Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?

[root]

Tell me Root, when you are in love with someone, can you prove you love her to me?

hhhmmm, If I said. "I am in love, I will do anything for her etc etc" then maybe.

If I say "I am in love, I got wed after 5 days of knowing her have been married to her since I was 17 and have two great teenage children and every year grows stronger and better". I would hope that I have sufficient grounds to prove my case of love.

It's not what one says but how one support's ones statement.

Fossils illuminate fish evolution

"The fossil record confirms that the evolution of fish was a step-wise event," explained Professor Aldridge. "The various characters that make up a fish, or a vertebrate, didn't all appear at once - they were added one-by-one through evolutionary time.

"These [new] fossils help fill in this pattern of how early vertebrate evolution began."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4498049.stm

 

[Abdul Fattah]

So basically that prooves that fish, as we currently know it, evolved from a more "primitive fish" right?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

hhhmmm, If I said. "I am in love, I will do anything for her etc etc" then maybe.

If I say "I am in love, I got wed after 5 days of knowing her have been married to her since I was 17 and have two great teenage children and every year grows stronger and better". I would hope that I have sufficient grounds to prove my case of love.

It's not what one says but how one support's ones statement.

Well actually that wouldn't prove it, I could argue that you'r just acting out of stupidity, or that you stay with her for the kid's sake, or maybe she's rich and you'r after her money.
Hope you don't take this personal, it's all just for the sake of discussion. I'm not insinuating you would actually act on sush motivations

But then again if I'd make sush assumptions, you -hopelessly in love- would think I'm stupid for not believing this since I have no good reasons to. As you said It's not what one says but how one supports his statements.

Now if I was to tell you that I studied science (as an atheist) and that this actually led me to religion. That now on reading the qur'an I stopped smoking, drinking, goin' out, started praying 5 times a day, stop eating haram meat....

If I told you I'm more certain of this then certain of love, if I testefied to have "felt" my soul and heart to find peace would you give me the benefith of the doubt or think of me as a fool?

 

[root]

would you give me the benefith of the doubt or think of me as a fool?

I would never judge you as a fool or anyone else for that matter who choose to follow a religion.

Now if I was to tell you that I studied science (as an atheist) and that this actually led me to religion. That now on reading the qur'an I stopped smoking, drinking, goin' out, started praying 5 times a day, stop eating haram meat....

This is a typical echo of any faith albeit founded or not or based obn Islam or not & would show how people can use thier faith for goodness.

Regards

Root

Steve - So basically that prooves that fish, as we currently know it, evolved from a more "primitive fish" right?

I think you may unintentionally be-little the importance of a "Boneless & toothless" fish.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
I'd like to correct something, I posted earlyer:

I have absolutely no idea what Darwin actually believed. Some say he became atheistic because of his findings; some say he was catholic but wanted to change the dogmatic regime, some say he was simply agnostiastic. Here’s an interesting qoute by Darwin:
For the eye to have been formed by natural selection, seems absurd in the highest degree. This suggests he wasn’t a complete atheist.

On closer inspection, I've seem to have ripped that quote out of it's contect, I've read the whole text where hat quote comes from and it is as following:

On the Origin of Species - Chapter VI Difficulties of the Theory
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

Meaning that my assumptions on Darwin's believes could very well been wrong.
This being said, I'd like to stress that this of changes nothing to the arguments I posted. I just wanted to correct the disinformation.

 

[root]

Hi Steve

Your respect has increased in my eye's already albeit intelligent design or evolution. You are correct of course and the sentence often taken out of context by pro-creationists is "The eye is so complex that it's evolution by natural selection seems "Absurd".

You have quite rightly included that Darwin argued the key to the puzzle was to find "eyes" of intermediate complexity within the animal kingdom which could demonstrate a possible path from simple to complicated.

An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

 

[imaad_udeen]

I'm no scientist, I wouldn't be able to tell you anything ground-breaking. It's worth studying and being debated. But it is God's will. I don't think his methods need to be understood to understand ourselves and our relationship to him.

We are here because He wants us to be here.

MHO, of course....

