Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?

[root]

“is there a flying species that looks simalar to a reptile?” , but rather: “how big is the chance of a reptile evolving wings, a lighter weight, stronger breastmuscles,

Your still peddling misconceptions, and to avoid going around in circles I will let both our points lie, for at least the for's and against have been noted.

A small point aside, if you consider an evolutionary path that took reptiles & other species into the trees. Jumping from tree to tree will be the first steps into flight via a gliding motion & shear muscular power, Adaptation will take care of the rest. The distance by which one could jump would provide the evolutionary advantage which would also include a "flap" to sustain flight even if it was singular as time goes on so will the exploitation of an evolutionary advantage. The stages from tree to tree jumps then glide, then flap then full flight is not a big pill to swallow.....

It's not as if I am asking for you to accept that one day a genetic mutation occured and a full set of flying wings were the instant result!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry if I'm the critical one now, but it seems like there's a big difference in gliding/jumping and flying. I can see how it looks less far fetched. And even then the main issue remains because there's a much bigger list of criteria for a creature to be able to fly.
Think of how long it took our brain to be able to produce something that conquers the sky.

 

[Muezzin]

I love this phrase 'far-fetched'.

If you think about it, our entire species is far-fetched. I mean, we are the only bipedal lifeforms on this planet who are so advanced, we think up even more creative ways to destroy each other. You might say we're so smart we're stupid.

 

[Muhammad]

One thing that I've been wondering is this: If there is such a thing as evolution, and humans have evolved from apes, then why don't humans keep on evolving? How long have humans existed for now, thousands of years? And yet you wouldn't say that we are evolving into another species would you? Are there even slight changes? Maybe height, but we're still human aren't we....and what about everything else: birds, fish, etc etc why does evolution seem to have stopped all of a sudden? Or are there changes that I'm not aware of?

The other thing is, I believe somebody mentioned:

Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures.

I think the same can be said about fossils. Anyone can dig up bones and shape them up to make them look like a particular species. Look at dinosaurs for example: they have all these models on display yet people still don't know for sure whether they exist. Thus finding fossils is just as ambiguous as is claimed the scriptures are. Note, however, that at least some verses are not "ambiguous", or at least they can only be to a certain extent. In other words, no matter how you interpret them, they still indicate the same principle, or some are so clear that there is no need to interpret.

What is so ambiguous about this (as an example)?:
"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]

 

[Danish]

Theory is divided into 2 sections:
MINOR EVOLUTION -- Same as variation, small change in genes, scuh as siome have blue eyes, blue hair (?)! etc...This is a scientific fact, muslims believe in that

MAJOR EVOLUTION -- emergance of NEW and COMPLEX specie...Muslims cant believe in this as this relies on chances...i am in college so i cant access the Harun Yahya site, but he did a good job on how evolution theory is AGAIST quran

 

[root]

Steve - Sorry if I'm the critical one now, but it seems like there's a big difference in gliding/jumping and flying.

Of course we are hypothosising, but in general evolutionists are looking very seriously into this general staging. But in evolutionary time which is far greater than our own for we are talking billions of years and not just a few thousand. Jumping, gliding then singular flaps to increase the distance of glide achieved and then onto full flight is not as impossible as you imply.

Danish - Theory is divided into 2 sections:
MINOR EVOLUTION -- Same as variation, small change in genes, scuh as siome have blue eyes, blue hair (?)! etc...This is a scientific fact, muslims believe in that

MAJOR EVOLUTION -- emergance of NEW and COMPLEX specie...Muslims cant believe in this as this relies on chances...i am in college so i cant access the Harun Yahya site, but he did a good job on how evolution theory is AGAIST quran

I don't think you are quite right here, I think you are talking about Micro-Evolution which is evolution within the single cell/microbial life. If you think about it, Aids for example is an emergence of a new complex life-form. Indeed every day new microbial life spring into life due to mutational change and the ability of the mutated new cells to reproduce perfect copies of themselves. This is well understood and a proven fact.

Macro-species on the other hand is a far more difficult issue for a single generation will last years as opposed to microbial life and thus it is a far greater issue to deal with on just a time scale alone. Another problem is the rate of reproduction between micro & macro life, with single cells their are millions of mutations daily, within the macro world this is very much less. Even so, their is plenty of evidence detailing how macro species adapt to suit their environments.

One thing that I've been wondering is this: If there is such a thing as evolution, and humans have evolved from apes, then why don't humans keep on evolving?

We are evolving. you don't see the results within our own life-time but the evidence is their, you must see evolution as a result of billions of years and not several thousand's.

1. Women are reaching child bearing age much quicker within 2 generations.
2. A womens menstual cycle also is starting earlier within 2 generations.
3. Human intelligence constantly evolves in line with generation advances.
4. Some humans are born without an appendix.

