Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?

[root]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

While you might not be the author of this article (in post no.13), I have still referred to him as "you" - just in case you got a bit confused. And in my opinion, intelligent design and creationism are hardly any different and seem to only complicate matters therefore I have treated the two as though they are almost one, and of course I am speaking from an Islamic viewpoint in the discussion

I can accept that. Afterall, Creationists came first. Intelligent Design simply removes God from the equation. And simply debates on complexity, not through scientific evidence. ID or Creationism does not have any of that.

So you do admit that it's illogical to believe in a creation without a Creator!

If I believed in God, I would ask him to give me strength. As I said above, please read it before blindly posting. I answered this, drawing a paralell that an intelligent designed video camera does not have design flaws like a "blind Spot" in the human eye. (Post 13)

I don't think it's right to say "beyond all reasonable doubt". It has been mentioned earlier that
The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero.
As is stated towards the end of the article, there are many controversies in science and thus its a grossly inaccurate assertion to say that there are no doubts.

Again you are blindly ranting. Any Biologist with a PhD has to accept micro-evolution. Thus your objection is useless. It exists so get over it.

The very words "trial and error" and "breathtakingly ingenious designs" don't seem to go very well together, logically speaking.

Biology scientists disagree with you. I know who I have my money on with the choice of words and it is not you in this case. An organisms ability to beat antibiotics is quite breath taking and ingenious.............. You in this case are DEAD WRONG

And so you are saying by blind experimentation, everything was created in an orderly, systematic procedure - all with a purpose and in a highly skilled manner?

You really don't get the theory of evolution do you.

Harun Yahya refutes these claims and explains how even primitive eyes could not have emerged by chance, at the same time and in the same being.

I have no respect for anyone wishing to challenge a theory by starting out discussing Satan. Besides he does not refute it, merely tries to show complexity. He does not even mention if that the eye is so perfect, why does it have a blind spot. Surely no "Created" video camera would have such a flaw. Why does he not publish his work in peer reviewed scientific journals. The answer of course is that he has no theory, no testable data. Zippo, nothing. Just "Faith" which don't cut the mustartd when challenging sound scientific principles.

Unfortunately, Computer models are not the same as real-life scenarios.

Your joking are you not!!!!!!! When a computer simulation works out the load that a "theoretical" bridge can hold based on a theoretical design (the bridge is not built yet). It's accurate and complete. This is just a load of B/S. your talking.

Oh, so now that you don't understand something, it's a fault of God is it, but anything that's too good to be true is down to a bit of luck and chance...

Your misrepresenting ID here. I thought your claim the eye is a perfect creation without flaw, complexity far too complex not to have a creator. Why are you so upset when we point out a design flaw in your perceived perfect creation. Again, camcorder anyone!

Which goes to show that natural selection could not account for such marvelous design, for if it really is "without purpose" and "without intelligence", why are "ingenious designs" attributed to such processes?

Your repeating yourself. However, ingenious designs are observed in the lab without a designer.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. We might as well add in, "and eyes are not made up of tiny seeing things"! You are digging the hole deeper for yourself when you say "this is hard to understand", for indeed, the very concept that purposeless and random processes created working complexities is what people like me are wondering ourselves. Coloured objects might consist of colourless atoms, but those atoms did not spontaneously appear and form into that object of their own accord.

LOL, I think the point went straight over your head.

And having an understanding of the Islamic faith to some degree, I would have thought that you understood that we do not base our beliefs on scientific discoveries or else we would have published our own journals by now!

Faith ain't science so why are you debating a scientific theory with faith. Bring forth the evidence of ID or don't respond to this post of mine.

Codswallop.

OK, if it is codswallop. Please post me a scientifically credited peer reviewed theory supporting ID....... I dare ya!!!!!!!!! This is because there is none. zippo, dotto.

Actually it is, because if you want a theory to be accepted then at least explain it to the full rather than leaving gaps here and there (when there shouldn't be any) for assumptions.

The theory of evolution does not seek and nor should it provide theory to the formation of the universe. I have already posted the scientific defenition of Evolution. Your nuts to even support the idea that science should merge theories, that is called "natural History". Stop being ignorant.

Lol, you know that sounds almost as absurd as the engineer-from-another-galaxy-coming-to-earth hypothesis!

