A Question which Atheists could not answer

[~Zaria~]

In what way is it not true?

Your statement: "BUT the fossil record can tell us with certainty that there is a general trend from only simple creatures to a mix of simple and more complex."

My reply: "Even if this were true, it is a long way away from linking fossils to evolution".

^ The point being made is that the observation that simpler creatures existed earlier than more complex creatures (and not simultaneously) - if this were to be true - does not have anything to do with evolution itself. This would be merely an observation.

As you may know, observational studies are the most weakest in trying to link associations and causation.

Examples?

Your statement: "Every single fossil that we have found, as well as all species known today, fit into an order and pattern consistent with TOE."

^ The examples with evidence for the above quote should be provided by the one who stated it.

The rest of your post concerns the difference between macro and micro evolution. This has nothing to do with the question of overall pattern and order which I'm describing, which remains unanswered by anyone in this thread.

^ "The question of overall pattern and order" is directly related to my previous post.
The point being is that its NOT possible to obtain such "pattern and order" in view of the fact that while variation is possible (and does exist), widespread and beneficial mutations are not - which essentially negates this entire concept completely.


Please refer to the previous post again as well as the provided link above.

The pattern shows both separate species and new adaptions appearing over time.

Please substantiate your statements with evidence.

TOE is a good explanation for this. Creationism is not. Because if you are creating species from scratch every time, there is no reason for them to bear any relation to other creatures at all, let alone show a pattern of coherent development.

The limited logic and rationale of man in trying to explain our existence, bears little weight in the face of the Creator himself, providing us these answers, via the revelations that He has sent.

I'd suggest that that's a little unfair.

Its just an observation that has been made from previous threads.


Peace

 

[Independent]

Your statement: "BUT the fossil record can tell us with certainty that there is a general trend from only simple creatures to a mix of simple and more complex."

My reply: "Even if this were true, it is a long way away from linking fossils to evolution".

^ The point being made is that the observation that simpler creatures existed earlier than more complex creatures (and not simultaneously) - if this were to be true - does not have anything to do with evolution itself. This would be merely an observation.

As you may know, observational studies are the most weakest in trying to link associations and causation.

You are still avoiding the question of whether the fossil record indicates a trend as stated, nor are you offering any evidence to contradict it. At this stage, this is getting exasperating but I'll continue anyway.

Let's imagine a world in which all species have indeed been created by divine fiat. Let's also try to imagine it as if we hadn't read the Bible or the Qur'an, so we have no preconceptions about how it should look. Let's imagine it taking just one preconception - that this God is just and logical. So what would we expect to find? Just like TOE, creationism is a hypothesis for the way the world looks. Does it fit what we see?

If no species has descended from another, then no species depends on previous generations for its development. Any feature - bones, wings, fins, limbs, thumbs - whatever you wish - is as likely to occur with the first species as with the last. We should see complex species from the beginning of life, not progressively revealed.

We would not expect to see massive extinctions (an estimated 90% of all species that have ever existed were extinct before Man came on the scene). We would not expect all species to built from a relatively narrow pattern (why would a God who can do anything be so constricted? - isn't that insulting his power?). We would not expect to find such an elaborate system of genes and inheritance or anything else that looks like a possible mechanism for evolutionary change, as this will not be required.

Moving into slightly more subjective areas, as the only creatures with souls, we would also expect to appear on the scene very early, not at the last minute in the age of the Earth.

And what do we actually see? This is a complex world. At first we couldn't see much relationship between the vast number of species. Each one looked like a one off creation in itself. But after a little time, with the help of people like Darwin, we began to see a pattern in the apparent profusion of species. Gradually, we have come to see that every species is not an island. It has a myriad of relationships and similarities with other species (sometimes very surprising ones). Although many creatures are stunning and sometimes bizarre, we can see that, for the most part, there are precedents going back in the fossil record. There is a pattern. It has a logic.

That logic is best described by TOE. So far, every species we know about fits into a pattern consistent with TOE.

When we go back and look at the world predicted by a theory of continuous divine creation, it looks completely different. This begs the question: why? For God to place species in an apparent order of development is a deliberate act that makes no sense. Why would God create the rules of evolution and not use them? It's not logical.

Please substantiate your statements with evidence.

In support of my case i present every single creature that has ever existed. So, it would be a great deal quicker for you to give proven examples of the ones you think don't fit. For instance, if you could find homo sapiens remains in a layer of Jurassic geology, that would do nicely.

The point being is that its NOT possible to obtain such "pattern and order" in view of the fact that while variation is possible (and does exist), widespread and beneficial mutations are not - which essentially negates this entire concept completely.

I repeat, I'm not talking at all about the mechanism, the 'how' for TOE at this point. And I'm not trying to prove that any one fossil is the direct ancestor of another, just the overall trend of development. I'm saying that what we see looks like the RESULT you would expect if TOE were correct, and not what you would expect from continuous divine creation. The HOW is an interesting but separate question.