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

How long have humans existed for now, thousands of years? And yet you wouldn't say that we are evolving into another species would you? Are there even slight changes? Maybe height, but we're still human aren't we....and what about everything else: birds, fish, etc etc why does evolution seem to have stopped all of a sudden? Or are there changes that I'm not aware of

Well, it would depend on what you consider "Human". Homo-sapians have been around over 500,000 years, with the discovery of the "Hobit" that found itself trapped on flanders along with other mammals who all clearly reduced in size as they adapted to their environment. Darwin also theorised that some species will change very little since some environments remain static for long evolutionary periods of time such as the vast ocean floors where a species thought to be extinct was recently found that from fossil records showed no evolutionary change. It also tested and demonstrated how accurate fossil reconstruction is.

The other thing is, I believe somebody mentioned:

Quote:
Let's face it. We can extract anything we like from such scriptures.

I think the same can be said about fossils. Anyone can dig up bones and shape them up to make them look like a particular species.

I disagree, I do agree that the fossil world is subject to great forgeries and cons so comparative with scripture I would agree. However,

Look at dinosaurs for example: they have all these models on display yet people still don't know for sure whether they exist. Thus finding fossils is just as ambiguous as is claimed the scriptures are.

This is just not true. Their have been many "Bone Pits" which were similar to "quick-sand" and "swamps" millions of years ago. These "Bone Pits" trapped scavenging dinasours who tried to feed on other dead animals caught in the trap and their bones have been preserved. The overwhelming fossil finds gives us a factual look at past species especially from dinasours since the bones structure were so huge.

Note, however, that at least some verses are not "ambiguous", or at least they can only be to a certain extent. In other words, no matter how you interpret them, they still indicate the same principle, or some are so clear that there is no need to interpret.

I will take your word for it since evolution does not use any scpriptured text in validating itself.

If you think about it, our entire species is far-fetched. I mean, we are the only bipedal lifeforms on this planet who are so advanced, we think up even more creative ways to destroy each other. You might say we're so smart we're stupid.

Their was a time when we shared the planet with other bipedal life forms. Why we became the sole survivors is still a mystery and "luck" "adaptation" "intelligence" and "violence" are all implicated as to why a single species came to rule supreme at the top of the animal kingdom.

 

[Muhammad]

We are evolving. you don't see the results within our own life-time but the evidence is their, you must see evolution as a result of billions of years and not several thousand's.

1. Women are reaching child bearing age much quicker within 2 generations.
2. A womens menstual cycle also is starting earlier within 2 generations.
3. Human intelligence constantly evolves in line with generation advances.
4. Some humans are born without an appendix.

I don't believe that any of this is sufficient evidence that humans are evolving, I mean nobody is growing wings or anything. I understand that you might need billions of years, but by now one might expect the start of some significant changes.
- Intelligence is something that varies all the time, and as generations pass by, humans learn from mistakes and previous knowledge, so I don't think this is evolving. For example, there was Einstein and many many knowledgable and famous scientists and other people like Plato etc yet nowadays you can get complete idiots.
- Some humans might be born without an appendix, yet what advantage do they have? And I doubt there is a significant number of humans in which it's happened for this to be considered as evolving.
- Again, what is the significance of women reaching child bearing age sooner or menstruating earlier?

In all these points, we need to ask ourselves what is the selective advantage that humans can gain out of this, and thus why would nature select them? Surely you don't think that nature will select the most intelligent to survive, hence making everyone an Einstein? Idiots though they may be, those other people are still able to feed themselves and live etc. so it's quite unlikely that they would die out. That is just an example and so all these things are more like variation in the population than evolution of humans.

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

If we were evolving, we would not carry these dormant features anymore, and they should probably have long gone around the time when humans came into existence. If they are not viable, why would nature still allow them to be preserved?

This is just not true. Their have been many "Bone Pits" which were similar to "quick-sand" and "swamps" millions of years ago. These "Bone Pits" trapped scavenging dinasours who tried to feed on other dead animals caught in the trap and their bones have been preserved. The overwhelming fossil finds gives us a factual look at past species especially from dinasours since the bones structure were so huge.

I will take your word for it since evolution does not use any scpriptured text in validating itself.

It is strange how you can tell everything from a heap of bones - the colour, lifestyle, food, mode of death, just about everything about creatures like dinosaurs, yet when we simply state that there was a man called Adam who was the first human - our source being God's Word, you think it false. You claim that from bones and old remnants of the like, you can extract such fine information. Likewise our scripture is not any old book written by the hands of man; it is blindingly obvious that it is the Words of God Himself, and to understand this, one needs to actually READ the book and contemplate over it rather than pick out certain parts and call them fairytales without even bothering to use one's intellect on the subject, when you so readily do so with regards to dirt in the ground. The resemblance being that if fossils are your proof for evolution, then the Quran is our proof for its absence. So if you think there can be flaws in our scripture, there can just as easily be flaws in your evidence too. You like to play with ambiguity, so I am simply reminding you that it goes BOTH WAYS.

Their was a time when we shared the planet with other bipedal life forms. Why we became the sole survivors is still a mystery and "luck" "adaptation" "intelligence" and "violence" are all implicated as to why a single species came to rule supreme at the top of the animal kingdom.

To believe in things like luck doesn't quite match this concept of everything arising naturally and in chaotic order, and then producing a world of balance. First you say its random chance, then it's luck, which is it? One could also argue that you need some kind of faith to believe in luck - but that's just a side-point. Anyway, it is certainly no mystery to Muslims why humans are at the top.