Yes I agree, however the truth is it cannot challenge the well understood theory of evolution. Yet by itself it CAN challenge ID (think about it)!!!!!!

Well at least the author admits the "insufficiently supported by hard facts" bit, which kind of disappoints the reader to say the least. After all this rubbish about "intelligent design proponents" not showing hard evidence, materialists can't even do it themselves and come up with such unbelievable conclusions and act as though they're the first thing that would come to mind when someone should wonder about the origin of life!

Again you miss the point by miles.

P.S. Thankyou for clarifying the meaning of evolution; I will be more careful when discussing it with you.

No problem,

As an additional question, what name do you give the formation of the Universe - abiogenesis?

Here are the four areas that different theories cover, despite the fact that you claim above that all or some are required for the theory of evolution to which you are so very wrong!

1. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics)

2. The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology)

3. The creation of life from non-life: abiogenesis (biochemistry)

4. he creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology)

5...The mechanism of the alteration/creation of the different forms of life: evolution (biology, genetics)

Regards

Root

 

[czgibson]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

Hello,

Sorry to interrupt; I think I may be able to help on one point:

The very words "trial and error" and "breathtakingly ingenious designs" don't seem to go very well together, logically speaking.

The words don't contain any logical contradiction, although there may be an apparent one. Since evolution contains random and non-random elements the two descriptions are appropriate in discussions about evolution: genetic mutation is random, while natural selection is not; certain mutations will be advantageous and some will not.

I'm not a scientist, but that's how I understand it.

Peace

 

[Muhammad]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

Greetings,

I can accept that. Afterall, Creationists came first. Intelligent Design simply removes God from the equation. And simply debates on complexity, not through scientific evidence. ID or Creationism does not have any of that.

I fail to understand your reasoning behind these concepts. You say Creationism involves God and then you expect it to bring forth scientific evidence, when you know that belief in God is beyond such things.

ID might not specifically mention God, but it still points to Him and therefore does not seem any different to Creationism. It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence and can be discussed at length regarding the earliest protein molecules and such species.

If I believed in God, I would ask him to give me strength. As I said above, please read it before blindly posting. I answered this, drawing a paralell that an intelligent designed video camera does not have design flaws like a "blind Spot" in the human eye. (Post 13)

I did read that article, or whatever it was, and disgusted as I was, I had the decency to read it. Yes I read that part about the flaw and perhaps you missed that part in my post where it said, quite clearly:

Oh, so now that you don't understand something, it's a fault of God is it, but anything that's too good to be true is down to a bit of luck and chance...

I am glad that I am not as short-sighted as to state that something I don't understand is immediately a flaw. No matter how God created the Universe, we as Muslims accept it and acknowledge that it was done so with full Wisdom and Knowledge beyond our comprehension.

If evolution was indeed so strong a theory, then why is it that humans have appendices and other features that you kindly pointed out some time ago:

We also carry dormont characteristics no longer viable to the human body such as male nipples, wisdom teeth, tail-bones and ear muscles.

From your method of thinking, one might (wrongfully) conclude that all these are mistakes! Yet evolution could not prevent them from being there so where's all this about selecting the best, "improvements automatically" emerging and "breathtakingly ingenious designs"?! If anything, its a fault of evolution theory but a wonder in light of God's creation. He created us with two eyes for seeing, and having a blind spot within each one never conferred anyone a hazard to their existence.

Any Biologist with a PhD has to accept micro-evolution. Thus your objection is useless. It exists so get over it.

OK there was a slight misunderstanding here. My statement was not directly applicable to this context.

Biology scientists disagree with you. I know who I have my money on with the choice of words and it is not you in this case.

I don't much care for the opinions of Biology scientists since they are most likely brainwashed into the theory to get their PhD, as you pointed out earlier.

An organisms ability to beat antibiotics is quite breath taking and ingenious..............

Why are we talking about resistance to antibiotics here when we were discussing natural selection?

You in this case are DEAD WRONG

It's nice to see you like to be scientific and back up your claims. Other than rant about Biology scientists and PhDs, you couldn't even say anything constructive to your side of the argument.

You really don't get the theory of evolution do you.

Well after reading your version of it and repeating it back to you, while only expanding upon your choice of words, evidently not.

