I am certainly not claiming evolution by natural selection doesn't have questions remaining; it does. I don't deny the possibility it might even be totally wrong, any scientific theory by its very nature may suffer that fate. I don't even deny that creationism should be taught in schools - as long as that is in religious studies class where it belongs. But, painful as it is for some to hear, evolution is one if not the best evidenced scientific theories in history which is why it is the predominant one; there simply is no scientific alternative. There is nothing 'heretical' about questioning evolution, but in scientific terms it is futile to propose it's complete failure in the absence of any evidence that seriously supports that claim, or any sort of credible replacement theory that explains the evidence. In scientific terms, creationism is a total irrelevance because it is nothing but an 'anti-' position with no alternative to offer other than an obvious creation myth that is no different ontologically from any other creation myth, of which there are more than a few.
I can agree with you that creation is not science, but rather a belief that is based on religious books, primarily Genesis and the Quran. However, I challenge you on your claim that evolution is a 'scientific theory'.
I will grant you a most basic single unicellular, prokaryotic organism such as an amoeba. Now outline for me the basic steps that TOE claims happened over time to evolve an amoeba into a cockroach. If TOE is scientific, then one should be able to outline the evolution of progressively higher and more complex organisms. I counted 9 uses of science/scientific in your post which indicates you have scientific knowledge of the process by which TOE operates. I contend that you will be unable to present a logical sequence of events because TOE itself is a belief system that also is based on a book, 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', by Charles Darwin.
Now evolutionists have used Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance as the basis for heritable means for natural selection to act upon, but they have not advanced beyond Mendelian genetics into the molecular level that was detailed in Watson and Crick's model of DNA to show how these genetic improvements happened. It seems to me if one uses scientific words or even the word 'science' enough in his argument then that means he has applied the scientific method to arrive at his theory or conclusions.
Evolution by natural selection, right or wrong, is a product of the scientific method.
Perhaps you can tell me how the scientific method was used to come up with TOE.
Scientific Method Steps:
1: Ask a Question 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research 3: Propose a Hypothesis 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis 5: Test the Hypothesis 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis
As far as I can tell, they didn't make it past step #3. Perhaps, TOE should also be taught in religion class as an alternative belief to creationism!
I can agree with you that creation is not science, but rather a belief that is based on religious books, primarily Genesis and the Quran. However, I challenge you on your claim that evolution is a 'scientific theory'.
I will grant you a most basic single unicellular, prokaryotic organism such as an amoeba. Now outline for me the basic steps that TOE claims happened over time to evolve an amoeba into a cockroach. If TOE is scientific, then one should be able to outline the evolution of progressively higher and more complex organisms. I counted 9 uses of science/scientific in your post which indicates you have scientific knowledge of the process by which TOE operates. I contend that you will be unable to present a logical sequence of events because TOE itself is a belief system that also is based on a book, 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', by Charles Darwin.
Now evolutionists have used Gregor Mendel's laws of inheritance as the basis for heritable means for natural selection to act upon, but they have not advanced beyond Mendelian genetics into the molecular level that was detailed in Watson and Crick's model of DNA to show how these genetic improvements happened. It seems to me if one uses scientific words or even the word 'science' enough in his argument then that means he has applied the scientific method to arrive at his theory or conclusions.Perhaps you can tell me how the scientific method was used to come up with TOE.
Scientific Method Steps:
1: Ask a Question 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research 3: Propose a Hypothesis 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis 5: Test the Hypothesis 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis
As far as I can tell, they didn't make it past step #3. Perhaps, TOE should also be taught in religion class as an alternative belief to creationism!
:awesome: Post, couldn't add to your rep, so here goes.
I will grant you a most basic single unicellular, prokaryotic organism such as an amoeba. Now outline for me the basic steps that TOE claims happened over time to evolve an amoeba into a cockroach. If TOE is scientific, then one should be able to outline the evolution of progressively higher and more complex organisms.
Fossils? So if we have every intermediate step from humans back to small organisms, you will concede and say evolution is true?