 

[root]

To believe in things like luck doesn't quite match this concept of everything arising naturally and in chaotic order, and then producing a world of balance. First you say its random chance, then it's luck, which is it?

Only in recent years has "survival of the luckiest" came to light in it's own right. Luck does play a major part in evolution. When a meteorite strikes the earth or an intense radiation blast hits the earth with a cataclysmic event. It is only luck that some species will survive. And it can happen to us at any given moment........

I mean nobody is growing wings or anything. I understand that you might need billions of years, but by now one might expect the start of some significant changes.

I don't mean to be harsh, but the rest of your point are intellectually dead, since Humans do not need adaptation into flight. As stated earlier some species will not change a great deal because their surroundings change little and to a great extent "civilisation" has taken away a survival of the fittest aspect within a society. mankind has been enjoying a golden era, how long before random chaos deals a hand is anyone's guess.........

 

[Muhammad]

I don't mean to be harsh, but the rest of your point are intellectually dead, since Humans do not need adaptation into flight. As stated earlier some species will not change a great deal because their surroundings change little and to a great extent "civilisation" has taken away a survival of the fittest aspect within a society. mankind has been enjoying a golden era, how long before random chaos deals a hand is anyone's guess.........

I was only using that as an example to say that humans are not changing. I wasn't implying anything about adapting into flight, although the fact that fish can become birds should mean that absolutely anything is possible.

One also has to bear in mind that not all humans are subject to the same surroundings. Some live in cold places while others in hot. Yet I don't think neither have a significant difference in their characteristics, such as those in hot places being adapted to survive without water for longer or people living in cold places being more hairier.

 

[root]

I

was only using that as an example to say that humans are not changing. I wasn't implying anything about adapting into flight, although the fact that fish can become birds should mean that absolutely anything is possible.

I realise this & fish becoming birds is probably jumping the gun through evolution as fish type species were probably the first species to come onto land unless evolution came as a direct consequence of outer space deliverance. Assuming it was water life that came onto dry land, the adapted into mammals then started to move into higher ground (trees) etc etc, then into jumping from branch to branch, gliding etc etc. The true path is not quite clear at the moment. However one can hypothosise many "steps" before fish arrived at bird......... Though I am always prepared for a complete shocker if & when we discover the truth for my mind is open to "smart" speedy evolutionary adapted life within the universe that our origins may well lie with. However, when one looks at all the evidence I feel it is highly unlikely and against all the evidence that Man just appeared in current form which is a major deiving force for religions to claim as in Adam.

One also has to bear in mind that not all humans are subject to the same surroundings. Some live in cold places while others in hot. Yet I don't think neither have a significant difference in their characteristics, such as those in hot places being adapted to survive without water for longer or people living in cold places being more hairier.

We all know why people from a certain geographical location are black, brown and yellowish in skin colour. Again all the evidence supports adaptation, and no evidence other than religous who state simply because of the type of sand/clay colour used in the creation of man. Another reason why I cannot subscribe to religion for it will force me to accept something that over whelmingly is simply not the case. One of the reasons I am atheist is simply because I will not accept a point when it is so clearly not the case................

Root

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Congrats on that last post root
I'm glad to see that pride does not keep you from admitting that: The true path is not quite clear at the moment as you said it. So this brings the discussion back to my earlyer point, it's basicly an intuitive feeling. A choice of one theory above another. And most likely infuenced not by what the theory says, but rather by what it insinuates.

One of the most basic argument a supporter of common descent sometimes uses is:

If two theaterplays were discovered, almost equal,some changes aside, it would be safe to assume that one is an inexact copy of the other, or that both are copys of a thirth origanal play. This because it's just to far fetched to assume that two different autors made two almost identical plays.

What is left outside of concideration, is that the comparison is false because religion claims these different designs to be from the same creator! Just as an architect swears to a certain type of material to build his houses, or always uses the same pencil to draw his plans, it seems perfectly logical that a creator created different species with the same basic material (=carbon based molecules to form DNA with). If it's not broke, don't fix it

We all know why people from a certain geographical location are black, brown and yellowish in skin colour. Again all the evidence supports adaptation, and no evidence other than religous who state simply because of the type of sand/clay colour used in the creation of man. Another reason why I cannot subscribe to religion for it will force me to accept something that over whelmingly is simply not the case. One of the reasons I am atheist is simply because I will not accept a point when it is so clearly not the case................

Well this is your basic coincedental vs purpose based discusion. It seems indeed simplistic to claim the type of clay is responsible. I suspect sush claims to be more metaforicly in nature. Now basicly the difference between your and my believe is:

People have different skincolour DUE to the area they live in.
People have different skincolour BECAUSE they were created to live in a certain area.

coincedence vs. purpose...

 

[root]

People have different skincolour DUE to the area they live in.

Hi Steve,

Do you hold any objections by changing your stated position to:

People have different skincolour DUE to adaptation of their natural environment?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Nope, no objections at all. I guess the point is cristalclear by now anyway, so I see no reason to object

 

[root]

Evolution of life

I have yet to understand any points raised that would in any remote way give serous rise to a creation or specifically an "Inteligent Design" other than to discredit evolution which is simply bad science.