I have no respect for anyone wishing to challenge a theory by starting out discussing Satan.

Great. You read an article by a new author for the first time in your life and don't like a couple of words, it's enough to turn a blind eye to his whole career. Some fine scientist you turned out to be! If you actually bothered to read a decent article of his you might have read something different.

Besides he does not refute it, merely tries to show complexity.

Hence the title of the article: "Irreducible Complexity". He uses complexity to make his point:

The irreducibly complex structure of the eye not only definitively disproves the Darwinist theory, but also shows that life was created with a superior design.​

He does not even mention if that the eye is so perfect, why does it have a blind spot.

So? He refutes the claim of how the eye evolved from light-sensitive cells; the primary objective of the article.

Why does he not publish his work in peer reviewed scientific journals. The answer of course is that he has no theory, no testable data. Zippo, nothing.

Why don't you ask him that rather than trying to make up your own answers?

Just "Faith" which don't cut the mustartd when challenging sound scientific principles.

"Sound"? This is where we got slightly confused earlier when you used the words: "beyond reasonable doubt". Not much of science is beyond reasonable doubt, so I would be more careful when pretending theory is fact.

Your joking are you not!!!!!!! When a computer simulation works out the load that a "theoretical" bridge can hold based on a theoretical design (the bridge is not built yet). It's accurate and complete. This is just a load of B/S. your talking.

I would have thought that building a bridge in the present day would at least be remotely different from trying to simulate conditions millions of years ago. We might be able to collect accurate data for bridge-making but I find it hard to believe such accuracy is preserved during historical studies, where many assumptions and guesses replace hard facts. Why don't you try sticking to the context and perhaps things won't seem so confusing for you.

Your misrepresenting ID here. I thought your claim the eye is a perfect creation without flaw, complexity far too complex not to have a creator. Why are you so upset when we point out a design flaw in your perceived perfect creation. Again, camcorder anyone!

How is that misrepresenting ID? Indeed the eye is a complexity that could not have arisen by a few mutated cells, but it is you who call it imperfect! I have never perceived the blind spot as being a flaw, so the only thing that upsets me is your stupidity. For one thing, can you not see through your eyes or do you see black spots in your vision? Despite the fact that there are such features within our eyes, we still see as though they weren't even there - now that is a miracle of its own (SubhanAllaah!).

Your repeating yourself. However, ingenious designs are observed in the lab without a designer.

You've repeated yourself around three times regarding your favourite line about the flawed eyes so I don't know what you're talking about! This last statement seems baseless already so there's no need to go about demolishing it.

LOL, I think the point went straight over your head.

Evidently you did not understand what I was saying. And I doubt you understood the idea yourself, which is why you didn't bother clearing it up. A poor analogy to say the least...

Faith ain't science so why are you debating a scientific theory with faith. Bring forth the evidence of ID or don't respond to this post of mine.

That's precisely what I am asking you! If you know that faith isn't science, then why do you keep raving on about -

No experiments with results

?

OK, if it is codswallop. Please post me a scientifically credited peer reviewed theory supporting ID....... I dare ya!!!!!!!!! This is because there is none. zippo, dotto.

We're not talking about theories here but blatant lies and false information. Here's evolutionists misrepresenting what Creationists do and don't do. And here you are again repeating yourself, asking for scientifically credited theories as though we are scientists with a breakthrough!!

The theory of evolution does not seek and nor should it provide theory to the formation of the universe. I have already posted the scientific defenition of Evolution. Your nuts to even support the idea that science should merge theories, that is called "natural History". Stop being ignorant.

I wasn't talking about merging theories, but explaining theories within themselves. For instance, The Big Bang: "it all came but we don't know where from". And you even mentioned this yourself regarding the evolution of the eye:

We can't yet say what all the details of this process were

Perhaps you should focus on these gaps rather than trying to pass theories off as facts!

Yes I agree, however the truth is it cannot challenge the well understood theory of evolution. Yet by itself it CAN challenge ID (think about it)!!!!!!

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean other than being another baseless assertion.

Again you miss the point by miles.

And lack of explanation shows that you do too! It's alright to believe in scientific theories that are insufficiently supported by hard facts but when it comes to believing in God you ask for scientifically credited reviews. What a load of nonsense!!

