying such family relationships and descents.

It makes far more sense to suggest that God created the laws of evolution as he did physics etc, and afterwards let them play out.

So when you say we live in a 'lookalike TOE world', it is not clear whether your observations conflict with what some creationists have no problem in accepting in the first place.
Arguments about evolution often get confused. Yet, when you look at the evidence, there are some parts that are completely non speculative and observable. As i described above, whereas the direct descent of one fossil to another is difficult to prove, the overall pattern is 100% clear, consistent and observable. And we can match it against a mountain of biological evidence that suggests a capacity for adaption over time.

To all intents and purposes, this proves that evolution has indeed taken place. The only argument remaining is 'how'?

In order not to pre-judge the issue I use the phrase 'TOE lookalike world'. This is the observable reality of the world. We then have a choice how to explain it.

Could there be another explanation for the world looking this way? There are no major scientific explanations besides TOE. But of course, it could be God's creation.

At this point I return to my first point - a just and logical God would not confuse us by making it look like TOE, unless it actually was.

Therefore, I believe that faith in TOE is as logical for Muslims and Christians as it is for atheists or anyone else for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top