A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Independent]

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.

i meant after the fact of the Big bang itself, not a scientist writing about it.

But now I see you meant something else by your comment. You were trying to say that the Qur'an wrote about events (the Big Bang) before we knew about them, not before they happened. Once again this is getting into a different topic and i don't want to digress - so I'll simply say that from a scientific point of view I don't think it's clear what the Qur'an is describing, whether the Big Bang or otherwise. Also, why do so many people reject evolution because 'you can't see it' while still accepting the Big Bang which no one was around to witness?

We can't ask God why He created the world this way and not that way.

We can't demand an answer and we're not going to get one anyway. But that doesn't mean it's not ok to ask the question. People interpret all kinds of things about 'God's intentions' from, for example, the hadiths. Those interpretations are based on certain principles such as a faith in a just and logical God. I am looking at the issue of evolution in the same way. For the development of the species to take the pattern that it has makes no logical sense, unless it is the result of a process more or less similar to TOE.

 

[observer]

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

You accept "best guess" science in every other area of your life - computing, medicine, communications, aviation etc. etc. etc. Only with evolution does there seem to be the argument that "It's just a theory, we don't really know".

 

[جوري]

Did you miss geology at school?

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

No we don't we know they exist, there's nothing connecting one to the other least of which by means you suggest!
Glad you subscribe to the fact that we haven't always been - as the lot of you consistently miss the subject of origins!

 

[observer]

Glad you subscribe to the fact that we haven't always been - as the lot of you consistently miss the subject of origins!

Consistently miss or recognise as a different question?

The beginning of life and its subsequent evolution are separate - we don't need to understand the one to understand the other (although it will be lovely when we understand both fully of course).

 

[جوري]

They're not separate - it's unfortunate that the lot of you are dishonest and full of useless verbiage!

Best,

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

The pattern shows both separate species and new adaptions appearing over time. The species occur in the correct order as well as the adaptions. 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 pattern of species development does not fit what you would expect from Creationism. Of course, it could be true (because in creationism, anything at all can happen without explanation) but it is still not logical.

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

It seems this discussion is based on assumptions - assumptions about the fossil record and also assumptions about how God created animals. This is why there may be an apparent conflict due to a misunderstanding of either the science or the scripture, but in reality there is no true contradiction.

Assuming the development of species is as you describe, I don't see how it would be illogical at all. There are many examples were God has created things to occur in stages despite His ability to create them instantaneously, and there is nothing that God does but there is great wisdom in it. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, despite His ability to create them in the blink of an eye. We see gradual stages in our own selves - the various stages a human goes through in the womb, then the transition from weakness to growing into adults, then returning to a stage of fragility. We observe the gradual growth around us from seeds into plants. Day and night gradually merge into each other. Even laws were ordained gradually or by degrees to make it easier for people to practice. Moses :as: went through a period of preparation for forty nights to fulfil the great trust which was about to be given to him. God could have done things very differently, but as always there are lessons for us to learn from the way He has created the world.

The fact is that there is no set way one would 'expect' the earth to look from a creationist point of view. In the absence of clear textual evidence to the contrary, scientific claims stand or fall on their own merits and can never change the notion of a logical and just God.

 

[Karl]

Greetings Independent,



It seems this discussion is based on assumptions - assumptions about the fossil record and also assumptions about how God created animals. This is why there may be an apparent conflict due to a misunderstanding of either the science or the scripture, but in reality there is no true contradiction.

Assuming the development of species is as you describe, I don't see how it would be illogical at all. There are many examples were God has created things to occur in stages despite His ability to create them instantaneously, and there is nothing that God does but there is great wisdom in it. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, despite His ability to create them in the blink of an eye. We see gradual stages in our own selves - the various stages a human goes through in the womb, then the transition from weakness to growing into adults, then returning to a stage of fragility. We observe the gradual growth around us from seeds into plants. Day and night gradually merge into each other. Even laws were ordained gradually or by degrees to make it easier for people to practice. Moses :as: went through a period of preparation for forty nights to fulfil the great trust which was about to be given to him. God could have done things very differently, but as always there are lessons for us to learn from the way He has created the world.