The words don't contain any logical contradiction, although there may be an apparent one.

So there might be an apparent contradiction but there isn't a logical contradiction? I don't really understand the difference between the two here, and I still think the same as I did before.

Since evolution contains random and non-random elements the two descriptions are appropriate in discussions about evolution: genetic mutation is random, while natural selection is not; certain mutations will be advantageous and some will not.

Right, but can we really say that ingenious designs all boil down to random and non-random events? Regardless of what the discussion is, it still seems illogical to believe that breathtakingly ingenious complexities could have arisen by trial and error.

Peace.

 

[root]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

Hi Muhammad

You have posted queries from both me and czgibson. (I am guilty of this myslef). So I will post at the bottom your response to him.

I fail to understand your reasoning behind these concepts. You say Creationism involves God and then you expect it to bring forth scientific evidence, when you know that belief in God is beyond such things.

OK, that is settled.

ID might not specifically mention God, but it still points to Him and therefore does not seem any different to Creationism. It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence and can be discussed at length regarding the earliest protein molecules and such species.

There are many floors is your reasoning here. The whole point to ID replacing creationism (and I actually don't care if you want to quote ID or Creationism) since in essence you are correct, they all point to God. But here is your floor, which one! Here is a link to the "Top 10" creationist "Gods" who are citing very different Gods to yours.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

I have real problems where you say "It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence" for it is not science at all and is a position of arrogance as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, you assume intelligent cause.

I am glad that I am not as short-sighted as to state that something I don't understand is immediately a flaw. No matter how God created the Universe, we as Muslims accept it and acknowledge that it was done so with full Wisdom and Knowledge beyond our comprehension.

If evolution was indeed so strong a theory, then why is it that humans have appendices and other features that you kindly pointed out some time ago:

As already stated, the theory of evolution can be defined as thus:

The change in allele frequency in a population over time

"Time" has a major role in Evolution, all out changes do not occur within a couple of generations!!!

From your method of thinking, one might (wrongfully) conclude that all these are mistakes! Yet evolution could not prevent them from being there so where's all this about selecting the best, "improvements automatically" emerging and "breathtakingly ingenious designs"?! If anything, its a fault of evolution theory but a wonder in light of God's creation. He created us with two eyes for seeing, and having a blind spot within each one never conferred anyone a hazard to their existence.

Your moving about all over the place it is hard to pin this thought down. Micro-evolution, an accepted fact within Biology moves at break-neck speed since such organisms as Bacteria will divide and reproduce every 20 minutes. Far more complex life-forms take up to 70 years for just 3 generations. Thus the confusing picture that your talking about only exists in your head. I think your understanding of time needs to be reconsidered.

I don't much care for the opinions of Biology scientists since they are most likely brainwashed into the theory to get their PhD, as you pointed out earlier.

I find this statement literally a sad reflection of your opinion on Science. I am not aware of your geographical location but I am wondering if you are carrying the Polio vaccine or any other vaccine. I wonder what medication you have ever taken to cure or eleviate any ailment. and if the future (god forbid) you are diagnosed with cancer or any other life threatening ailment will you not seek medical science to help save your life or will you just reside yourself to the fact that if Allah gave you life then it is Allah who will take it. Even if it is curable.

On this note, I think I will end my debate with you since this statement of yours only reinforces how dogmatic & closed your mind is.

"The mind is like a parachute. It does not work unless it is open"

 

[Muhammad]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

Greetings,

There are many floors is your reasoning here. The whole point to ID replacing creationism (and I actually don't care if you want to quote ID or Creationism) since in essence you are correct, they all point to God. But here is your floor, which one! Here is a link to the "Top 10" creationist "Gods" who are citing very different Gods to yours.

OK the discussion is in essence about the scientific view of how the Universe originated and the religious one; one says the universe came into existence by itself, whereas the other says it was created by God. The reason that I likened Creationism to ID was because they both started from the concept that 'a' God created, hence to ask 'which' God created is a diversion from the topic and irrelevant to the current discussion (and a topic of its own).

I have real problems where you say "It also might focus on complexity, and this in itself is scientific evidence" for it is not science at all and is a position of arrogance as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, you assume intelligent cause.

