Allah and Camouflage...(Atheists!!,Agnostics!! and seculars!!)

[snakelegs]

Speaking strictly about animals, you see these different kinds of "camo" all across the natural world. White rabbits in snowy country, green snakes in the jungle, etc. They obviously have an advantage over those creatures that do not have this "camo". Does this mean those without "camo" are inferior? Were they a less "perfect" creation? I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest animals do indeed flourish or diminish because of natural selection. Personally, I don't see why natural selection, either pro or con, should determine whether or not there is a divine root to all creation.

i see no inherent reason for conflict either.

 

[snakelegs]

no intellect whatso ever.

what???!!!! are you implying that my tarantula, maude, has no intellect?? how dare you! :raging: :raging: :skeleton:

 

[Malaikah]

But just to give a basic explanation.
This camoflage was created through the process of natural selection. The insects that could blend in some had an advantage and were less likely to be eaten.
These advantages did not start out as a leaf but in steps. Essentially a insect that had 1% camo had a slight advantage over one that had 0%.
One that had 2% was slightly better than one that had 1% etc...

I actually have no problem with this explanation. Rather it is the reasoning that such remarkable evolution could happen without divine guidance that I find hard to swallow.

That is the most amazing insect I have ever seen! Subhanallah!

 

[ranma1/2]

I actually have no problem with this explanation. Rather it is the reasoning that such remarkable evolution could happen without divine guidance that I find hard to swallow.

That is the most amazing insect I have ever seen! Subhanallah!

So are you a theistic evolutionists then?

The general problem that I have with the "divine" guidance idea is that their is no evidence for it, natural selection seems to work fine and you would need a divine guider for the creation of the divine guider etc...

It seems to me to be basic default answer of god did it and that real answers nothing. With each discover god tends to shrink and shrink and shrink. Many years ago lightning, gravity, natural disaters etc... were believed to be caused by god, these days we know better.

 

[Malaikah]

You might think so, but for me, the more we discover, the more it is clear that the universe must have had a creator.

Like your example... lets say lightning. Yeh, I guess lightning would have been amazing to people back in the days when they didn't understand it. But now that we understand how it works, we have even more reason to be amazed by it, with all the transferring of electrons and trying to understand the atom and all.

The point is, just because we might understand how something works, doesn't mean we are some how no longer in need of God.

I would love to see a human just try to create something out of nothing.:rollseyes

 

[Trumble]

In-sha'-Allah in this Thread Atheists, Agnostics Will be exposed..Those among them who really search the truth will say nothing but confess Allah's existence. and those whom their hearts are full of arrogance haughtiness will just appear that they are just arguing.

You have to admire an optimist! But... I just don't see the point of this thread. Why do you think giving what many would consider a classic example of natural selection as an example would convince anyone it was wrong!

I actually have no problem with this explanation. Rather it is the reasoning that such remarkable evolution could happen without divine guidance that I find hard to swallow.

Exactly, and that's the only force of your (Makky's) argument. To someone who believes in God already it is obviously a very convincing one. But to an atheist it's a total dead duck. It doesn't even have anything to do with the specifics of the science.

You are saying that something as remarkable as this insect undoubtably is could not have come about by evolution/natural selection, not because there isn't a scientific explanation (there is; as I said it's classic case) but because it is so improbable that explanation could work well enough in practice to produce the result we see in the photos. OK, so what is the solution you suggest to an atheist? To explain this remarkable insect it is necessary to conjour up something far more remarkable that any insect, every insect put together or indeed the whole planet put together - God. To the atheist, therefore, your argument reduces simply to "explaining a remarkable thing by introducing the idea of a far more remarkable thing" whereupon Occam's Razor kills it stone dead. Or in other words, it will be very convincing to believers (who already believe in God, obviously) but totally unconvincing to atheists.

 

[ranma1/2]

or as Dawkins said.
God the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

 

[Dave2]

This is just the design argument, and educated atheists are well familiar with it. The most important examination of this argument (perhaps the best) was in David Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Some of the more serious objections from Hume's discussion:

* Even if the argument is successful, it doesn't justify theism (certainly not 'tawhid'). It's consistent with a polytheism of mortal and imperfect gods. It's even consistent with some sort of designing force that resembles a mind only in some very remote way. And in fact, the argument might give more support to polytheism than to monotheism, given that our experience typically involves teams of designers.

* Comparing the designer hypothesis with a no-designer alternative, it's not clear that the first is any better than the second. After all, any designer will be just as amazingly well-ordered as the universe it designed. And if we say that the designer is somehow self-ordering, then we might as well say that the universe is somehow self-ordering. So there's no gain in positing a designer: we're stuck with exactly the same problems as before.

* The design argument is based on the principle that amazingly well-ordered things come only from design. But this principle isn't self-evidently true, so we must ask if it is supported by the evidence. And when we look at the evidence, taking our experience and observations as a guide, we find that there is lots of amazingly well-ordered stuff in the universe that comes from purely natural processes, not (as far as we know) from design. Perhaps all this stuff ultimately comes from design, of course, but the key principle driving the argument remains unsupported by the evidence. (Perhaps the reason we find the principle plausible is that we have a natural tendency to anthropomorphize nature). In the end, the evidence gives no support for the 'designer' hypothesis over the 'natural process' hypothesis.

These are general problems with any design argument. As for the particular argument mentioned in this thread, it points to adaptations in organisms. And that is (of course) well explained by evolutionary biology in terms of purely natural processes, without any need to bring in supernatural forces.

 

[guyabano]

do u know evolution is completely false?

The design of the alveoli in our lungs is at a perfect state IF it was any different
from what it is now then we would not be able to breath at all. Therefore the alveoli cannot evolve due to evolution. It was made once and it hasn't changed.

He didn't have anything to say to my post aye?

What are you blabbering here, hey muslim

referring to your own way of calling people

hey athiest

If you like to speak about loungs and cells, better inform yourself first before you speak. Nothing is more imperfect as a human body. Did you know, that Oygen is needed to breathe but also is THE element, which makes us slowely die, as it is the main responsible for cell splitting and oxydation?

Now back to topic. This shape of this insect is just the result of million of years of evolution and mutation, nothing more. There is nothing miracle !

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

How does intellect effect free will? And to what degree of intelligence must you have inorder to have your version of free will?

we all make choices you see, left or right, to attack or not, to abstain or not, we make choices even if we wish to live or not. Tell me have you ever heard of an animal to commit suicide? you see they act on insticts, some might have a certain level of intelligence but again this is not a great degree of intelligence at all, i think God in all his wisdom has greatly limited their intelligence, this is the same reason i think God will not send them to either of hell of heaven.

And what does knowing right and wrong have to do with free will? How can you show me you have free will?

thats simple, i reflected and pondered over creation and came to the conclusion that there is indeed a creator who deserves our worship. Now if i never had freewill i would never even ponder over it but be forced to act on my base instincts and nature, and perhaps be pulled around like a puppet on strings (speaking metaphorically of course). If you want an example of me using my freewill then i chose to come to work, i chose to get on the bus instead of walking, i make choices...

And please give a better description of free will.

i have attempted to give good examples in the answer above, im sorry if it didnt help

To me its the ability to choose and to choose differently.

yeah same here , you see i dont think Animals can make choices like this... isnt it a fact that every animal has a certain nature, and thus can be predicted? but can you name one human that can be predicted? for example we can easily throw a meat and expect a dog to pounce on it, walk into a lions cage and dont expect to come out alive etc

If there is a all knowing being then you do not have the ability to choose differently since everything is then predetermined.

see you do not realise the difference between knowledge and freewill, im going to try to explain it clearly so forgive me if i fail in this:

knowledge - Knowing everything that will happen before it even happens.
freewill - making choices, deciding your own fate based on your actions.
so if by predetermined you mean that Allah knows everything that will happen, then that is indeed his knowledge or how would he be fit to be God? But at the same time its only OUR CHOICES he knows you see, that in no way robs us of our choices...

if i told you to pick between toast or crumpet knowing you will pick toast, have i robbed you of your free-will?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

what???!!!! are you implying that my tarantula, maude, has no intellect?? how dare you! :raging: :raging: :skeleton:

lol forgive me :hiding:

im sure your tarantula's really smart

 

[ranma1/2]

we all make choices you see, left or right, to attack or not, to abstain or not, we make choices even if we wish to live or not. Tell me have you ever heard of an animal to commit suicide? you see they act on insticts, some might have a certain level of intelligence but again this is not a great degree of intelligence at all, i think God in all his wisdom has greatly limited their intelligence, this is the same reason i think God will not send them to either of hell of heaven.

Animals have been known to purposefully stop eating when a mate or a companion dies or disappers. so yes i would say that they can commit suicide. Other animals such as apes can produce basic tools. Pandas can use each other to boost.
and what reason would god limit their INT and why wont he send them to heaven or hell? I personally liked to think all dogs would go to heaven when i was a kid.

thats simple, i reflected and pondered over creation and came to the conclusion that there is indeed a creator who deserves our worship. Now if i never had freewill i would never even ponder over it but be forced to act on my base instincts and nature, and perhaps be pulled around like a puppet on strings (speaking metaphorically of course). If you want an example of me using my freewill then i chose to come to work, i chose to get on the bus instead of walking, i make choices...

So how do we know that your not a very complicated computer program that is programed to think it has free will but in fact is just following a program? You could ponder over it as a basic program. We see programs today that can try to solve problems. What if every single instance of your life is controlled so you are made to choose and act the way you do. etc..
But back to my question. what does free will have to do with right and wrong and what is right and wrong.

yeah same here , you see i dont think Animals can make choices like this... isnt it a fact that every animal has a certain nature, and thus can be predicted? but can you name one human that can be predicted? for example we can easily throw a meat and expect a dog to pounce on it, walk into a lions cage and dont expect to come out alive etc

I think certain animals can and do. Humans can be expected to pick up a money bill on the ground if they see one. They may not as well. Lions may or may not attack you. Ive seen many a video with wild cats roosting on cars with open sunroofs. You would think that if they were only driven by the though of food they might jump in and enjoy the free meal, but no they dont. Instead they use it as a perch. They have learned. They can learn and that is a important matter.

Now in general i think what scientists normally do to test if a creature has a identity of self is they use a mirror test. many mammals pass the test. Dolphins and many apes to name a few.

see you do not realise the difference between knowledge and freewill, im going to try to explain it clearly so forgive me if i fail in this:

knowledge - Knowing everything that will happen before it even happens.
freewill - making choices, deciding your own fate based on your actions

If your actions are already determined then at best you have the illusion of free will.

so if by predetermined you mean that Allah knows everything that will happen, then that is indeed his knowledge or how would he be fit to be God? But at the same time its only OUR CHOICES he knows you see, that in no way robs us of our choices...

if i told you to pick between toast or crumpet knowing you will pick toast, have i robbed you of your free-will

If you new as god new i would do it then i could not have chosen differntly.
So am I able to choose differently? No i am not. Of course you dont know 100%, i could change my mind, i could act differently etc.. a freak meteor could strike the crumpet etc...

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol, interesting.


i feel like researching on the nature of animals now, lol thanks for the discussion


but i must say ranma, that even if a person can predict with a 100% certainty the events to take place, that does not take away free-will... the restriction is only in your mind...

 

[guyabano]

Now in general i think what scientists normally do to test if a creature has a identity of self is they use a mirror test. many mammals pass the test. Dolphins and many apes to name a few.

I saw recently in TV, also crow's are very intelligent and have the knowledge about how to use tools to fish worms.
They also made an experiment with a crow. A scientist glued a yellow spot on her throat, and when the crow stand in front of the mirror, she really start to wiggle and move in order to get rid of this yellow spot. The crow really recognized herself in the mirror.

A good example for the perfection of evolution is the cockroach. Yes, indeed, the cockroach didn't change its physical appearance anymore since at least 1 million of years. It reached its perfection as a creature for its needs. It's a survivor, and it will even survive mankind, and who knows, will still be there, when a new civilisation will arise on this planet.

If cockroaches would know to speak, what would they tell us... ?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol, interesting guyabano, what are the physical charasterics of a cockroach? your making me curious.

and also just what tools to crows use :?

 

[guyabano]

lol, interesting guyabano, what are the physical charasterics of a cockroach? your making me curious.

and also just what tools to crows use :?

Well, about the crow, see it here !


Out of Wikipedia:

The earliest cockroach-like fossils are from the Carboniferous period between 354–295 million years ago

And they still exist today !!

Read all about here and also interesting info here

 

[Nerd]

I think we have all side-tracked from the topic, let me restate the questions..

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shape of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature... if it is indeed evolution: would someone care to give exact details as from which insect this creature evolved from? even better if someone would be kind enough to trail it back to the first insect or cell from which it evolved and give a detailed description of the steps involved...

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Well, about the crow, see it here !

i feel like ive seen this video in a documentary lol its really interesting!!

Out of Wikipedia:


And they still exist today !!

Read all about here and also interesting info here

whoah thats interesting... thanks!!

 

[guyabano]

I think we have all side-tracked from the topic, let me restate the questions..

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shape of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

Its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature... if it is indeed evolution: would someone care to give exact details as from which insect this creature evolved from? even better if someone would be kind enough to trail it back to the first insect or cell from which it evolved and give a detailed description of the steps involved...

Well, even an insect has a basic intelligence and can understand that when it's hiding, it can get better to food. Camouflage is something very common in Fauna as well as terrestrial and aquatical.
Note well, that this insect didn't do this mutation within a few years. It took him millions of years to mutate to what it is today.

See here for more info

 

[Nerd]

People accept evolution without solid evidence. "Millions of years" of evidence which should have cumulated is simply not there... Well if scientist can rest in peace after merely speculating that all species evolved from a single cell and stating its impossible to show each step through which they passed through cause its happened over millions of years... Why is it so hard of us to believe that a God created them?

well than again some people would be happier saying the chair they are sitting on did indeed came to being without a creator (carpenter)