Atheism

Is there evidence for the existence of God?


  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well there are obvious similarities between us and the great apes. In fact if you look at the skeletons of all mammals it is obvious that we are really similar. Go to your local museum and have a look. Now it is also obvious that human bones and monkey bones are really really similar. In fact if they did not bend the skeleton in museums to make them look more ape-like I doubt that you would be able to tell a gorilla skeleton from a human one. If you look at live gorillas or chimpanzees it is also obvious that we are a lot alike. I don't think that even Creationists would deny that fundamental similarities between us and the great apes. Besides, which book are you thinking of? Darwin was very careful about upsetting people and talking about monkeys.

Just in passing, Darwin wrote during the Victorian period when everyone had more time and was a lot more serious. So his books are not packaged in the "sound-bite" style of modern authors. They take a lot of time and some serious thinking, but he is very sensible and I would recommend him in general.

i understand your theories and form of thinking, you have certain logic behind your words. But truth is many things resemble others, a pen resembles a pencil yet both are completely different in essence! A leopard resembles a jaguar yet both are very different! A tiger is close to a lion yet both are very different! A crocodile luks like an Eel sum mite say yet both are very different! Why after so many years is there no direct proof of evolution if it did exist yet tons of proof comes out proving the quran to be the true word of Allah swt?

:peace: :)
 
i understand your theories and form of thinking, you have certain logic behind your words.

Well alas I can claim little as my own.

But truth is many things resemble others, a pen resembles a pencil yet both are completely different in essence! A leopard resembles a jaguar yet both are very different! A tiger is close to a lion yet both are very different! A crocodile luks like an Eel sum mite say yet both are very different!

Well absolutely. And there is a problem because animals often evolve to fill niches - so if two creates evolve to fill the same niche at different times or in different places, they will often look a like. The Ichthyosaurs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosaur) looks a lot like a dolphin or a small whale. The Tasmanian tiger looked a lot like a wolf even thought it was related to kangaroos. So this is not proof of evolution, but it is proof of our relationship with other creatures including monkeys. I do not mind if you say that God was economical and so used the same basic plan for all mammals and even more so for all primates (that's us and the apes), but it is obvious that we are closely related to the great apes. Even if you look at them, especially young ones, you can see we are kin - no matter how that relation arose.

Why after so many years is there no direct proof of evolution if it did exist yet tons of proof comes out proving the quran to be the true word of Allah swt?

There is ample evidence of evolution. We see it in MRSA, we see it in some plant species, it is the only way to explain the fossil record and life as we can see it today.
 
There is ample evidence of evolution. We see it in MRSA, we see it in some plant species, it is the only way to explain the fossil record and life as we can see it today.

You are speaking of the similarities again, this is no proof that one came from the other.

as for fossils chek this out:

THE FOSSIL RECORD DENIES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

53a-1.jpg


^^The theory of evolution maintains that different groups of living things (phyla) developed from a common ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time. The diagram left states this claim: According to Darwinism, living things grew apart from one another like the branches on a tree.

53b-1.jpg

But the fossil record shows just the opposite. As can be seen from the diagram left, different groups of living things emerged suddenly with their different structures. Some 100 phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. Subsequently, the number of these fell rather than rose (because some phyla became extinct).

Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)

The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different.

Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at ScienceNews magazine states the following about the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:

A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57

The same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studied the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today."58

55-1.jpg

This illustration portrays living things with complex structures from the Cambrian Age. The emergence of such different creatures with no preceding ancestors completely invalidates Darwinist theory.




And lastly chek this:

Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.60


A fossil from the Cambrian Age.
As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once, and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The diagrams on page 53 reveal the truth that the fossil record has revealed concerning the origin of phyla.



Hope that clears up the fossil business :)


SOURCE: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_02.html
 
modern science has found that all things originated from water-the Quran said this more than 1400 yrs ago. so yes to some extent the evolution theory may be correct as part of God's great plan for this world to be able to survive by adapting to surroundings but as for humans-we are in the form God created us in-maybe a lot smaller than our anscesters but in the same form
 
modern science has found that all things originated from water-the Quran said this more than 1400 yrs ago. so yes to some extent the evolution theory may be correct as part of God's great plan for this world to be able to survive by adapting to surroundings but as for humans-we are in the form God created us in-maybe a lot smaller than our anscesters but in the same form

I am unconvinced that modern science has found all things originated from water - there is dispute about how much the climate was affected by the rise of life and hence whether the water we see today exists because life made it possible or the other way around. Although admittedly that might just be me.

However, why do you think that we are smaller than our ancestors? Apart, of course, from anything the Quran or aHadith might have to say.
 
I am unconvinced that modern science has found all things originated from water - there is dispute about how much the climate was affected by the rise of life and hence whether the water we see today exists because life made it possible or the other way around. Although admittedly that might just be me.