When we look at complexity, we begin to realise how unlikely it is for such species to have come into existence of their own accord within the boundaries of time and space. And when the details are really revealed, we see how there are conflicts with possibilites such as that of the evolution of the eye:

It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as "primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive-that is, they need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals; a nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge; and a visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to propose that all of these things came about by chance, at the same time, and in the same living thing. In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), which he wrote to defend the theory of evolution, the evolutionist writer Cemal Yildirim admits this fact in this way: ...​

Hence it is not arrogance nor is it lack of knowledge, but in reality it is reviewing the facts by actually using knowledge and revealing the truth thereby

"Time" has a major role in Evolution, all out changes do not occur within a couple of generations!!!

But that's the thing, the history of mankind has surpassed much more than a "couple of generations" has it not?!

I think your understanding of time needs to be reconsidered.

OK let's think about this: in the time that an organ such as the eye could be created and evolved into such a complex structure as it is today, a simple functionless organ like the appendix could not be removed?

I find this statement literally a sad reflection of your opinion on Science. I am not aware of your geographical location but I am wondering if you are carrying the Polio vaccine or any other vaccine. I wonder what medication you have ever taken to cure or eleviate any ailment. and if the future (god forbid) you are diagnosed with cancer or any other life threatening ailment will you not seek medical science to help save your life or will you just reside yourself to the fact that if Allah gave you life then it is Allah who will take it. Even if it is curable.

This is ridiculously out of context and a huge misunderstanding on your part. Let's look at what I replied to:

Biology scientists disagree with you. I know who I have my money on with the choice of words and it is not you in this case.

We were talking about a choice of words. I might not agree with Biology scientists with their view on evolution but when did I say that I did not agree with their research in modern medicine? I hope that clears it up - and just to answer your off-topic question, I would take all precautions and take all the medicines and at the same time place my trust in Allaah Insha'Allaah.

On this note, I think I will end my debate with you since this statement of yours only reinforces how dogmatic & closed your mind is.

You may end your debate on false perceptions and accusations, yet it would only demonstrate the constriction of your own mind.

Peace.

 

[mujahedeen2087]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

www.harunyahya.com

good site for the evolution myth

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

The discussion on evolution and creation/ID has been moved to this thread, where I thought it better belonged.

Peace

 

[extinction]

Re: Ever Wonder.......

Yo person who is an atheist thats why you are an atheist because you simply rely on statistics and logic.......there is a story that there was an atheist who was scheduled to debate with an Islamic scholar..at the appointed time of the debate the scholar was a 'no-show' the muslims were uneasy and the atheist was beyond himself in pride gloating "he's scared" and knows I'm right and so on...just then the scholar appeared ..the atheist said to him what is the meaning of such a late arrival the scholar said I'm terribly sorry upon coming here so late (as this is my 1st time coming here) on the way here I came across a wide river with no means to cross then out of nowhere a tree fell down made itself into planks and came together as a boat ...in that time I was waiting patiently when it was ready I went across this river....that is why I am late......the muslims were very uneasy with the scholars story doubting within the authencity of it......the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!! and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/ there you go...or go here http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm may Allah show you the right path.........Aameen

 

[czgibson]

Re: Ever Wonder.......

Greetings,

Yo person who is an atheist thats why you are an atheist because you simply rely on statistics and logic.......

Well, thank you for telling me what I think!

What do you rely on? Wishful thinking?

there is a story that there was an atheist who was scheduled to debate with an Islamic scholar..at the appointed time of the debate the scholar was a 'no-show' the muslims were uneasy and the atheist was beyond himself in pride gloating "he's scared" and knows I'm right and so on...just then the scholar appeared ..the atheist said to him what is the meaning of such a late arrival the scholar said I'm terribly sorry upon coming here so late (as this is my 1st time coming here) on the way here I came across a wide river with no means to cross then out of nowhere a tree fell down made itself into planks and came together as a boat ...in that time I was waiting patiently when it was ready I went across this river....that is why I am late......the muslims were very uneasy with the scholars story doubting within the authencity of it......the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!!

I'd be very surprised if the atheist felt defeated by that straw man argument.

and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!! http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/ there you go...or go here http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm may Allah show you the right path.........Aameen

Seen them. More assertions with no real evidence.