It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man.

Abdul Aziz - I found this in a site: Also the Quran does not clearly state whether Adam & Eve were physically transported from Heaven to Earth, or just their souls were put into the already living homo sapiens.

Well my question is whether they were transported physically or just their souls?

Source:http://islam.speed-light.info/islam...n_evolution.htm

To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians. The point is coverd at the following thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3115

The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:

1. The crystals do replicate.
2. The crystals do use a source for energy.
3. The crystals do mutate and change form.
4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.

The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.

Moving on to the mainstream theory of how life started on our planet I must express that for the life of me I cannot understand why Islam cannot support this theory of evolution or even acknowledge it's credability. It is within the realms of Islam to acknowledge that life came from space and indeed Islam itself does acknowledge that life outside our own planet is more or less a fact although to my own dissapointment Islam suggest's that such life within the universe will not be intelligent. Exactly what leadfs them to beleive this is simply beyond my understanding of Islam.

Starting with a fact - Nobody as yet can give a credible answer as to how life finally started on earth, though the theory I am just about to go into brings us half-way to this answer and that is as close as anyone yet has managed.

The evolutionary theory is summarised as:

1. The formation of the planet earth within the solar system.
2. Carbon Molucules, Organic Molucules and amino acids delivered to earth on comets/asteroids.
3. Single celled life establishing miles beneath the earth.
4. Single cell life taking energy from hydrogen sulphate.
5. Single cell life creating oxygen from Iron orr and oxygenating the sea
6. Single celled life once all sea iron orr depleted reacts within the atmosphere creating oxygen to the atmosphere

The above points all carry over-whelming evidence that exists in the world today.

We already know the following facts on comets/meteorites:

1. Comets carry over 70 varieties of amino acids including the 8 fundamental ones required for life. Comets are 1/4 organic compounds and comets have a very high water content. Comets carry everything essential for life to start. This is fact, you must acknowledge this as factual and not a fairy tail

2. The Lawarence Livemore National Laboratory set up a scientific investigation to test if all this life forming structures could withstand impacting with the earth. The results of which were truly astounding, not only was it proved as a fact that the structures survived but, what was incredible was the high energy of the impact caused a reaction within the compounds and created peptides:

"Peptides" - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:peptides

3. All scientific both microbe and geographic science proves that microbial life is far greater below the earth than it's surface: Indeed it is proven that the earth is teeming with microbe life 3 miles down where just a few years ago nobody could understand how microbes could support a source of energy in which tio survive since it was void of sun-light & oxygen. A thought main-stay to support life. This also was recently solved as it has now been proved as a fact that microbes can & do obtain an energy source from "Hydrogen Sulphate"

4. Again, everone knows that meteorites and comets are abundent in the universe one only has to look at the moon to see how often the moon is impacted and so to the earth, we evenm had a recent major comet smash on Saturn that demonstrated how much impacts are common place. We also know that ijn the early formation of the earth one could have stood upon the earth "assuming yoiu could survive the hellish place of early earth" and see no moon in the sky, it was not their at this point forming during the known "Great Bombardment" where very large astronmical impacts occured very frequently. Only when the Earth collided with another early planet formation was the moon formed. However, the meteor bombardment continues. Zircons even tell us the planet bwas right for life perhaps as 1 billion years since we thought possible.

This is the current evidence for how microbes came to be on our planet.

This is not the end of the story, for we need to understand how multi-cellular life came to be. It is important to understand that the early earth contained no oxygen and life existed deep in the planet though hydrogen sulphate was in abundence. As single celled life moved towards the surface sustained by hydrogen sulphate adapatation occured as the bacterium over billions of years moved to the surface of the crust where a new energy source was found. Our sun and phot-synthesis evolved new forms of life from the bacteriums known as "stromatolites": http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:stromatolites

Stromatolites are the single celled bacteriums that produced "Oxygen" for the first time on this planet and in keeping with this theory they just so happen to be the oldest fossils in the world dated as far back as 3.8 Billion years. We know Oxygen suddenly appeared very early and very fast in our evolutionary past.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/protero.html

Now that the sea is fully oxygenated (for those bothered to read the above link) it now moved into the atmosphere. Again this fully supports Evolutions claim that early complex (multi-celled) organisms existed in the sea a few million years before land, and life was able to move from sea to land firstly as single bacteriums then the complex multi-celled species of the sea could move to the surface of our planet.......... The rest is evolution continued.

Finally, to understand the above concept we must understand the concept of time represented in Billions of years which as humans we really do struggle to comprehend. In a timescale of 24 hours, from the beginning of the earth til present time. Life did not begin on the surface until the last 7 hours of the 24 hour clock. Man came only in the last 11 seconds.

Feel free to flame. A thanks to those who actually took the time to read this........................

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Feel free to flame. A thanks to those who actually took the time to read this

Thanks, I’ll do my best in making your arguments argumental-worthy by replying to them

Evolution of life
I have yet to understand any points raised that would in any remote way give serous rise to a creation or specifically an "Inteligent Design" other than to discredit evolution which is simply bad science.