However, why do you think that we are smaller than our ancestors? Apart, of course, from anything the Quran or aHadith might have to say.

plz dont ignore my post :( i am very interested in what you make out of it :peace:
 
However, why do you think that we are smaller than our ancestors? Apart, of course, from anything the Quran or aHadith might have to say.
apart from the Quran and hadith there is evidence of huge ancient graves for really large bodies etc.
 
You are speaking of the similarities again, this is no proof that one came from the other.

I agree it is not proof that one came from another. Admittedly I think it is a first step to accepting that one came from another. But it is your mockery of the idea we are related to the great apes that is the issue at the moment. People like mocking monkeys for some reason I do not understand. Even if you do not accept evolution we are obviously related and I for one am proud to be related to gorillas.

as for fossils chek this out:

THE FOSSIL RECORD DENIES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

^^The theory of evolution maintains that different groups of living things (phyla) developed from a common ancestor and grew apart with the passing of time. The diagram left states this claim: According to Darwinism, living things grew apart from one another like the branches on a tree.​


>sigh< The theory of evolution does make that claim. In general terms. But there is no reason to think it has to occur exactly as that graph shows it. It does not appear in Darwin's work after all.

But the fossil record shows just the opposite. As can be seen from the diagram left, different groups of living things emerged suddenly with their different structures. Some 100 phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. Subsequently, the number of these fell rather than rose (because some phyla became extinct).

Indeed. Biologists talk of the Cambrian Explosion for that reason. But notice these are phyla - not species as such. That is, they are taking the larger groups of species, and not comparing the number of species per se. A phyla might have one member. It might have a hundred thousand. They are poor measures of diversity.

Before then, there is no trace in the fossil record of anything apart from single-celled creatures and a few very primitive multicellular ones. All animal phyla emerged completely formed and all at once, in the very short period of time represented by the Cambrian explosion. (Five million years is a very short time in geological terms!)

Indeed it is. The Cambrian explosion is interesting for that reason and it is not yet fully explored. But you have to remember a few things: 1. There fossil record is incomplete. Because we have not found a fossil from before the Cambrian, it does not mean that they did not exist and 2. classification of phyla and even species is a controversial issue. They are to some extent artificial and dependent on what scientists think. They also start in the present and grow back. You might reclassify some of those fossils and change the whole way you look at the Cambrian. People argue over how to classify fossils all the time and the Cambrian is no exception.

The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belong to very different creatures, such as snails, trilobites, sponges, jellyfish, starfish, shellfish, etc. Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. These structures are at one and the same time very advanced, and very different.

Indeed. It is amazing. However it is not proof that evolution is wrong.

Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at ScienceNews magazine states the following about the "Cambrian explosion," which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:

A half-billion years ago, ...the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.57

Notice the dishonesty with which this website takes a claim by a scientist and subtly claims that it says something it does not - where does Monastersky claim that the Cambrian is a deathtrap for evolution?

The same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studied the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today."58

Which is interesting but again irrelevant unless the authors of that website are asserting he is claiming something he is not.

This illustration portrays living things with complex structures from the Cambrian Age. The emergence of such different creatures with no preceding ancestors completely invalidates Darwinist theory.

No it does not actually because of course they had preceeding ancestors.

And lastly chek this:

Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism,

What you fail to mention is that Professor Johnson is a professor in Law. Not biology. Now some people might think that was relevant. Do you?

describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.60

Darwinism does not insist on a perfectly symmetrical, smooth, cone. Nor is measurement by phyla necessarily the best way to measure diversity.

Hope that clears up the fossil business :)

Try it on a species basis, not a phyla basis.

Isn't it interesting that Muslims rely so heavily on Christians to "refute" Darwinism? It really brings home to me how knowledge-poor the Muslim world is. I was expecting an Islam-based school of anti-science, but instead all I find is recycled Christian apologetics. It is not just that there are almost no Muslim scientists of note, and unfortunately there are so very few, it is that there are no Muslims who reject science who are capable of doing so in an informed and knowledgeable way. It is an amazing indictment of the Muslim education systems of the world.​
 
WE ARE SAYING, THAT DARWIN DID NOT AGREE WITH HIS OWN THEORY, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO JUSTIFY THE PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY FOR US.

Your starting from a flawed premis, Darwin acknowledged his own concerns for the theory concerns of which modern science today is able to resolve. if you think this means he created his theory and then invalidated it you are nuts.

A quick example would be a recent new study that supports natural selection (Darwins favoured mechanism for evolution) is a driving force behind evolution:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0508653103v1
 
lol heigou i gotta hand it 2 u ur one tough nut to crak ;) ;)

That because you all evolved from monkeys. I evolved from horseshoe crabs. Tough shells you know. If you weren't so squishy on the outside, you'd be tough too.

Power to Arthropods! Death to Invertebrates! Boil anyone with a backbone - see if they like it!
 
That because you all evolved from monkeys. I evolved from horseshoe crabs. Tough shells you know. If you weren't so squishy on the outside, you'd be tough too.

Power to Arthropods! Death to Invertebrates! Boil anyone with a backbone - see if they like it!
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!;D :giggling:
 
Cambrian Explosion

Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).


There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.

Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).

Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top