Peace

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Ever Wonder.......

Yo person who is an atheist thats why you are an atheist because you simply rely on statistics and logic.......there is a story that there was an atheist who was scheduled to debate with an Islamic scholar..at the appointed time of the debate the scholar was a 'no-show' the muslims were uneasy and the atheist was beyond himself in pride gloating "he's scared" and knows I'm right and so on...just then the scholar appeared ..the atheist said to him what is the meaning of such a late arrival the scholar said I'm terribly sorry upon coming here so late (as this is my 1st time coming here) on the way here I came across a wide river with no means to cross then out of nowhere a tree fell down made itself into planks and came together as a boat ...in that time I was waiting patiently when it was ready I went across this river....that is why I am late......the muslims were very uneasy with the scholars story doubting within the authencity of it......the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!! and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!!

Neat story. But what has it got to do with atheism?

Compare that "boat" story (actually it is Paley's Watch on the Moor story) with how evolution works. Assume that an ancestor of the girafe was alive and had a short neck. Now the group of them wandering the plains eat a lot of food. And some of them eat the lower leaves on a tree. But when they have eat all of those they go hungry. Except for the ones with the longest necks - now they are not very long, but the tallest ones with the longest necks can reach up into the trees and eat more leaves. So they get fed and the short ones do not. When a drought comes, the shorter-necked ones are going to be more likely to die and the longer-necked ones aren't. Even in the good times, the longer-necked one eat better and have more and more strong offspring. So over time the short-neck ones die, and the longer-necked ones live. But their children also eat all the leaves they can reach so the even longer-necked ones do better than the merely long-necked ones. Until after millions of years you have a giraffe. Does anyone doubt that story? Is there the remotest element of chance here? Do you think if you have billions and billions of years of time for evolution to work, you can go from a single celled creature to an elephant?

What random chance?

 

[extinction]

Re: Ever Wonder.......

because athiest's believe in weird theories like the 'big bang' and darwins theory of how we all evolved.........and wishful thinking??hmmmmmm I'll say to you what I said to someone else why are you even here? if you are going to dispute whats being said and not willing to accept the fact that Allah is the one and only God and that Muhammad S.A.W is his last messenger and slave............

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Ever Wonder.......

because athiest's believe in weird theories like the 'big bang' and darwins theory of how we all evolved.........and wishful thinking??hmmmmmm I'll say to you what I said to someone else why are you even here? if you are going to dispute whats being said and not willing to accept the fact that Allah is the one and only God and that Muhammad S.A.W is his last messenger and slave............

I think if this keeps up the thread will have to be moved to Science or even Refutations. Any Mods watching who can do that or offer some advice?

What is weird about the Big Bang or Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Wishful thinking? Darwin's theory has three basic premises: 1. The Earth has existed for a long time, 2. Children look like their parents, 3. Not all offspring will survive to reproduce or reproduce with equal success. Now who objects to a single one of those claims?

Why am I here? I am learning a lot about Islam. Oh you mean more generally. I have no purpose to my existence. I exist because I do. That does not mean I cannot find meaning in being a good person and that is, I think, its own reward. But if I do not find that meaning, it does not matter except to me and those nearest me.

If I dispute that what will happen to me? And how do you know?

 

[root]

the atheist laughed mockingly 'oh come on you expect me to believe this' then the scholar spoke you have just sealed your defeat if you can not come to believe a simple and small thing as a wooden boat can come to existence without any assistance ..then how is a world so big with so many thousands and millions of organisms and creations and resources just come out of thin air!!!!! and you want proof islam is the fastest growing religion!!!!!!

I think this is a bad example. The boat is indeed a product of man and if we play along with "creation" what has actually happened to the wood? If the boat was never made would this mean the wood would never exist? And in order to build the boat the presence of wood must be available in the first place! Is the purpose of wood for the sole purpose of boat making, Man made creations still require the use of "Natural" material..........

I would question the direct misleading word "Existense" you and a boat exist, however your existence and any lifeform is very much different to the state of existence of your boat or any other "man made" creation.

 

[root]

Muhammad - OK the discussion is in essence about the scientific view of how the Universe originated and the religious one; one says the universe came into existence by itself, whereas the other says it was created by God. The reason that I likened Creationism to ID was because they both started from the concept that 'a' God created, hence to ask 'which' God created is a diversion from the topic and irrelevant to the current discussion (and a topic of its own).