 

[Abdul Fattah]

An example of this intermediate stage can be found with the species "Tripedalia Cystophora" (Box jellyfish) which has 24 eyes. 16 of these eyes are just pits of light sensitive pigment with 8 eyes of surprising complexity...........

The lens structure in the complex eyes are unusual because of a refractive index that blurs the image. From here it would be an easy step to evolve an "Image forming eye". Evolutionists beleive that the very first "eye's" were cells that were sensitive to light, nothing more and nothing less. Such a mutated cell would carry a distinct advantage within it's environment almost immediately.

Well that sure suggest an evolution, but that doesn't nececairly make it so. First of al looking to probability's of evolution one needs to focus on the form of the DNA, and not the form OF the body since the mutation actually happens in the DNA and not in the body. The body is "deformed" (sometimes in an advantagabel way) due to the mutation in DNA. Even if there would be a species with these primitive eye's, the sudden forming of lenzes and other parts needed to form a "vision" from light, simultanious with a different way of recepting this light and transforming it to electrical signals, and again simultainious with the different way of interpreting the signals in the brain all due to a mutation in DNA still seems absurd to me. again these 3 steps should have gone simultainouisly, because otherwise the mutation would have been a disadvantage, and the creater would have lesser survival chanses then his fellowoffspring. Especially in the case of fish where life is mush more basic and these fysical atributes are hence more important.

 

[Muhammad]

There are many physical proofs for our religion...if you want to consider in terms of historical events, then as mentioned in the book 'Perished Nations' much evidence has been found supporting the stories mentioned in the scriptures - (check this out http://www.perishednations.com/)...I mean the finding of the people who carved houses in the mountains, the remains of the People of Lot, the dead sea existing in the place where the People of Lot lived, the preservation of Pharoah himself - are these not anough historical evidences? I am sure there are many more...

The thing Ive been wondering is how does darwin or anyone else for that matter explain the beginning of creation...ie before the big bang? Where did chemicals and gases come from? Where did the smallest particles come from? Surely there must have been some beginning and if there was, they could not just have arisen out of nothing by themselves...
Have a look at www.harunyahya.com - it has free literature and movies to illustrate so many arguments.

 

[Khattab]

True I have been wondering that too, Root I would apprecite your view on it, the big bang didnt just come about from nothingness, even if one says gases etc they dont come from nothing, the same way if I have an empty box with nothing in it, seeds wont suddenly appear from nothing and apples start growing in the box?

 

[root]

Hi Guys

Been away for a while as I get frustrated with other posts on this board, however I do enjoy such debates as these:

Steve - Well that sure suggest an evolution, but that doesn't nececairly make it so. First of al looking to probability's of evolution one needs to focus on the form of the DNA, and not the form OF the body since the mutation actually happens in the DNA and not in the body. The body is "deformed" (sometimes in an advantagabel way) due to the mutation in DNA.

In principal and for the sake of agruement I can accept your point here and support it. Let's not debate the fact that the Human body is "deformed" from it's origins and I am not being critical of you.

Steve - Even if there would be a species with these primitive eye's, the sudden forming of lenzes and other parts needed to form a "vision" from light

I am interested why you seem to use a "sudden" change in evolution. Why is this? I think this is a very common error and a flawed human attribute that we simply cannot comprehend THE VERY ESSENCE OF "Time". Sure, we undertsand in relation to time what 1 year is like, probably undertsand what 10 years is like. (Just). We struggle to guage in real time what 100 years is like. With evolution we are talking at the moment 3.5 BILLion years ago, and Geologists seem to accept that beyond this point conditions on earth were so brutal that even solid rock stood no chance of survival... (and just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, Geologists have discovered fragments of the early earth that casts doubt on the currently accepted date that the earth could support life by adding another Billion years. Zircons are tiny but tough crystals of zirconium silicate that are the oldest objects on earth. Zircons can survive being baked upto 1600 Degrees and can be washed down the course of an entire river without chipping or eroding, they can withstand the pressure under tonnes of sediment and nothing else not even a diamond can survive such punsisment as a Zircon despite being harder but chemically less stable. Early earth was supposed to be a seething inferno of molton magma. So how come a bunch of crystals are telling us the planet was right for life perhaps as much as a Billion years earlier than thought.) Can you really comprehend how long 4.1 Billion years actually is, and bear in mind also that if DNA life was brought to the Universe via meteorites/comets then what of the evolutionary time scale would we be having to understand then in Billions of years evoultionary paths. Everyone knows that simple bacteriums (incidently has been scientificly proven to be able to cross the dark cold vacuum of space) multiply every 20 minutes. Their is nothing "Sudden" about evolution............. A mutated cell sensitive to light is not a "watch in the sand" comparative. However, such a mutation is very much within the bounds of probability as much as antibiotic resistent bacteria is. Most Evolutionary theory is supported and proved within the microbial world. Only "time" prevents actual proof in the Macro-species world. Light sesnsitive cells would offer a distinct survival aspect, time will then evolve this "advantage"