 

[جوري]

nor are you offering any evidence to contradict it

And you have NOT offered any evidence to prove it!
Showcasing fossils next to each other in a case and saying this came first and this second doesn't an argument make.
Work on the mechanism of action that made one transition into another then make those demands to have them countered.
You really don't need that much makeweight and still write much ado about nothing.
You write so much crap and with it you still say absolutely nothing!

best,

 

[MohammedK]

Science says man has evolved from apes and that has been proven false: I have links but this forum doesn't let me post : give me your email and I will send it. If science was wrong about that ; and about energy always existing also proven false; then why should we believe other science lies?

 

[MohammedK]

I never said that Atheists say the universe always existed : I said they claim energy always existed and that is what caused everything all on its own. Energy didn't always exist; it has been proven false. 2 'facts' proven false; so who is to know what else science is wrong about.

As for Quraan as evidence : Our claim in not like Jews or Christians; they don't claim that's is their prophets miracle; we do. It is a book that can't be matched. Anything man made can be out done; Quraan has never; and will never. The people best in Arabic at the prophets time could not out do it. People today are not better in Arabic language then them. And feel free to try to out do it. If you do so, all of Islam forum will become Athiests as a reward lol.

As for pink unicorns; that's the same argument all you people use; try something else it'a getting old. It's logical to think a higher power created everything; and controls our lives and watches us. Thinking something unlogical as pink unicorns is not the same as believing in god.

 

[Muhaba]

Although many creatures are stunning and sometimes bizarre, we can see that, for the most part, there are precedents going back in the fossil record. There is a pattern. It has a logic.
That logic is best described by TOE. So far, every species we know about fits into a pattern consistent with TOE.

That's after the fact. The pattern was looked at by scientists and the theory was made accordingly. That doesn't make TOE true.

There may be another explanation why simpler life forms were created first and more complex later. It may be due to the conditions on earth at the time. Early earth probably couldn't sustain more complex life forms. For example, in the Precambrian era there was no oxygen on earth. The temperatures on earth also probably couldn't sustain life. There was no ozone layer, etc. Later the earth cooled, oxygen formed,, an ozone layer formed, etc. All of that made it possible for land dwelling organisms.

So the pattern of life on earth may be more related to the conditions on the planet than to evolution. God would only create those animals that could survive. It would be no use to create animals that can't survive. They would die out before getting a chance to grow and reproduce even if they were created.

The following is from national geographic:

The Cambrian period, part of the Paleozoic era, produced the most intense burst of evolution ever known. The Cambrian Explosion saw an incredible diversity of life emerge, including many major animal groups alive today. Among them were the chordates, to which vertebrates (animals with backbones) such as humans belong.

What sparked this biological bonanza isn't clear. It may be that oxygen in the atmosphere, thanks to emissions from photosynthesizing cyanobacteria and algae, were at levels needed to fuel the growth of more complex body structures and ways of living. The environment also became more hospitable, with a warming climate and rising sea levels flooding low-lying landmasses to create shallow, marine habitats ideal for spawning new life-forms.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

So, it is in conflict with the notion of a logical and just God

The truth seems to be coming out, you are trying to use TOE to challenge people's beliefs.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[Independent]

Showcasing fossils next to each other in a case and saying this came first and this second doesn't an argument make.

Did you miss geology at school?

Yes we do know what order they came in. Unless you're a Young Earther.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

But everything in science is a best guess. There are no "facts" like 1+1=2.

So why are you trying so hard to push 'best guess' on other people?

I have posted several times on this thread, the quick and simple 1829 steps of the evolution of the eye, it fails to say how the brain or anything else adapted to these simple 1829 steps. There have been no satisfactory explanations, this is not just a 'best guess' it is bordering on dishonesty

In the long run, if you are making claims like this and calling it science, then surely science will suffer.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[MohammedK]

Evolution theory has already been proven false. I have links if admin will allow me to post I will.

 

[Independent]

The truth seems to be coming out, you are trying to use TOE to challenge people's beliefs.

Once again, I reiterate that along with miliions of others I don't see belief in TOE as incompatible with belief in God. Many evolutionary scientists are themselves Christian. Are they attacking religion? To me, rejecting TOE without better reason weakens religion, rather than strengthening it. I don't agree that religion always has to be at war with science.

I suppose that does mean that I'm asking some people to change aspects of their belief, but not the fundamentals. If TOE were proven beyond all doubt tomorrow, would that make you cease to be a Catholic? Of course not. So it's not a fundamental challenge.

 

[MohammedK]

Athiests don't have any foundation for their claims; They need the energy always existing lie and theory of evolution to be true or else it debunks the very core of thier beliefs. Science was wrong and that will cause people to not blindly accept what science says blindly as they have been. If the energy theory is false and it is then the question to athiests still stand as who created the universe if their claim of energy is debunked then whats their next move?

 

[Independent]

That's after the fact. The pattern was looked at by scientists and the theory was made accordingly.

So you expect scientists to jump back 3.5 billion years and do it before the fact? Come on - this is not a serious objection. The Qur'an is after the fact too.

There may be another explanation why simpler life forms were created first and more complex later. It may be due to the conditions on earth at the time.