I had a real good giggle at this one. The scientific view of how the universe originated has got bugger all to do with Evolution, yet you claim to which god ID points to is irrelevent.

Priceless............

 

[Muhammad]

I had a real good giggle at this one. The scientific view of how the universe originated has got bugger all to do with Evolution, yet you claim to which god ID points to is irrelevent.

Priceless............

I am glad someone is enjoying the discussion, though I can't say for the right reasons. In the above quote of mine, I don't remember making mention of evolution, and regarding ID: I said it was a diversion from the topic rather than being an irrelevant subject in itself.

Regards.

 

[root]

!!

Muhammad - OK the discussion is in essence about the scientific view of how the Universe originated

Exscuse me! Come again! read that one by me again.

This is a discussion on Creationism/ID (those two things are the same hypothosis v the theory of evolution.)

So I reiterate:

What the hell has "cosmology" (origins of the universe) got to do with "evolution" (The change in allele frequency in a population over time)?

 

[Alphaseed]

Who cares who says we come from a monkey ?

All it matters to me is what i believe, that a powerfull God created the heavens and the earth and created an order that even science can't deny.

"The fool said in His heart ,There is no God."

 

[R_Mujahed]

Harun Yahya - Categories - Refutation of Darwinism

 

[Trumble]

Re: Evolution Was First Said In Quran, It Almost Demands Believing On It!

Harun Yahya - An Invitation to The Truth

good site for the evolution myth

What the site itself peddles is the "myth". The 'arguments' have been around for years. What the creationists 'forget' to mention in the writing, however is that most of them got scientifically shot down years ago. There simply is no scientific argument in favour of creationism over evolution. None. At all. There is not a single piece of solid evidence in favour of creationism - just sniping (which in a few cases is actually justifiable, but in most is not) at the accepted theory because it happens to be religiously inconvenient.

There are, however, some perfectly good philosophical and particularly faith-based arguments in favour of creationism. If you believe, you believe and that's fine. "Science" just isn't the way for creationists to go.. just saying "the Qur'an (or Bible) says so-and-so, I believe that to be the Word of God, so so-and-so is true" is a far stronger position to take than dabbling in science... or indeed by (another common ploy) just attempting to re-define science to fit.

Creationists tried to take on the evolutionists on their own turf, science; most recently with a new "play" called 'intelligent design'. The evolutionists won, and won comfortably, the principle scientific claims of ID being left in tatters... if anyone still believes otherwise its only because their publicity machine was rather more effective than their science. It's pointless linking to sites like to Harun Yaha. There is nothing there, or in his books that would convince anybody who wasn't convinced already.. the same is true of many similar ones, Muslim and Christian. Convincing others isn't even their purpose... their purpose is reinforcing belief in those who already believe knowing that those people will not look too deeply below the surface of what they told.

What the hell has "cosmology" (origins of the universe) got to do with "evolution" (The change in allele frequency in a population over time)?

Nothing whatsoever, of course. That's part of the problem here; if people could only stop confusing cosmology and even abiogenesis with evolution by natural selection most of their problems with evolution would disappear. There is absolutely no reason that evolution and God can't co-exist and it always amazes me that people don't find the idea of God designing such a wonderful mechanism as part of his design much more attractive than some of the obviously mythical alternatives. Some evolutionists are atheists, true, but the theory itself is NOT inherently atheistic, it just contradicts some of the more absurd creation myths (e.g the world created in six days, six thousand years ago, or whatever it was supposed to be).

Man evolved from apes. That is indisputable (or at least very close to it) at least in scientific terms. But could somebody actually explain to me what is wrong with the idea that man evolved from apes because that's the way God designed things to be?! What is so wrong with the idea that from that first spec of life (forget probabilities - lets just assume God WAS responsible for that) things were meant to work out the way they have. Isn't that wonderful?! Who else but God could create such a thing? There is no worry about predetermination.. the arguments frequently used in connection with human free will are just as valid here. Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean He is controlling it every step of the way. He is God! He doesn't need to.

 

[KAding]

Evolution does not clash with the principle of God, but it does clash with the Word of God.