The fact is that there is no set way one would 'expect' the earth to look from a creationist point of view. In the absence of clear textual evidence to the contrary, scientific claims stand or fall on their own merits and can never change the notion of a logical and just God.

And remember the six days are not stated as six Earth days of 24 hours. The days must have been a period of vast epochs. Light coming from distant galaxies can take billions of years to reach Earth so we can see billions of years into the past. We are relatively in one closely connected time zone while the outer heavens are in vastly different time zones to our observations as the speed of light is a crawl, cosmically speaking. Religions are not science textbooks, their forte seems to be codes of conduct and how to live in a "civilized" way. Science does not deal with morals or ethics as these are subjective and do not compute, they are not measurable facts but intangibles like Arts. TOE is a belief as a religion is a belief. But belief is not good enough for real science. So why not leave TOE on the shelf until total scientific enlightenment is accomplished. In a few thousand years in the future TOE could be considered as pathetic as the flawed sciences in the past.

 

[M.I.A.]

you guys should take a time out and watch the video.. its science.. although slightly off topic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

 

[greenhill]

It seems this discussion is based on assumptions - assumptions about the fossil record and also assumptions about how God created animals. This is why there may be an apparent conflict due to a misunderstanding of either the science or the scripture, but in reality there is no true contradiction.

. . . .

The fact is that there is no set way one would 'expect' the earth to look from a creationist point of view. In the absence of clear textual evidence to the contrary, scientific claims stand or fall on their own merits and can never change the notion of a logical and just God.

Better said than what I was composing last night. . . still couldn't conclude it this morning. . . so I confined it to the bin after reading this.


eace:

 

[Muhaba]

Surely you would find a three-legged creature's fossil before the creature realized that it wasn't possible to walk with three legs and two were enough! And you might even find fossil of a six-legged dog or horse or cat. What about animals with two tails? Why are there none? Why are animals so aesthetically appealing instead of being horribly ugly? There is no reason why chance evolution would result in this. What about nutritious plants instead of poisonous plants? Why are there plants that help other creatures survive instead of killing them? Chance evolution wouldn't make everything so compatible with each other. Plants should've realized that it was better to be poisonous and horrible tasting because it would help them survive better.

 

[Independent]

Greetings Muhammad

It seems this discussion is based on assumptions - assumptions about the fossil record and also assumptions about how God created animals.

If I were to assume a direct ancestral connection between specific fossils, that would be an assumption. But I'm not making that assumption and neither does evolutionary science today. (Even though many members here still think they do.)

What we can do with certainty is to map the broad chronological development of species and characteristics across the last 3.5 billion years. There is no assumption in this. It's not even a matter of evolutionary science, this is mostly geology.

The chronological map shows an overall trend across all species - from single cell, simple creatures to a mix of simple and the ever-more complex. The same pattern is visible in specific characteristics within species (bilateralism etc).

This pattern is exactly what you would expect from a TOE world.

As it stands, about 1.2 million species have been described by science. Had any one of these been found in the wrong place, in the wrong time, or with inappropriate characteristics, it would have the potential to disprove TOE in a single leap. But they're all consistent.

So, if this is an 'assumption', then it's one that's consistent with all 1.2 million items of evidence collected so far. I'd be very happy with that degree of evidence.

The fact is that there is no set way one would 'expect' the earth to look from a creationist point of view

With respect, I strongly disagree that it's impossible to infer anything about a Creationist world. In particular, you would not expect to find laws, structures, patterns and mechanisms which have the potential to diversify life in the way we see it, because such laws are entirely superfluous and would never be used. To compare with physics, it's like acknowledging that there is a force called gravity, but claiming that it has nothing to do with holding planets in their orbits etc. Yet in physics, Muslims and Christians accept the part played by gravity.