This fits with TOE, but not with creationism. A divine creator can do anything either to create the right conditions or the right creatures to survive in those conditions.

Also, this general trend of simple to a mix of simple and complex lifeforms continues all the way through to the present day. Why did God wait till the last 550 million years to introduce bilateral creatures (ie with a different front and back)? No reason He couldn't have done that before.

God can do anything, yet He has chosen to do only what is consistent with TOE. Why?

 

[Independent]

Athiests don't have any foundation for their claims;

You don't have to be an atheist to believe in TOE, many Christians and Muslims do.

They need the energy always existing lie and theory of evolution to be true or else it debunks the very core of thier beliefs.

A debate about the origin of the universe has nothing to do with TOE and belongs in a separate thread, or it will all get far too confused.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I suppose that does mean that I'm asking some people to change aspects of their belief,

Why, and what purpose do you hope to achieve by changing our beliefs?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Independent]

Why, and what purpose do you hope to achieve by changing our beliefs?

To be honest with you Eric, I joined the forum to learn more about Muslim politics. But now I'm here I've found other threads in science, history and even theology interesting. i don't mind that people have challenged my views, I feel i learned from it.

In my view, religion would be strengthened by accepting at least the possibility of TOE, in the same way that religion has been strengthened by accepting various principles of astrophysics etc. But I appreciate you don't share my view and, while I'm sorry about that, I accept that sometimes people just have to agree to differ.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent; thanks for your response,

In my view, religion would be strengthened by accepting at least the possibility of TOE,

I believe that when God gave us religion, he gave it with the intention, that we should learn and strive to change ourself. I believe that God's intention is that we should be kind to each other, seek justice for the poor, oppressed, help the hungry, visit prisoners, comfort the sick, this all starts with prayer and putting God first in all things.

learning maths or geography is not going to bring us closer to God, so I am not sure how the possibility of TOE would help,

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Muhaba]

If you look deeply into theory of evolution, you realize that it's completely impossible for random (by chance) evolution to take place without intervention from God to direct the organism which way to go.

The website http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html has some good arguments against evolution. I particularly like this statement:

Fossil record
Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

 

[Muhaba]

So you expect scientists to jump back 3.5 billion years and do it before the fact? Come on - this is not a serious objection. The Qur'an is after the fact too.

It is a perfectly logical argument. the evidence fits with TOE (if it really does) because TOE is based on the pattern of changes. It's also possible that the pattern doesn't really fit TOE but only those aspects are emphasized which do.

How is the Quran "After the Fact?" Do you claim things without really thinking about them? The Quran stated the big bang theory before scientists knew about it. That is great enough proof of the Divine nature of the Quran.

This fits with TOE, but not with creationism. A divine creator can do anything either to create the right conditions or the right creatures to survive in those conditions.

Also, this general trend of simple to a mix of simple and complex lifeforms continues all the way through to the present day. Why did God wait till the last 550 million years to introduce bilateral creatures (ie with a different front and back)? No reason He couldn't have done that before.

God can do anything, yet He has chosen to do only what is consistent with TOE. Why?

We can't ask God why He created the world this way and not that way. God can create anything however He wants. We know from Islamic sources that other creatures like Jinn existed on earth before mankind. We also know that at a particular time God stated His intention to create man. The fact that religious belief about mankind's existence on earth goes in line with scientific findings show that the religious statements have a divine source. Had it been manmade, people would've claimed that man existed on earth from the beginning. But religion tells us that earth was already existing and there were other creatures on it and at a later time mankind's race was created. So how come that is in line with science which also states that for millions of years there were other creatures and much later mankind came into being?

 

[Independent]

If you look deeply into theory of evolution, you realize that it's completely impossible for random (by chance) evolution to take place without intervention from God to direct the organism which way to go

Please note that I've not been talking about the 'How' of evolution during this thread, but only about the observable evidence that TOE seeks to explain.

HOWEVER...I will say that the likelihood of random/by chance development depends on the parameters. A dice with 6 sides can only fall one of six ways, not thousands. In the same way, there are many reasons to believe that the chance element of evolution falls within certain parameters that reduce the odds to plausible levels. Currently, no one can rule this out altogether, even if they have criticisms of the current methodology.

The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".

TOE is always having to fend off criticisms of things it doesn't predict anyway. This one is an old canard. According to TOE, every species is a 'complete' species. What we are able to see is a series of snapshots or stills, not moving images. There isn't some bizarre 'transition' phase with grotesque half-finished creatures stumbling around. How fast things changed from one generation and the next we don't know. But we can see that the change did in fact occur and it's natural to look for explanations.

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.

One of the reasons I admire Darwin is, unlike just about anyone else in this debate on either side, Darwin was very modest and honest about his limitations. For instance, he freely admitted his concerns about the paucity of the fossil record.

But it's wrong to quote statistics from a man writing in 1859 when we live in the year 2014. Vast numbers of fossils have been discovered since his day and many of the so-called 'missing links' discovered. Darwin would not have made that statement if he were writing today.