simultanious with a different way of recepting this light and transforming it to electrical signals, and again simultainious with the different way of interpreting the signals in the brain all due to a mutation in DNA still seems absurd to me.

This is "Branching" and evolution within our natural environment would bring about different ways of recepting light amongst different species. It's only a question of time coupled with the survival of the fittest luckiest and adaptive species. of course some species will never evolve eyes in the first place & Darwin also concluded that some species will change little since their environment changes little which was also supported with the recent find of a fish thought to be extinct deep on the ocean floor where it has no natural predators and it was an excellent reference to how accurate science was at recreating a species based on fossils which was showed to be very accurate using this "thought" to be extinct fish. As for evolutionary adaptation to our environment this also is well understood and proven within primate species too. (Hobit-man).

again these 3 steps should have gone simultainouisly, because otherwise the mutation would have been a disadvantage,

I don't think you can support this. Your trying to bind light sensitive cells with a "vision" i.e seeing. Light sensitive cells would not produce a "vision" but would cause a "pain" stimuli which in turn would force a species to stay in "dark" areas and this for many a species would bring massive advantages even with basic steps such as only coming out in the dark, one could consider thousands of advantages inadvertantly gained through pain stimuli brought about by light sensitive cells.....

Khattab True I have been wondering that too, Root I would apprecite your view on it, the big bang didnt just come about from nothingness,

I am comfortable with "Nothingness" otherwise refered to as "Nothing". And by this you must agree that the "Universe" is expanding, and it expands into "Nothing". For if you travel to the end of the universe would see nothing for light & matter has not expanded, it would not be a physical barrier such as matter can produce (i.e a brick wall)!!!!!

As for the big bang, I agree with the current understanding of the big bang in that their was a "Big bang" a literally big noise that we can still see and hear of it's echo today even from the distance of this planet. As for the cause, no one can yet say and it goes into the realm of science fiction. I will say this, we once beleived their was only one planet (ours). We now know they are of infinate number, we said the same for our local star (The sun) we know an infinate number of them too. Same can be said for Solar syatem, Galaxy, etc etc we always thought they were singular objects until we discovered they are of infinate numbers. Why do we still expect only a single universe!!!!!!!!!!!

The "Big Bang" may be a single point of inflation connecting universes together and exchanging matter from one universe to another, or it could even be that the universe collided with another universe. Nobody knows (YET)!!!!!!!! We only know of a large explosion we call the "Big bang"!

That's just my opinion.

Regards All

Root

 

[Muhammad]

I am comfortable with "Nothingness" otherwise refered to as "Nothing". And by this you must agree that the "Universe" is expanding, and it expands into "Nothing". For if you travel to the end of the universe would see nothing for light & matter has not expanded, it would not be a physical barrier such as matter can produce (i.e a brick wall)!!!!!

As for the big bang, I agree with the current understanding of the big bang in that their was a "Big bang" a literally big noise that we can still see and hear of it's echo today even from the distance of this planet. As for the cause, no one can yet say and it goes into the realm of science fiction. I will say this, we once beleived their was only one planet (ours). We now know they are of infinate number, we said the same for our local star (The sun) we know an infinate number of them too. Same can be said for Solar syatem, Galaxy, etc etc we always thought they were singular objects until we discovered they are of infinate numbers. Why do we still expect only a single universe!!!!!!!!!!!