Everywhere you look in nature you find patterns that don't make sense with Creationism. Take marsupials for example. Why are they confined to Australia and South/Central America? We can see the first marsupials appearing about 120 million years ago. One species made it to Australia shortly after it split off, where placental mammals had previously become extinct. In the absence of competition marsupials diversified progressively into the two hundred odd hundred species we see today. All this is consistent with TOE, but makes no sense by divine fiat.

In a Creationist world, there is no logically determinable reason at all for marsupials or any other creature to be in one place or time rather than another. Of course, you can always say that it could happen. An all powerful God can do anything. But it's not 'anything' that we see. We see a world with very specific characteristics. This world matches what would be expected if it were a result of TOE. Why?

Inexplicably, we're also asked to believe that God has created the mechanism for limited or 'micro' evolution within species, but stopped short of enabling macro evolution. Instead He has decided to create the same creatures that might plausibly have evolved anyway, but by divine fiat. Why?

It is far more logical and consistent with what you already believe regarding astrophysics to see God as creating the laws of TOE, rather than individually creating each species one by one through the ages, in a pattern that is not just unnecessary but actively misleading.

 

[Independent]

Surely you would find a three-legged creature's fossil before the creature realized that it wasn't possible to walk with three legs

I repeat, although there is an element of chance in evolution, that doesn't mean that anything is possible at every stage. The range of possible changes is constrained by what has already happened to the individual species as well as other fundamental limitations in form. (By the way, the fact that creatures appear to obey such constraints is also evidence against Creationism, where evolution should not be subject to any constraints.)

Why are animals so aesthetically appealing instead of being horribly ugly? There is no reason why chance evolution would result in this

Why we find some things attractive and others ugly is a very interesting subject of debate but one that deserves a thread in its own right.

Why are there plants that help other creatures survive instead of killing them? Chance evolution wouldn't make everything so compatible with each other. Plants should've realized that it was better to be poisonous and horrible tasting because it would help them survive better.

If you study botany, you will find that plants adopt a huge range of strategies for survival. Some have defences, some mimic, some are poisonous, some want to be eaten because it spreads seeds, some rely on massive propagation so it doesn't matter how many get eaten. Whatever works.

Also, plants don't 'realise' anything. If they did they might not become extinct quite so often.

On this subject, it's very interesting to look at the example of Australia. It used to be said that aborignees were far more integrated with the ecology than the arriving Europeans, with their inappropriate farming practices. This was half true - the farming methods were often damaging. But the only reason aborignees now appear to be in harmony with the ecology was because, when they first arrived some 50,000 years previously, they destroyed any number of species by their own inappropriate practices.

So when you look at it another way, far from being prototype eco warriors, what we see today are the only species that survived their unintentional onslaught.

 

[greenhill]

But I'm not making that assumption and neither does evolutionary science today. (Even though many members here still think they do.)

Not making the assumption yet strongly leaning towards the belief we came from apes? So what are the members here to think?

What we can do with certainty is to map the broad chronological development of species and characteristics across the last 3.5 billion years. There is no assumption in this. It's not even a matter of evolutionary science, this is mostly geology.

So, again there is no assumption and it is mostly geology . . . . and . . .

This pattern is exactly what you would expect from a TOE world.

So, what we have are different variations of a specie spread over different areas, some over a different times and we have some indigenous to a geographic location. Some 'may' have 'mutated' to better suit the environment over eons. How do they mutate? What begins the process of mutation? Allah is not random. His 'work' all have patterns. And TOE is trying to fit into it. We believe that if you start on an incorrect trajectory, you will end up in a different destination. Evolution does not jump without 'The' expressive command.

it's like acknowledging that there is a force called gravity, but claiming that it has nothing to do with holding planets in their orbits etc. Yet in physics, Muslims and Christians accept the part played by gravity.

There are quotes in the Qur'an regarding this. How the planet and moon and sun all have their chartered course, perhaps not fully understood back then. Now physics confirms it. If it claimed that the sun revolved around the earth, then that would be a glaring error! If the Qur'an stated 'gravity', would we then believe?