Well I would think it’s the other way around. We were told how the creation of man kind was ages ago, and now some try to deny this with the help of evolution. The soul purpose of this thread was simply to show that they in fact do not contradict, I’m not saying throw your textbooks out of the window, I’m just saying, keep an open mind. Discredit? Don’t overdo it, if I where to claim al materialist are rapists or that believing in commen descent is a sandwich short of a picknickbasket I’d understand your frustration, but I think by making such claims you are in fact the one throwing mud.

It seems to be that Islam does have the necessary "credibility" in cheque mating evolution by supporting evolution albeit from the stance that God created evolution. However, a clear direction is absent within Islam and within respect to evolution of life and not just evolution of man. To me, islam is in need of a uniformal consensus as to the basics of a "Creation from clay" or "A creation through evolution" or simply a transporting of ones supposed soul into early homo-sapians.

I know it’s hard for you to dismiss arguments if one moslims claims it to be as such and another makes another claim. But what’s the point? Are you on a mission to convert us to atheism? Or are you, just as we are, simply looking for the truth? Of course we differ from ideas, but we agrea to disagrea, in knowing that we’r all just looking to reveal the truth. But our diffrences are small compared to the common ground in our believes. So the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to attack a person’s personal believe and interpretation, or do you want to examen our common base of thruth?

The creation from clay does at first glance appear to be a credible one. However, the evolutionary process of which I myself would support is for crystals within clay that do show a undisputable probability of evolution in that:
1. The crystals do replicate.
2. The crystals do use a source for energy.
3. The crystals do mutate and change form.
4. The crystals do spread over a geographical location.
The biggest problem of this of course is that at no stage can one support clay as being organic. And this is the biggest hurdle facing the support of organic life beginning from clay. Their is one more problem to this theory, it's not the best or leading theory out their.

I think your looking at this from a wrong perspective. When I would say my babysister made an ashtray out of clay, I’m sure you can imagen some tiny finger moulding the clayin a certain shape. This is because for her this is the only way to “make” something out of it. Her only proces of changing the clay is: moulding its shape. When Someone says to me Allah has created mankind of clay; I imagen that the one who created matter, atoms, electrons and so on out of energy, that the one who keeps the structures of molecules in a constant way by constantly upholding the 4 laws of nature (strongforce, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) ; I imagen him being able to do much more then just “mold” that clay. I imagen that person able to make radium-atoms out of hydrogen and vice versa just by swopping some protons and neutrons around. To assume a creator responsable for the entire univerce, it’s structure micro as well as macro, is to assume he’s unlimited in capabilitys.

Moving on to the mainstream theory of how life started on our planet I must express that for the life of me I cannot understand why Islam cannot support this theory of evolution or even acknowledge it's credability. It is within the realms of Islam to acknowledge that life came from space and indeed Islam itself does acknowledge that life outside our own planet is more or less a fact although to my own dissapointment Islam suggest's that such life within the universe will not be intelligent. Exactly what leadfs them to beleive this is simply beyond my understanding of Islam.

Again, there’s a difference between defending against false arguments against islam by atheist swearing to evolution and simply renouncing everything just pro forma, I thought I made that clear already?

Starting with a fact - Nobody as yet can give a credible answer as to how life finally started on earth, though the theory I am just about to go into brings us half-way to this answer and that is as close as anyone yet has managed.

Well there you go and stated just why I don’t buy, there’s a lot of maybe’s a lot of asumptions, and even then it only goes half way.

The evolutionary theory is summarised as:
1. The formation of the planet earth within the solar system.
2. Carbon Molucules, Organic Molucules and amino acids delivered to earth on comets/asteroids.
3. Single celled life establishing miles beneath the earth.
4. Single cell life taking energy from hydrogen sulphate.
5. Single cell life creating oxygen from Iron orr and oxygenating the sea
6. Single celled life once all sea iron orr depleted reacts within the atmosphere creating oxygen to the atmosphere
The above points all carry over-whelming evidence that exists in the world today.
We already know the following facts on comets/meteorites:

Wow there’s a lot of assumptions there, let me respond to them step by step, the numbering corresponds with your’s
1. how is this conected to evolution?
2. It is indeed a fact that some meteors carry organic molecules, but to claim they get delivered on earth is another thing. First that requires a meteor of a certain size not to big so the collision with earth doesn’t provide to much energy for the molecules to dismantel, not to small so it doesn’t burn up in the atmosphere. Secondly there’s a gigantic number of arganic material, if one would make a list of all possible organic molecules, the list would exceed the yellow pages. So to claim that the molecules required to form life spontaniously where delivered, and all those required where in the same meteor coincedently seems quite a statement. Thirtly you have to take a step back and realise what’s going on here, look at the bigger picture. Scientist try to formulate a proces by wich life origenated spontainously. When they hit a brick wall in trying to form organic material, they look around for a while and suddenly claim it just came from outer space. Problem solved. NO! It’s not, how did it formed in outer space? How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created? Fourthly it has to be taken under concideration just where this comet hit earth, because not every place on earth is hospitabel for life to occur.
3-6.This isn’t a fact on wich abiogenesis relies. This is the very thing that calls for a theory, be it creation or evolution. The precense of something doesn’t tell us anything on HOW they got there. Now matter what this single cell does; this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Single cell life is far after the origen of viri.