The "Big Bang" may be a single point of inflation connecting universes together and exchanging matter from one universe to another, or it could even be that the universe collided with another universe. Nobody knows (YET)!!!!!!!! We only know of a large explosion we call the "Big bang"!

Root

Hello Root,

You mentioned that the Universe is expanding into nothingness, which means that before it began expanding there was also nothingness.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang theory suggests something along the lines of the fact that once all the substance of the Universe was concentrated at one place, and then it was so dense and so hot that it exploded? If that is true, then where did this Hydrogen gas - which is thought to be the main substance present at that time - and any other particle of matter, come from?

Everything must have a beginning according to logic, so all these universes and planets must have come from somewhere. It doesnt make sense to me that there were planets or universes already existing and then they collided to make more? Perhaps this is not what you meant so feel free to explain, I am just interested in your view of what happened.

 

[root]

You mentioned that the Universe is expanding into nothingness, which means that before it began expanding there was also nothingness

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. Not before!

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang theory suggests something along the lines of the fact that once all the substance of the Universe was concentrated at one place, and then it was so dense and so hot that it exploded?

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know

If that is true, then where did this Hydrogen gas - which is thought to be the main substance present at that time - and any other particle of matter, come from?

We don't know, thought the two core "constants" are Hydrogen & Helium

Everything must have a beginning according to logic, so all these universes and planets must have come from somewhere. It doesnt make sense to me that there were planets or universes already existing and then they collided to make more? Perhaps this is not what you meant so feel free to explain, I am just interested in your view of what happened.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

I agree that it is logical for everything to have a beginning. I don't consider it logic to consider the beginning of our universe as the beginning of our origin!

Hope this helps

 

[Muhammad]

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. Not before!

Thankyou for that explanation, it helped to clarify some points. First of all, yes I agree with you that the Big Bang theory does not explain what happened before the event. I was merely saying that Nothing existed, and was implying that something could not arise from nothing.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

We don't know, thought the two core "constants" are Hydrogen & Helium

I do find it quite strange how you said that our Universe suddenly "sprang" into existence, and furthermore you said that singularities arise in the centre of black holes. Perhaps they can arise otherwise, yet what would then be the reason for the infinitely small size, temperature and density? In other words, where is all this pressure coming from and what caused it initially? You said you don't know... well science may not be able to explain the Big Bang fully, but religion can, or at least enlighten us as to some of the stages that creation went through...

First of all, the Universe was created:
"The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: 'Be!' - and it is." [2:117]

The initial concentration of the substance if the Universe at one place is confirmed by the Qur'an in the following terms:
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them?" [21:30]

About the Universe having once been filled with hydrogen gas, it is stated in the Qur'an:
"Then He rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly." [41:11]

The creation of the Universe is mentioned in the Qur'an many times, and even more detailed conclusions can be obtained by studying its numerous verses about this subject. It is quite amazing how it agrees with scientific suggestions and evidences, and where science cannot, the Qur'an can. Some people may believe there to be contradictions etc. in the Qur'an, on the basis of scientific findings, yet in all these cases, either there is a misinterpretation of the Qur'an, or our understanding of science is wrong. It makes sense that if the Qur'an has indeed confirmed so many scientific facts, some of which are present day breakthroughs, then it is also to be trusted and given a fair say in those issues that man has not yet fully comprehended.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

I agree that it is logical for everything to have a beginning. I don't consider it logic to consider the beginning of our universe as the beginning of our origin!

I believe the concept of expansion you mentioned, as opposed to explosion can be interpreted from the verse [21:30] above, or even understood from the following verse:
"With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof." [51:47]

You also mentioned that space, time, matter and energy all had a finite beginning according to the calculations of three astrophysicists, in other words, you are implying they were created. If there was no space for the singularity to appear in, then how could it have appeared at all? It seems impossible that something can exist in a spaceless place! Science cannot explain where this singularity came from as you said, and at one time it didnt exist. It therefore seems quite reasonable that if it is impossible for something to appear on its own when it didn't exist, then something must have caused it to appear i.e. it must have been created. No metaphysical force known to man could make such a thing happen, thus some kind of Divine entity must have been the cause.