In the absence of competition marsupials diversified progressively into the two hundred odd hundred species we see today. All this is consistent with TOE, but makes no sense by divine fiat.

Makes perfect sense. As I said in my earlier post, we made definitions, we try to classify God's work and we try to understand and make 'laws' that will bind them and always come up with anomalies. Allah's work, though mostly have patterns, are not bound by our need to understand.

We see a world with very specific characteristics. This world matches what would be expected if it were a result of TOE. Why?

Because, it was created that way. Using a pattern, starting with water (our cells are largely water), soil (we are what we eat), and when the body is developed, the life spirit is blown in.

It is far more logical and consistent with what you already believe regarding astrophysics to see God as creating the laws of TOE, rather than individually creating each species one by one through the ages, in a pattern that is not just unnecessary but actively misleading.

This one needs a longer explanation. In brief it is summed up in the final 2 lines of ayatul Kursi (2:255)

"His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great."

He tires not of His creation. He does not create and leave it. He plays a very active role in what goes around. Only, we cannot 'see' it.

You should read what wikipedia says about creation in islam. I like its simplicity. That may help you grasp the islamic trajectory with regards to what TOE is propagating.

eace:

 

[Independent]

Not making the assumption yet strongly leaning towards the belief we came from apes?

It's commonly believed by TOE critics that evolutionists assume direct descent between specific fossils/species. But they don't. It's important to make this clear because it comes along with many pointless posts about Piltdown Man etc, which are shooting at non existent targets.

As i say, the broad historical trend is NOT an assumption. If someone disagrees with it, they need to show all the species that don't fit.

This pattern alone reveals a world which is what we would expect if TOE were true, even if you looked at no other evidence and made no other deduction. I do not claim that it proves TOE. But the balance of probability is very strong and there is no other theory that attempts to account for this evidence. So yes, i personally take the extra step and say that I believe we have descended from a common ancestor with apes. For me, it is arrogant to believe that my species can't have humble origins, just because we're so clever now. In addition I see the traces of a host of adaptions with humans that match our non human relatives which also fit this theory.

You should read what wikipedia says about creation in islam. I like its simplicity. That may help you grasp the islamic trajectory with regards to what TOE is propagating.

As i have said many times, i don't see a necessary conflict between TOE and faith in God. Many Christians and Muslims believe in both. But as this thread has continued i am seeing that perhaps the obstacles are greater than i thought. This is particularly true for Muslims, because of the tremendous urge to confirm the literal truth of every word in the Qur'an. As a result, there are all kinds of statements which i find difficult to reconcile with science, even as Muslims are driven to assert their total conformity with reality.

Maybe it's harder than i thought to find a common ground.

 

[observer]

Why are animals so aesthetically appealing instead of being horribly ugly? There is no reason why chance evolution would result in this.

I was listening to a radio programme just the other day about this. It said that pretty, cute animals are given far more conservation resources than ugly animals. It's a serious issue, meaning that millions are ploughed into saving lovely pandas but nothing into saving certain species of parasitic worm!

A conservationist has started a society to promote awareness (he does it through comedy) of these ugly animals: http://uglyanimalsoc.com/

This year's ugliest animal was the chap below - not aesthetically pleasing by any standard definition! Although of course, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

(Sorry - off-topic)

 

[Muhaba]

I repeat, although there is an element of chance in evolution, that doesn't mean that anything is possible at every stage. The range of possible changes is constrained by what has already happened to the individual species as well as other fundamental limitations in form. (By the way, the fact that creatures appear to obey such constraints is also evidence against Creationism, where evolution should not be subject to any constraints.)