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
As far as I can tell, they didn't make it past step #3. Perhaps, TOE should also be taught in religion class as an alternative belief to creationism!
If I asked you to explain the details of special theory of relativity, would I expect a detailed answer from you?
How can you expect an answer from someone who relies on real expert about what the current model is. I assure you those questions you pose are no problem and can be answered by experts yet you ask us here. (Referring to previous post about when you answer my very basic statements)
Because I can't answer questions doesn't mean I am not allowed to assert a theory is true because it's not my job to figure it out, I trust that every scientist has explored and continues to ask as many questions as possible in order to make sure what we have is as correct as possible, then the layman can say pass on what is believed to be true yet know only the basic.
Why do you ask us, because you know we can't answer them? Do you honestly expect me to go with what you say on a forum like this or actual experts?
Eric, I suspect that the only tool answer you will be satisfied with is god.
For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.
I agree with you.
Eric, I suspect that the only tool answer you will be satisfied with is god.
I am trying to understand the tools that nature has without God, and they seem to be time, tempreture, sunlight, sea currents to move chemicals around, and the ability to divide exponentially.
Scientists have studied the sea for many years, have they come up with any other tools that could aid the evoltion of life?
Take care
Eric
Last edited by Eric H; 09-25-2011 at 08:53 AM.
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
Fossils? So if we have every intermediate step from humans back to small organisms, you will concede and say evolution is true?
No, even if fossil records exist for every intermediate stage, I would not accept naturalistic evolution as the reason unless there was an accompanying explanation on the molecular, biological level to show how these heritable differences were passed down without the aid of an intelligent being directing the process.
If I asked you to explain the details of special theory of relativity, would I expect a detailed answer from you?
I spend absolutely zero time thinking about the theory of relativity or the big-bang theory. However, if I chose to be a proponent of relativity as opposed to a competing alternative theory of say 'absolutivity', then I would at least have some basic understanding of the differences and be able to outline why relativity was a stronger, more logical theory.
How can you expect an answer from someone who relies on real expert about what the current model is. I assure you those questions you pose are no problem and can be answered by experts yet you ask us here. (Referring to previous post about when you answer my very basic statements)
Because I can't answer questions doesn't mean I am not allowed to assert a theory is true because it's not my job to figure it out, I trust that every scientist has explored and continues to ask as many questions as possible in order to make sure what we have is as correct as possible, then the layman can say pass on what is believed to be true yet know only the basic.
Why do you ask us, because you know we can't answer them? Do you honestly expect me to go with what you say on a forum like this or actual experts?
Back to my example of the theory of relativity, I neither assert that it is true onr claim that it is false because I don't think about it nor does it conflict with my belief system. I expect for someone who is a proponent of evolution to be able to provide a basic outline for how it was supposed to lead to the emergence of new, reproductively isolated species. How is believing in evolution and trusting the experts to know the details any different from creationism and trusting that God created the species in the manner that suited Him?
My basic contention is that TOE is junk-science that is not supported by the scientific method. Granted, there are cases for micro-evolution with changes within species, but there is no example or molecular model to show how horses/donkey/zebra, lion/tiger/cat, wolf/fox/dog, or human/chimpanzee/monkey each evolved from their respective common ancestors nor how these common ancestors evolved from a single common, unicellular organism such as an amoeba. Evolutionists claim that TOE is based on science, but I contend there is as much blind faith in undirected, naturalistic evolution as there is in belief that Allah (swt) created all past, present, and future life forms.
If TOE is to be taught in school then it should be put on equal footing with creationism. I have no problem with TOE being taught as a theory if it is balanced with pointing out the logical, scientific defects that are not explainable by chance. I have a major problem with teaching TOE as a natural, self-perpetuating fact without providing a logical means to proceed from a common ancestor down to separate species. It is exceedingly disingenuous to present TOE as fact without also pointing out the impossibility of being able to explain how these changes actually occurred over time. Coming back with discounting creationism as relying upon a 'God of the Gaps' is a means to discredit the opposing view in the same manner that one who questions the official 9/11 story is labelled a crazy 'Conspiracy Theorist'.