Furthermore, if such a 'theory' as the Big Bang cannot even be explained from the onset, then I don't see how it can explain the creation of the rest of the Universe, from the formation of the earth to the life on it today. You said yourself:

Because science can only explain such things that are supported by supportive scientific experimentation & understanding. One must learn what a "theory" is for God is an "Hypothosis" and not a "theory"

A theory that can neither be proven in logical or scientific terms should be rendered false, hence it is a hypothesis if anything. The concept of God is at least logically plausible and the very fact that we are alive today is ample evidence that He exists.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

A theory that can neither be proven in logical or scientific terms should be rendered false, hence it is a hypothesis if anything. The concept of God is at least logically plausible and the very fact that we are alive today is ample evidence that He exists.

Interesting discussion here. I find it strange that atheists seem to think that theists must offer evidence to prove the existence of God, yet the atheist's proof of God's non-existence is only to debate the proof offered by the theist! Therefore, the atheists himself can bring no evidence to support his position. Atheism relies solely on faith, backed up by no evidence. An atheist pretty much has a vaccuum of evidence, only arguing the proofs for the existence of God, but never providing any proof for the non-existence of God. Therefore, atheism is a very difficult position to support.

With regards to evolution of the eye, I would like to present the following article on Irreducible Complexity:

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:

A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight: As well as the eye and the mechanisms inside it, we can mention the links between special centers in the brain and the eye. How did this complex system-creation come about? According to biologists, the first step in the emergence of the eye during the evolutionary process was taken with the appearance of a small, light-sensitive area on the skin of some primitive living things. But what advantage could such a minute development on its own confer on a living thing in natural selection? As well as this, there needs to be a visual center formed in the brain and a nerve system linked to it. As long as these rather complicated mechanisms are not linked to one another, then we cannot expect what we call "sight" to emerge. Darwin believed that variations emerged by chance. If that were the case, would not the appearance of all the many variations that sight requires in various places in the organism at the same time and their working together turn into a mystical puzzle?… However, a number of complementary changes working together in harmony and cooperation are needed for sight… Some molluscs' eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens of cellulose tissue just like ours. Now, how can we explain the evolutionary processes of these two very different types requiring a string of chance events just by natural selection? It is a matter for debate whether Darwinists have been able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question…352​

This problem is so great from the evolutionist point of view that the closer we look at the details, the worse the quandary the theory finds itself in. One important "detail" which needs to be looked at is the claim about "the cell which came to be sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss this over by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becoming sensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposed to have had?

352 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), Bilgi Publications, January 1989, pp. 58-59. (emphasis added)

 

[root]

A theory that can neither be proven in logical or scientific terms should be rendered false,

I think you should understand better what an actual theory is.

yet the atheist's proof of God's non-existence

And the creationists proof of God's existence is every bit as lacking. True Their are only 2 origins of the Universe:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Random Construction

I read your points, but alas you have no more to bring to the table than I. I do not move to disprove God, you move to prove god by disproving me. It's a cycle (and a rarther boring one at that).

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.

So light sensitive cells giving painful stimuli can never be explained as chance with greater than 4 Billionyears evolution, I think you are on shaky ground indeed.

A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight:

Disagree mutated light sensitive cells will not be that complex with pain as the stimuli

sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss this over by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becoming sensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposed to have had?

Your material is very much "Out-Of-date" in 1989, they new nothing of our latest discoveries including light sensitive cells for eyes as described earlier on in this forum

"Muhammed" I read yopur post thanks, but I have to say I find it "Ambiguos" to say the least. Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures. Some even claim the prediction of "Hitler" is encoded into the bible, and he would argue his point until he was blue in the tooth.......... My point is, Science at least can say "We just don't know yet". Religion, however seems to know everything yet as time goes on we seem to disprove so much of it that you end up with an inconsistent set of "Writings"

Atheism relies solely on faith, backed up by no evidence.