You have an reply to everything but it doesn't make sense. There should be no constraints to random evolution. Also, things shouldn't evolve only in ways that benefit them. Random chance evolution should cause all sort of different organisms with parts that are completely useless. In no way are constraints evidence against creationism. God created creatures that are perfect and compatible with each other and the environment. Had things evolved without intervention from God, you'd see all sort of weird creatures with malfunctioning parts. Also, there is no reason why all creatures in a particular specie should evolve in a similar manner. The whole animal kingdom would be disorganized. Furthermore, two perfectly compatible genders in so many creatures shows that it isn't a chance occurrence. The fact that the male and the female in each specie has a particular role, further shows that this organized system isn't due to chance evolution.

 

[Independent]

Also, things shouldn't evolve only in ways that benefit them. Random chance evolution should cause all sort of different organisms with parts that are completely useless.

Then the creature dies young and is not positively selected.

Also, there is no reason why all creatures in a particular specie should evolve in a similar manner.

It doesn't happen in all of them at once - the change spreads through the population over many generations because it is positively selected.

Furthermore, two perfectly compatible genders in so many creatures shows that it isn't a chance occurrence

Amongst lower orders of creatures there are many different kinds of reproduction besides male/female sex.

There should be no constraints to random evolution

At every stage, a creature is the sum of all the evolutionary developments that have already happened. New developments can only happen or be positively selected within this current environment. For example, you can only improve a hand by the addition of a thumb if you have a hand in the first place. Plainly this is a very significant constraint on variety.

There are other constraints at a technical levels. For instance, homeobox genes (known as hox genes) are a group of genes that control the body plan development at the embryo stage. They regulate the expression of many individual genes which confer specific features. A error in the way the hox gene behaves can have a radical effect on the structure of the body, but only within certain patterns (eg legs appearing where wings should be). It is a 'chance' event, but the number of possible results is relatively small.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

What we can do with certainty is to map the broad chronological development of species and characteristics across the last 3.5 billion years. There is no assumption in this. It's not even a matter of evolutionary science, this is mostly geology.

The chronological map shows an overall trend across all species - from single cell, simple creatures to a mix of simple and the ever-more complex. The same pattern is visible in specific characteristics within species (bilateralism etc).

The geological findings represent data which is then organised into a theory. This process of interpreting patterns and forming theories is not infallible. You mentioned earlier that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record. It is quite possible (and what tends to happen is) that as more data becomes available, theories may change. Science is not about certainty. Moreover, the data may give information about one small aspect of the theory but leaves much unexplained. The other reason why I used the word assumption is because I personally do not know the strength of evidences in the fossil record and haven't seen many references regarding it, so much of the scientific information presented in the thread is being taken at face-value.

With respect, I strongly disagree that it's impossible to infer anything about a Creationist world. In particular, you would not expect to find laws, structures, patterns and mechanisms which have the potential to diversify life in the way we see it, because such laws are entirely superfluous and would never be used. To compare with physics, it's like acknowledging that there is a force called gravity, but claiming that it has nothing to do with holding planets in their orbits etc. Yet in physics, Muslims and Christians accept the part played by gravity.

The same things with which you argue against Creationism, I see as evidences for it. The fact that our world is designed with laws, patterns and mechanisms is a sign that a Creator fashioned it. This is where the analogy of finding a watch in the desert may be used - when we see something functioning so intricately and smoothly, our logic dictates that it must have been created. Why do we neglect to use the same logic when it comes to the best of all Creators? On the analogy of gravity - I see no problem in acknowledging the force of gravity as a force created by God. Ultimately, nothing functions on its own and all things are controlled by God.

Everywhere you look in nature you find patterns that don't make sense with Creationism. Take marsupials for example. Why are they confined to Australia and South/Central America?

I do not see anything in this example, or any other patterns, that conflict with Creationism. Being in once place at one time neither proves nor disproves anything here.

Inexplicably, we're also asked to believe that God has created the mechanism for limited or 'micro' evolution within species, but stopped short of enabling macro evolution. Instead He has decided to create the same creatures that might plausibly have evolved anyway, but by divine fiat. Why?

I cannot answer for God. Why did God create Jesus :as: without a father, even though there could have been both parents? Or the heavens and the earth in six days...