1. Comets carry over 70 varieties of amino acids including the 8 fundamental ones required for life. Comets are 1/4 organic compounds and comets have a very high water content. Comets carry everything essential for life to start. This is fact, you must acknowledge this as factual and not a fairy tail

Slow down there. Your mixing fact and fiction. It may be a fact that comets were found with these compounds. But that does not mean all comets are like this. There are in fact comets with totaly different compounds, and secondly it’s not because comets like this have been detected , that it’s also a fact that a simular one hit earth thousands of years ago!

2. The Lawarence Livemore National Laboratory set up a scientific investigation to test if all this life forming structures could withstand impacting with the earth. The results of which were truly astounding, not only was it proved as a fact that the structures survived but, what was incredible was the high energy of the impact caused a reaction within the compounds and created peptides:

It all depends on the size. As I said (about three or four times now) It takes a huge number of requirements and a very small margin of deviation.

3. All scientific both microbe and geographic science proves that microbial life is far greater below the earth than it's surface: Indeed it is proven that the earth is teeming with microbe life 3 miles down where just a few years ago nobody could understand how microbes could support a source of energy in which tio survive since it was void of sun-light & oxygen. A thought main-stay to support life. This also was recently solved as it has now been proved as a fact that microbes can & do obtain an energy source from "Hydrogen Sulphate"

Ok so how does the fact that some life forms in other regions use different sources of energy say anything about abiogenesis or common descent?

4. Again, everone knows that meteorites and comets are abundent in the universe one only has to look at the moon to see how often the moon is impacted and so to the earth, we evenm had a recent major comet smash on Saturn that demonstrated how much impacts are common place. We also know that ijn the early formation of the earth one could have stood upon the earth "assuming yoiu could survive the hellish place of early earth" and see no moon in the sky, it was not their at this point forming during the known "Great Bombardment" where very large astronmical impacts occured very frequently. Only when the Earth collided with another early planet formation was the moon formed. However, the meteor bombardment continues. Zircons even tell us the planet bwas right for life perhaps as 1 billion years since we thought possible.

This in fact proves that This planet was very hostile for life to form and that we shouldn’t take earths enviroment for granted, I fail to see how this helps your case. I would in fact believe more in creation when looking at this hellisch place from wich life arrised.

This is the current evidence for how microbes came to be on our planet.

I beg your pardon? Where tell me, where’s the evidence? Didn’t you state just earlyer it are just assumptions, who by the way don’t even go half way?

This is not the end of the story, for we need to understand how multi-cellular life came to be. It is important to understand that the early earth contained no oxygen and life existed deep in the planet though hydrogen sulphate was in abundence. As single celled life moved towards the surface sustained by hydrogen sulphate adapatation occured as the bacterium over billions of years moved to the surface of the crust where a new energy source was found. Our sun and phot-synthesis evolved new forms of life from the bacteriums known as "stromatolites":
Stromatolites are the single celled bacteriums that produced "Oxygen" for the first time on this planet and in keeping with this theory they just so happen to be the oldest fossils in the world dated as far back as 3.8 Billion years. We know Oxygen suddenly appeared very early and very fast in our evolutionary past.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/c...me/protero.html
Now that the sea is fully oxygenated (for those bothered to read the above link) it now moved into the atmosphere. Again this fully supports Evolutions claim that early complex (multi-celled) organisms existed in the sea a few million years before land, and life was able to move from sea to land firstly as single bacteriums then the complex multi-celled species of the sea could move to the surface of our planet.......... The rest is evolution continued.

Although very fascinating, that’s a lil’ bit off topic since it sais nothing about common descent or abiogeneses contradicting creation.

Finally, to understand the above concept we must understand the concept of time represented in Billions of years which as humans we really do struggle to comprehend. In a timescale of 24 hours, from the beginning of the earth til present time. Life did not begin on the surface until the last 7 hours of the 24 hour clock. Man came only in the last 11 seconds.

It’s a huge misconseption people make to assume that time is a factor favorable for an unlikely event to happen. Consider playing roulette and betting on a single number. In mathematical laws the number of times you bet on that number has nothing to do with it’s outcome. The chance of happening is 1/37 (there's 37 numbers including zero if i'm not mistaken). Betting the same number 37 times doesnt assure you you get it wright at least once. Every time you place the bet, the calculation for winning starts all over. Saying time is a favourable factor is like saying: “sure, man can run 100m in 1 second, just as long as the runway is over a 100 km." It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Fact remains, if it’s not likely it happend, your holding on to straws.

 

[root]

Well I would think it’s the other way around. We were told how the creation of man kind was ages ago, and now some try to deny this with the help of evolution. The soul purpose of this thread was simply to show that they in fact do not contradict, I’m not saying throw your textbooks out of the window, I’m just saying, keep an open mind. Discredit? Don’t overdo it, if I where to claim al materialist are rapists or that believing in commen descent is a sandwich short of a picknickbasket I’d understand your frustration, but I think by making such claims you are in fact the one throwing mud.