I don't mean to be offensive, but what you said is so typically a negative creationist view. I have said many times before, atheists do not need faith. When I drop a stone it falls to the ground. I know why this is and the theory of gravity tells me why. As for no evidence, most of evolutionary claims can be proven in the micro-species world. I have yet to see a new virus "Created" that does not come to be through evolutionary mutation. And yet you say backed by no evidence......... PMSL

Regards

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

And the creationists proof of God's existence is every bit as lacking. True Their are only 2 origins of the Universe:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Random Construction

True, random construction is a possibility, just like it's possible that there is an invisible pink unicorn. To believe in random construction or the invisibly pink unicorn you need faith.

I do not move to disprove God, you move to prove god by disproving me. It's a cycle (and a rarther boring one at that).

I don't think its possible for me to convince an atheist on my own. I cannot guide anyone, it is only God who guides. And God only guides those who turn to Him. So, unfortunately, many atheists wait until they have a tragic experience before turning to God in for help. Its the choice of every human being: either be grateful to God now for the blessings He has given you, or wait for calamity to befall you before turning to God for help. God will only guide those who desire God's guidance and love.

So light sensitive cells giving painful stimuli can never be explained as chance with greater than 4 Billionyears evolution, I think you are on shaky ground indeed.

Your statement is answered by the very next sentence after the one you quoted.

Disagree mutated light sensitive cells will not be that complex with pain as the stimuli

Which is it? Light or pain as the stimuli?

If you mean light sensitivity in the simplest sense like a plant, then do plants have eyes? Can they evolve eyes? Why haven't they?

My point is, Science at least can say "We just don't know yet". Religion, however seems to know everything

Have you ever read a religious paper? Haven't you noticed that it always ends with "And Allah knows best"? Religion and Sceince are both tools/sources of knowledge. Neither of them claim to have uncovered all the knowledge. If you ask any Muslim scholar about the ruh (soul) they will say that the true knowledge about it is with Allah, and then proceed to explain our limited understanding.

yet as time goes on we seem to disprove so much of it that you end up with an inconsistent set of "Writings"

Science can disprove many things, so long as they are in the realm of science. Perhaps you would like to show me some of the incosistencies you have in mind?

I have said many times before, atheists do not need faith.

I know atheists will say this, because they are very scared to admit it. But you certainly have faith that there is no God. There is no evidence supporting your conclusion that there is no God, therefore you rely on faith.

When I drop a stone it falls to the ground. I know why this is and the theory of gravity tells me why.

Can you show me the relation between an observable truth and an abstract belief? How is your belief in the non-existence of God an observable truth?

As for no evidence, most of evolutionary claims can be proven in the micro-species world. I have yet to see a new virus "Created" that does not come to be through evolutionary mutation.

First of all, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Abiogenesis is more related.

Secondly, parts of the theory of evolution are undoubtedly true, while other parts are still very shaky, and this is something that is recognized by the scientific community.

And yet you say backed by no evidence

Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of God's non-existence?

 

[Muhammad]

I think you should understand better what an actual theory is.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

I wasn't aware of the fact that you have tested how something can come into existence from nothing! If so, why don't you do it again? Evolution is not widely accepted.

The dictionary also states that a theory is: "a set of ideas formulated (by reasoning from known facts) to explain something.

Perhaps you can enlighten me further because Im not quite sure if you know what a theory is yourself.

"Muhammed" I read yopur post thanks, but I have to say I find it "Ambiguos" to say the least. Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures. Some even claim the prediction of "Hitler" is encoded into the bible, and he would argue his point until he was blue in the tooth..........

The bible might be ambiguous but the Qur'an certainly isn't. Granted some people extract what they like, but some things are plain clear. Also bear in mind: we're not discussing the Bible.

 

[root]

True, random construction is a possibility, just like it's possible that there is an invisible pink unicorn.

Correct, and one would argue that to beleive in a Religous Creationist view. And I do intently state "Religous Creationist" being the possibility of a big pink elephant on the moon. it's a paradox you cannot escape because everything you say is abscent of proof. I tend not to judge two sides by their "Hits". But by their misses.