It is far more logical and consistent with what you already believe regarding astrophysics to see God as creating the laws of TOE, rather than individually creating each species one by one through the ages, in a pattern that is not just unnecessary but actively misleading.

Where did anyone say that God created each species one by one through the ages? I do not know exactly how He created the animals, so we have to be careful of assuming. Whatever way He chose, I believe it would always be done for a reason whether we understand it or not.

For me, it is arrogant to believe that my species can't have humble origins, just because we're so clever now.

Then you are one step in the right direction, as God reminds mankind of their humble origins:

Has there [not] come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing [even] mentioned? Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing. Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful. [Qur'an 76:1-3]

Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop - then at once he is a clear adversary? And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" [36:77-78]

But as this thread has continued i am seeing that perhaps the obstacles are greater than i thought. This is particularly true for Muslims, because of the tremendous urge to confirm the literal truth of every word in the Qur'an. As a result, there are all kinds of statements which i find difficult to reconcile with science, even as Muslims are driven to assert their total conformity with reality.

Maybe it's harder than i thought to find a common ground.

This thread has been less about Muslims trying to prove anything in the Qur'an, and more about atheists compelling the rest of us to believe in their theory of evolution. You reiterate that you see no necessary conflict between the theory of evolution and faith in God. But in attempting to explain everything as though having a mind of its own, we gradually diminish the role and recognition of God. There is also a clear conflict if we are being asked to accept common descent from apes, or other parts of the theory like life originating from lifeless matter.

At the end of the day, none of us knows all the answers as to how the world was created and why it was created in the way that it was. But let us not forget that geology is not the only tool at our disposal. God endowed each of us with an innate nature and intellect to reflect over the signs in our own selves and in the universe. He has sent to us Prophets and given us Scripture. We should not neglect any of these in trying to realise the purpose of our existence.


So remind [O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم], for you are not, by the favor of your Lord, a soothsayer or a madman.
Or do they say [of you], "A poet for whom we await a misfortune of time?"
Say, "Wait, for indeed I am, with you, among the waiters."
Or do their minds command them to [say] this, or are they a transgressing people?
Or do they say, "He has made it up"? Rather, they do not believe.
Then let them produce a statement like it, if they should be truthful.
Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
Or have they the depositories [containing the provision] of your Lord? Or are they the controllers [of them]?
Or have they a stairway [into the heaven] upon which they listen? Then let their listener produce a clear authority.
Or has He daughters while you have sons?
Or do you, [O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم], ask of them a payment, so they are by debt burdened down?
Or have they [knowledge of] the unseen, so they write [it] down?
Or do they intend a plan? But those who disbelieve - they are the object of a plan.
Or have they a deity other than Allah ? Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.
And if they were to see a fragment from the sky falling, they would say, "[It is merely] clouds heaped up."
So leave them until they meet their Day in which they will be struck insensible -
The Day their plan will not avail them at all, nor will they be helped.
And indeed, for those who have wronged is a punishment before that, but most of them do not know.
And be patient, [O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم], for the decision of your Lord, for indeed, you are in Our eyes. And exalt [ Allah ] with praise of your Lord when you arise.
And in a part of the night exalt Him and after [the setting of] the stars.

[at-Tur: 29-49]

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

What we can do with certainty is to map the broad chronological development of species and characteristics across the last 3.5 billion years. There is no assumption in this. It's not even a matter of evolutionary science, this is mostly geology.

The chronological map shows an overall trend across all species - from single cell, simple creatures to a mix of simple and the ever-more complex. The same pattern is visible in specific characteristics within species (bilateralism etc).

This pattern is exactly what you would expect from a TOE world.

As it stands, about 1.2 million species have been described by science.

What percentage of these 1.2 million species, show evidence of TOE in action, from the time the first bone made its appearance, to the time a full working skeletal system came into being?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Muhaba]

Excellent video. Must watch
[video=vimeo;71162398]http://vimeo.com/71162398[/video]