I am simply engaging into debate

I know it’s hard for you to dismiss arguments if one moslims claims it to be as such and another makes another claim. But what’s the point? Are you on a mission to convert us to atheism? Or are you, just as we are, simply looking for the truth? Of course we differ from ideas, but we agrea to disagrea, in knowing that we’r all just looking to reveal the truth. But our diffrences are small compared to the common ground in our believes. So the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to attack a person’s personal believe and interpretation, or do you want to examen our common base of thruth?

I am simply engaging into debate

I think your looking at this from a wrong perspective. When I would say my babysister made an ashtray out of clay, I’m sure you can imagen some tiny finger moulding the clayin a certain shape. This is because for her this is the only way to “make” something out of it. Her only proces of changing the clay is: moulding its shape. When Someone says to me Allah has created mankind of clay; I imagen that the one who created matter, atoms, electrons and so on out of energy, that the one who keeps the structures of molecules in a constant way by constantly upholding the 4 laws of nature (strongforce, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) ; I imagen him being able to do much more then just “mold” that clay. I imagen that person able to make radium-atoms out of hydrogen and vice versa just by swopping some protons and neutrons around. To assume a creator responsable for the entire univerce, it’s structure micro as well as macro, is to assume he’s unlimited in capabilitys.

Since you did not bring any tangable debate in your above analogy, at the very least we know you have a healthy imagination.

Again, there’s a difference between defending against false arguments against islam by atheist swearing to evolution and simply renouncing everything just pro forma, I thought I made that clear already?

Again I simply state that Islam acknowledges the probability of life being beyond our own planet and Islam speculates this "Life" (Described by Islam as a "stepping stone" in creation will not be intelligent life. This is the current position, since I have been and researched it. The fact that I beleive also life is in the universe I differ for I believe life will also be intelligent out their. I don't understand why you would imply that I am simply renouncing Islam's position on this matter.

I know it’s hard for you to dismiss arguments if one moslims claims it to be as such and another makes another claim. But what’s the point? Are you on a mission to convert us to atheism? Or are you, just as we are, simply looking for the truth? Of course we differ from ideas, but we agrea to disagrea, in knowing that we’r all just looking to reveal the truth. But our diffrences are small compared to the common ground in our believes. So the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to attack a person’s personal believe and interpretation, or do you want to examen our common base of thruth?

No, I want to debate the given facts

Well there you go and stated just why I don’t buy, there’s a lot of maybe’s a lot of asumptions, and even then it only goes half way.

Their is no assumption to the halfway point, You must get over it in your own way.

I agree with you, we are at opposite sides of what ultimately can only be one truth. It is by debating both sides we understand what the differences are on both sides. If this was the case we either would know for sure (either way) or live in ignorance of each side. "You may not like it, but you need to hear it".

Wow there’s a lot of assumptions there, let me respond to them step by step, the numbering corresponds with your’s:

1. how is this conected to evolution?

Evolution is a system, you yourself stated that everything must have a beginning & an end. However, for this post of mine the beginning has been started at the formation of the planet. Sure we cab discuss the various theories both you and I support on the creation/evolution of the universe. But one step at a time would be more sensible.

2. It is indeed a fact that some meteors carry organic molecules, but to claim they get delivered on earth is another thing. First that requires a meteor of a certain size not to big so the collision with earth doesn’t provide to much energy for the molecules to dismantel, not to small so it doesn’t burn up in the atmosphere.

Not true. Sure you are right in the extreme, too small and burns up in the atmosphere. Too big and you destroy the planet in a cataclysmic event. The inbetween states of the extreme is extremely varied.

Secondly there’s a gigantic number of arganic material, if one would make a list of all possible organic molecules, the list would exceed the yellow pages. So to claim that the molecules required to form life spontaniously where delivered, and all those required where in the same meteor coincedently seems quite a statement.

It is isn't it. It is also a cast iron fact that such chemicals arrive on the planet. For years the source of these chemicals were unknown and debated. Now we know the source and science found it. Your statement about the same meteor is wrong also, since if you consider the "Great bombardment" many many strikes occured. Further the planet eath absorbs 1000 tonnes of space matter every year. Organic matter can and does get through by this means too.

Thirtly you have to take a step back and realise what’s going on here, look at the bigger picture. Scientist try to formulate a proces by wich life origenated spontainously. When they hit a brick wall in trying to form organic material, they look around for a while and suddenly claim it just came from outer space.

Their was nothing sudden about it. Science & religion looked exhaustedly for an earth driven start, if it ain't their one must expand the search. Only recent scientific knowledge and advancement has brought about an understanding of comet roles in spreading the life forming substances and distribute them around the entire universe.

Problem solved. NO! It’s not, how did it formed in outer space?

Yes, you are correct. And science may at least be asking a better question now that it realises life may well have come to the earth from space. The point being, is that I am not asking you to imagine anything merely consider what scientific evidence we have even if you contain it within your own faith. it's the same paradox as saying "who created the creator". To ask did the molocules of life originate n the very beginning of the Big bang is to acknowlege life is not unique on our planet, and came to be from space? This is progress is it not! or are we wasting our time and should not bother looking since we all know we were created. Exactly what is your position on this matter.