I don't think its possible for me to convince an atheist on my own. I cannot guide anyone, it is only God who guides. And God only guides those who turn to Him. So, unfortunately, many atheists wait until they have a tragic experience before turning to God in for help. Its the choice of every human being: either be grateful to God now for the blessings He has given you, or wait for calamity to befall you before turning to God for help. God will only guide those who desire God's guidance and love.

You are correct, and Religion plays this role and is very good at it too. The only problem of course is that Science is uniformal in it's position on Death for example. Where as religion has many a story to tell and not one being the same, that places you in a terrible position that your very beleif (Islam) may actually be wrong when other religions will directly engage over "the Afterlife". Science is the only body to be uniformed in it's agreement over such issues............ I attended a Catholic school (long story and I was not a Catholic). The story of Noah they claim is a religous Myth, a story with a meaning. You would debate the real events where Science does not support the case, the only thing uniformal in religion is that you all state that you are the only true religion. Stranger still, that is Geographically related to where one was born and born under a set religion. Science is not.

Which is it? Light or pain as the stimuli?

Your getting desperate... Light is the cause fot the pain stimuli, I take it because you are muslim you will be absent of the sensation one suffers the next morning after a few too many pints!

If you mean light sensitivity in the simplest sense like a plant

Have you even read my post or just skimmed it, I stated some species will gain no advantage. Obviously one could conclude that light sensitive cells are more common in Nature than we give it credit for. Either way, it's irrelevent and far more at a complex stage. basically, I think it's an attempt to ridicule. A tree "Evolved" just likle us and it's atoms are no different to ours, only in the way the atoms have formed their pattern are they different from us.

Have you ever read a religious paper? Haven't you noticed that it always ends with "And Allah knows best"? Religion and Sceince are both tools/sources of knowledge. Neither of them claim to have uncovered all the knowledge. If you ask any Muslim scholar about the ruh (soul) they will say that the true knowledge about it is with Allah, and then proceed to explain our limited understanding.

Nah, but i have read about the physical restrictions of organic matter and the restrictions applied to it and the power that "cilicone" brings to break through the restrictions of physical matter and cary out super human mathmatical wonders. I am not defeatest the same way you have implied by proceeding to explain our "Limited" understanding. Why can't you think outside the box....

Can you show me the relation between an observable truth and an abstract belief? How is your belief in the non-existence of God an observable truth?

That is very specific. Please see above where I speak about "Hit's and misses"

First of all, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Abiogenesis is more related.

Your correct, some would say we are indeed created by intelligent design. Please don't make the mistake that they mean the "Allah" you talk about and that you claim as the Koran & the Bible as proof. For they do not. Evolution in the "Adaptation of life to it's environment" is real and evolution from primate to Human though some would not even make that assumption, well good news too. A new phrase has been coined this week it's called "Primatephobia", I feel it rartheer infectios upon you.

Secondly, parts of the theory of evolution are undoubtedly true, while other parts are still very shaky, and this is something that is recognized by the scientific community.

I agree, and brought about by the fact that Science is on a learning curve. Where as Religion beleives it has all the answers. Only problem is, the answer you get depends on which religion you ask which is a place of ridicule if you ask me.

Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of God's non-existence?

Perhaps you would like to show me evidence of the invisible pink Unicorn?

 

[root]

I wasn't aware of the fact that you have tested how something can come into existence from nothing!

Nor was I!

If so, why don't you do it again? Evolution is not widely accepted.

Depends how you phrase it. Are you refering to The "Educated" countries or the "Non-Educated". Don't take this statement out of context like the two I have Quoted above. I mean Countries where "all" children are educated through a National syllabus which includes Science & Religous Education.

Granted some people extract what they like, but some things are plain clear.

Are you trying to say the Qur'an as you know it has never suffered from a "Mis-pronounciation". If something is not ambigous then it is straightforward. If Islam is as straightforward as this why do opinions differ so greatly even amongst your same faith followers

we're not discussing the Bible.

Interesting, I would really like to know how your Islamic Creationistic beleifs are brought about when dis-regarding the bible.............