Abdul Fattah
a.k.a. steve
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 450
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Selam aleykum
Creation vs evolution.
This is one of the hotest topics for more than 100 years now. Ever since Darwin wrote “origin of the species” People have been debating this, not because of the contens of his theory, but because of what it suggest, namely that there is no such thing as creation. Troughout the years of discussion both party’s have come forth with false statements, accusations, blind argument, basicly been disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. But lets take a closer look to what is know.
Darwins vs. faith.
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:
This suggests he wasn’t a complete atheist. Personally, I find the most logical explaination would be: He thought evolution was the way god created the different species. The reason evolutionists argue so much with theists is because evolution seems to contradict the “7 days” theory. Evolution doesn’t contradict creation. A chemical reaction making life come forth out of lifeless matter contradicts creation. And even then, one could argue that if a god controled the fysical/chemical laws inflicting this, all credit should still go to him. Then again such arguments are unneeded since there seems to be a big flaw in those theory’s. Sort of like “the chicken or the egg” al over again.
Chicken vs egg.
Contemporary organisms carry their genetic information in nucleic acids - RNA and DNA - and use essentially the same genetic code. This code specifies the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each organism needs. More precisely, the instructions take the form of specific sequences of nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids. These nucleotides consist of a sugar (deoxyribose in DNA, and ribose in RNA), a phosphate group and one of four different nitrogen-containing bases. These nucleic acids specified the composition of all needed proteins. It also relied on proteins to direct many of the reactions required for self-perpetuation. Hence, the central problem of origin-of-life research can be refined to ask, By what series of chemical reactions did this interdependent system of nucleic acids and proteins come into being?
Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
But this is not the only flaw in the “atheistic evolution”. When mentioning “the missing link” most people think about a link between humans and apes. But that isn’t the only missing link.
Here’s some even harder nuts to crack:
Try to think of the imence coincedence needed for a bird to evolve from a mamel.
It would have to have a single mutation in the DNA of such kind that the following happens:
1. Suddenly the creature has wings.
2. Not just 2 long flaps, these wings need feathers, bloodvessels, bones etc... to function
3. The creature will have to have the capacability to devellope stronger muscles in order to move those wings fast enoughf.
4. All bone’s need to have small holes to make the creater more lighter.
5. If only one of these things are missing, the creature can not fly, and hence the mutation would be considerd a handicap rather then an evolution. This would also lower it’s survival chanses.
Or how ‘bout the previously mentioned qoute involving the “eye”. How many different parts and organels does this organ consist of. Al “coincedentialy evolving, mutating ” in the design of a DNA cell? I will not even start making a list for this example as I did with the previous one.
Or how bout the different sexes. Are there evolutionists actually suggesting that 2 different mutations took place in the same place at the same time with 2 of the same assexual ancestrial specie in such a manner that one develloped male organs and the other female, in such magnificance, that they can produce offspring when mating? And that those 2 mutated species actually instinctifly found one another, seduced one another with ferromones, and mated?
creation + evolution
I could keep this up for quite a while, but I guess one gets the suggestion I’m making. Not al species came from the same ancestral primitive being, there might have been evolutions such as dog evolves from wolf and so one but that doesn’t contradict the 7 day- theory (note that days aren’t even litterally but actually mush longer).
Inshallah this article wil cut of the root
of disbelieve with disbelievers and stop believers from denouncing evolution, as it isn’t all incorect.
Also May allah forgive me if I made any mistakes or said something I shouldn’t have.
Creation vs evolution.
This is one of the hotest topics for more than 100 years now. Ever since Darwin wrote “origin of the species” People have been debating this, not because of the contens of his theory, but because of what it suggest, namely that there is no such thing as creation. Troughout the years of discussion both party’s have come forth with false statements, accusations, blind argument, basicly been disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. But lets take a closer look to what is know.
Darwins vs. faith.
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:
This suggests he wasn’t a complete atheist. Personally, I find the most logical explaination would be: He thought evolution was the way god created the different species. The reason evolutionists argue so much with theists is because evolution seems to contradict the “7 days” theory. Evolution doesn’t contradict creation. A chemical reaction making life come forth out of lifeless matter contradicts creation. And even then, one could argue that if a god controled the fysical/chemical laws inflicting this, all credit should still go to him. Then again such arguments are unneeded since there seems to be a big flaw in those theory’s. Sort of like “the chicken or the egg” al over again.
Chicken vs egg.
Contemporary organisms carry their genetic information in nucleic acids - RNA and DNA - and use essentially the same genetic code. This code specifies the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each organism needs. More precisely, the instructions take the form of specific sequences of nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids. These nucleotides consist of a sugar (deoxyribose in DNA, and ribose in RNA), a phosphate group and one of four different nitrogen-containing bases. These nucleic acids specified the composition of all needed proteins. It also relied on proteins to direct many of the reactions required for self-perpetuation. Hence, the central problem of origin-of-life research can be refined to ask, By what series of chemical reactions did this interdependent system of nucleic acids and proteins come into being?
Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
But this is not the only flaw in the “atheistic evolution”. When mentioning “the missing link” most people think about a link between humans and apes. But that isn’t the only missing link.
Here’s some even harder nuts to crack:
Try to think of the imence coincedence needed for a bird to evolve from a mamel.
It would have to have a single mutation in the DNA of such kind that the following happens:
1. Suddenly the creature has wings.
2. Not just 2 long flaps, these wings need feathers, bloodvessels, bones etc... to function
3. The creature will have to have the capacability to devellope stronger muscles in order to move those wings fast enoughf.
4. All bone’s need to have small holes to make the creater more lighter.
5. If only one of these things are missing, the creature can not fly, and hence the mutation would be considerd a handicap rather then an evolution. This would also lower it’s survival chanses.
Or how ‘bout the previously mentioned qoute involving the “eye”. How many different parts and organels does this organ consist of. Al “coincedentialy evolving, mutating ” in the design of a DNA cell? I will not even start making a list for this example as I did with the previous one.
Or how bout the different sexes. Are there evolutionists actually suggesting that 2 different mutations took place in the same place at the same time with 2 of the same assexual ancestrial specie in such a manner that one develloped male organs and the other female, in such magnificance, that they can produce offspring when mating? And that those 2 mutated species actually instinctifly found one another, seduced one another with ferromones, and mated?
creation + evolution
I could keep this up for quite a while, but I guess one gets the suggestion I’m making. Not al species came from the same ancestral primitive being, there might have been evolutions such as dog evolves from wolf and so one but that doesn’t contradict the 7 day- theory (note that days aren’t even litterally but actually mush longer).
Inshallah this article wil cut of the root
of disbelieve with disbelievers and stop believers from denouncing evolution, as it isn’t all incorect.Also May allah forgive me if I made any mistakes or said something I shouldn’t have.