How does the origin of the material make any difference as to how it was created?

A massive difference I think.

Fourthly it has to be taken under concideration just where this comet hit earth, because not every place on earth is hospitabel for life to occur.

it was not a singular event. Millions of meteors hit the planet during it's creation process. Just look at the moon or any other solid matter in space to see the frequent comet strikes. Indeed comets themselves are littered with crators, it's how they formed in the first place. As for being hospitalabel, zircons tell us it was............

3-6.This isn’t a fact on wich abiogenesis relies. This is the very thing that calls for a theory, be it creation or evolution. The precense of something doesn’t tell us anything on HOW they got there. Now matter what this single cell does; this has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Single cell life is far after the origen of viri.

Evolution does. Adaptation

Slow down there. Your mixing fact and fiction. It may be a fact that comets were found with these compounds. But that does not mean all comets are like this. There are in fact comets with totaly different compounds, and secondly it’s not because comets like this have been detected , that it’s also a fact that a simular one hit earth thousands of years ago!

It's not that a similar one hit at all. The material of comets are well known and impact all the time. You have to move on from this, it's a fact let's move on

It all depends on the size. As I said (about three or four times now) It takes a huge number of requirements and a very small margin of deviation.

Your very small margin point is just wrong. Sure, too small and it burns up in the atmosphere "we find particles all the time like this" especially when the earth passes through a comets tail. Too big and a cataclysmic event will occur. In between the two extremes the margin is huge and not small as you imply

Ok so how does the fact that some life forms in other regions use different sources of energy say anything about abiogenesis or common descent?

Adaptation. Sea coral exists because it uses photsinthesis using the sun as the source of energy. A few years ago nothing was known of the deep ocean floor. Then we made it down their and what do we find!!!!! We find coral so deep that it cannot obtain enrgy from the sun. The light does not make it so deep, instead it uses sulphor-oxidising bacteria as it source of energy. Yet it is Coral all the same. Same life, different energy source..................

This in fact proves that This planet was very hostile for life to form and that we shouldn’t take earths enviroment for granted, I fail to see how this helps your case. I would in fact believe more in creation when looking at this hellisch place from wich life arrised.

Maybe you should take a look at what Zircons are telling us about "hellish earth". For they tell us the planet was right for life a billion years before even science thought was possible. Zircons don't lie or fudge the truth

I beg your pardon? Where tell me, where’s the evidence? Didn’t you state just earlyer it are just assumptions, who by the way don’t even go half way?

It's above.......

Although very fascinating, that’s a lil’ bit off topic since it sais nothing about common descent or abiogeneses contradicting creation.

It’s a huge misconseption people make to assume that time is a factor favorable for an unlikely event to happen. Consider playing roulette and betting on a single number. In mathematical laws the number of times you bet on that number has nothing to do with it’s outcome. The chance of happening is 1/37 (there's 37 numbers including zero if i'm not mistaken). Betting the same number 37 times doesnt assure you you get it wright at least once. Every time you place the bet, the calculation for winning starts all over. Saying time is a favourable factor is like saying: “sure, man can run 100m in 1 second, just as long as the runway is over a 100 km." It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Fact remains, if it’s not likely it happend, your holding on to straws.

Your way off base. I am not talking about time v probability. I am talking time required of the oxygenation of the sea then the atmosphere by the microbes stated and the proven method by which it occures. Also the need for time in order for evolutionary systems to work the magic that they do.

 

[Muhammad]

I came across an audio link discussing the Big Bang...if you click on the link below, then go to the lecture entitled the Big Bang.

http://www.islamyesterday.com/audio.htm

The text for it: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bigbang/

I think it's about pretty much what we've been discussing before - nothing complicated.

 

[root]

I came across an audio link discussing the Big Bang...if you click on the link below, then go to the lecture entitled the Big Bang.

No you won't. You will get a Meteorological lesson.

What dissapoints me is that it fails to mention that it was scientists themselves who predicted a big bang before it was known. If no evidence of the big bang was ever found then I would be the first to acknowledge this. However, the big band was predicted and it was found..........

As for a scrapyard blowing up and all the bits falling back to the earth and formed a BMW with it's engine running, it's just rubbish and I for one am so glad that we don't teach this in science classes........

 

[Muhammad]

Actually, it discusses the science in the Qur'an (as well as the Big Bang) if you have listened to all 3 lectures, not just meteorology.

OK so scientists might have made predictions but I doubt the evidence is so strong as to suggest a definite Big Bang. I mean you don't even know from what the Bang came from or how that thing came to be there in the first place. Sure the Universe is expanding, but God already told us that .

The scrapyard example was there to show that explosions do not produce an ordered world as we have today. Too many assumptions are made that all the right composition of gases came together and then reacted in the perfect way etc. etc.

It would also help if science classes didnt teach humans evolving from apes.

 

[Khattab]

Maybe it was unknown to many until recent years (Big Bang), and confirmation from scientist brought it to the masses, but the Big Bang was mentioned in the Quran long before scientists even had any idea of it, this at least should be acknowledged.