I am trying to understand the tools that nature has without God, and they seem to be time, tempreture, sunlight, sea currents to move chemicals around, and the ability to divide exponentially.
Scientists have studied the sea for many years, have they come up with any other tools that could aid the evoltion of life?
Peace EricH, TOE does not attempt to explain the origin of the seminal unicellular organism believed to be the equivalent of 'Adam' for all bacterial, plant and animal life. This Common Ancestor is a given without trying to explain how it came to be. TOE claims that genetic mutations and abnormalities over eons of time were the primary means by which differences in survival fitness arose initially in this seminal organism that subsequently branched out into other common ancestors that gave rise to related species. Combined with the genetic changes, reproductive isolation led to the emergence of new species that were able to fit a particular environmental niche. Evolutionists don't present scientific means by which these changes occurred molecularly with how they were passed down biologically.
what has darwin got tosay about the solar system. why is everything in its place? where did the sun come from and why? why is there water on earth? why is it that when water evaporates it never leaves the earth's atmosphere and fly into space? why does it fall back to earth as rain? what gave things the qualities that make sthem evolve, if you say they evolve, etc?
there are many things darwin's theory or scientists have no answers for but ppl close their eyes to those things and just try to show that darwin's theory is corrct. that things evolved from each other and there is no God. but for things to evolve, there has to be a start. where did the first particle come from? what made the universe come into being? what caused the big bang that made the universe? why is everything the way it is? if there were no sun, we'd all freeze to death and there would no adaptation/evolution to begin wiht. if there were no water, there would be no life. where did water come from. if some fool says it came from oxygen and hydrogen gases, where did those gases come from? and why did they combine to make water? what caused the chemical change? and what caused that thing which caused the chemical change?
evolution, even if it is there, cannot happen without someone Wise and Powerful making it happen. without God, nothing is possible.
If the measurements that those neutrinos indeed go faster than light are proven to be correct, Einstein's special relativity totally goes out the window
Peace EricH, TOE does not attempt to explain the origin of the seminal unicellular organism believed to be the equivalent of 'Adam' for all bacterial, plant and animal life. This Common Ancestor is a given without trying to explain how it came to be. TOE claims that genetic mutations and abnormalities over eons of time were the primary means by which differences in survival fitness arose initially in this seminal organism that subsequently branched out into other common ancestors that gave rise to related species. Combined with the genetic changes, reproductive isolation led to the emergence of new species that were able to fit a particular environmental niche. Evolutionists don't present scientific means by which these changes occurred molecularly with how they were passed down biologically
Thanks for your explanation, and appologies that I did not make myself very clear, as I understand from ToE, single cell life came about some four billion years ago. But what tools does nature have to create all the intricate and boring details of life, like bones, muscles, cartilage, and tendons and bring them together to make movement.
I can only think of time, currents to move chemicals around, tempreture change, light and dark, and cell division. But on their own, these tools do not seem adequate to affect change, unless there is more that I am missing.
Peace
Eric
You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.
if evolution was the truth then why arnt monkeys still evolving you dont see monkeys in the zoo becoming humans so thats the first floor for me however i would like to also point out that theirs a misconception that the big bang isnt true when the quran talks about it
Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." Quran 41:11
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? Quran 21:30
I don't think many people contend that it (the big bang) wasn't true, since we have nothing in the Quran or Hadith to say it wasn't, and we do have the above verse to show it may be true.
it's how it happened without intelligence or without being influenced by an Intelligent Being. You need a law for something to change it's course, either it had the intelligence to make the laws up, or Someone gave it laws.
No, evolution doesn't discuss the origin of the universe, but rather attempts to explain speciation of life.
So, E=mc^2 wouldn't be correct either?
Theories are fine for discussion and understanding, but I have difficulty with presenting theories as fact without providing logical means to connect the dots. I don't have a problem with change over time, but I have a major problem with undirected evolution of higher, more complex organisms from very simple organisms using a basically destructive process - genetic mutations.
Let me provide an illustration of creation by man. The point of the detailed paragraph below is that man CREATED something new that did not exist before by transforming a cotton plant with an engineered cassette derived from DNA taken from 3 different bacterial species, a non-living virus and another plant species. Futhermore, it is an absolute impossibility for cotton to ever EVOLVE to where it will likewise express the bacterial Cry1Ac toxin, even though it confers a great selection advantage. A creator, in this case man, was needed to develop something complex from separate individual components and it can never 'just happen'. Likewise, speciation required a Creator to design and direct the development or creation of all living species. It is absolutely, impossible for undirected, naturalistic evolution from a unicellular organism to be the cause for the origin of more complex species with man at the apex.
A biotechnology company, Monsanto, has genetically engineered cotton plants to express a bacterial gene to produce a protein that kills specific insect pests. It is hard to believe, but man has genetically modified a plant species (Gossypium hirsutum, cotton) to express a DNA sequence from a bacterial species (Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt) using a transfer DNA plasmid from another bacterial species (Agrobacterium tumefaciens) to insert the desired Bt gene into the genome of cotton so that it is heritable over generations. This engineered section of DNA also contained a gene from a third bacterial species (Escherichia coli) that confers resistance to an antibiotic used in selecting for transformed cells by killing cells without this gene. The 'Bt' gene, Cry1Ac, is expressed to produce a protein that is toxic specifically to the larval form of several lepidopteran insect species (Heliothis virescens, Helicoverpa zea). The Cry1Ac gene is engineered to be turned on by the 35S promoter isolated from a virus - Cauliflower Mosaic Virus - and to be turned off by a terminator sequence isolated from another plant species (Glycine max, soybean). Cotton cells were treated with the transforming DNA cassette and then cultured in the lab on specific media to select for the few cells that were transformed. The resulting callous of undifferentiated cells was treated with specific hormones to regenerate a transformed plant that was then used to breed with normal biological processes to develop new cotton varieties that kill insects who eat part of the plant expressing the Cry1Ac gene.
I don't know the details of Darwins theory - I did learn it at school but I didn't really like Biology! But as far as I remember reading Darwin only had a very basic microscope so he really didn't understand the complexity of a cell.
Thanks for your explanation, and appologies that I did not make myself very clear, as I understand from ToE, single cell life came about some four billion years ago. But what tools does nature have to create all the intricate and boring details of life, like bones, muscles, cartilage, and tendons and bring them together to make movement.
I can only think of time, currents to move chemicals around, tempreture change, light and dark, and cell division. But on their own, these tools do not seem adequate to affect change, unless there is more that I am missing.
You make a good point and ToE does not provide the details for how those changes came to be on their own by random chance and a whole lot of time. One of the basic tools of ToE is genetic mutation and other heritable alterations that confer selective advantage.
Evolutionists present ToE as fact because there is no better competing theory. My opinion is that there are certain things that are impossible for us to know such as the details of how we came to be and what happens to us when we die. Science does not address any possibility of a soul that continues to exist after a person dies because it can't be measured and subjected to experimentation. Religion touches upon and addresses the super-natural and the unseen world that can't be reduced to elements that fit within our puny little brains.
If those experiments at CERN held true, E=mc^2 would be, at best, as correct as Newtonian laws, that is, only applicable under very special circumstances with many assumptions made and accuracy only within certain limits.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Theories are fine for discussion and understanding, but I have difficulty with presenting theories as fact without providing logical means to connect the dots. I don't have a problem with change over time, but I have a major problem with undirected evolution of higher, more complex organisms from very simple organisms using a basically destructive process - genetic mutations.
Exactly.
We know that entropy laws is among the basic laws of our universe, that is, disorder is more probable than order. And if nature is left as it is with no outside input, the opposite is actually more probable, that is, "evolution" from man to microbes is more probable than evolution from microbes to man.
^ I wouldn't recommend listening to Yusuf Estes for anything science related. A lot of what he says is good, but I don't think he knows much about the actual theory of evolution... (Can't believe he's still using the, "Aha! Then why are there still monkeys?!" argument...)
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Darwins theory of Evolution? (OP)
جوري liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks