EVOLUTION
Yes, who coded the coder!!!!
Yh but how did the "Monkeys" get on earth in the first place?
Who created them? :heated:
Creationists dealt a blow
- Thread starter root
- Start date
- Replies 395
- Views 60K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
- Status
Yh but how did the "Monkeys" get on earth in the first place?
Who created them? :heated:
Why heated? Monkeys evolved from earlier proto-simians. In fact the simian family (the correct term for monkeys, apes and humans and all out relatives) shows evolution very well in that there are surviving species that have not changed that much from earliest times.
ORDER PRIMATES
* Suborder Strepsirrhini: non-tarsier prosimians
* Suborder Haplorrhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
o Infraorder Tarsiiformes
+ Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers
o Infraorder Simiiformes: simians
+ Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
# Family Cebidae: marmosets, tamarins, capuchins and squirrel monkeys
# Family Aotidae: night monkeys, owl monkeys, douroucoulis
# Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris
# Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys
+ Catarrhini
# Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
* Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys
# Superfamily Hominoidea: apes
* Family Hylobatidae: gibbons ("lesser apes")
* Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes
Muslim Soldier
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,259
- Reaction score
- 32
- Religion
- Islam
you talk of evolution from a prejudiced point of view. let go of your prejudices and then lets discuss things intelligently instead of emotionally. so lets talk of evolution.
lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate? everything is an effect of its preceding cause, which itself is an effect of another cause. follow the causal chain far back in time. either there is a cause who is not an effect, or there is no beginning of time. we discard the latter choice in light of the big bang theory, which shows that the universe- and thus, time- had a beginning. this Ultimate Cause who is not the effect of any other is whom we call God.
if you have studied science, even at a very elementary level, you must have heard of the second law of thermodynamics. in layman's terms, 'all systems tend to move from order to disorder unless enery is expended to keep them in order'. apply it to evolution. how did life start? how did ordered lifeforms come from disorder, chaos? if order came from disorder4 only one conclusion can be reached- that energy was used. this energy could not have come from the sun or from lightening (these are mere excuses from evolutionists). put whatever you desire in a swimming pool. whatever you think necessary for the origin of life. sterilize it. then heat it . treat it with any form of energy that you wish. keep doing it for as long as you want. then tell me if you got even a single, perfectly-functioning living cell out of it. try it and tell me if it works. i assure you it wont. if you (using your brain) are not able to do it, what makes you think trillions of species, all with an uncounted number of members, totalling up to only-God-knows how many cells, came about by mere Chance. if chance is able to do so, it must be more intelligent than you. if you can accept chance as an intelligent Being, why do you have trouble accepting God?
i am sorry, but i have to go now. will continue this tomorrow.
lets talk of the beginning. now go to before the beginning when there was nothing. and out of nothing, everything came. from where does everything originate? everything is an effect of its preceding cause, which itself is an effect of another cause. follow the causal chain far back in time. either there is a cause who is not an effect, or there is no beginning of time. we discard the latter choice in light of the big bang theory, which shows that the universe- and thus, time- had a beginning. this Ultimate Cause who is not the effect of any other is whom we call God.
if you have studied science, even at a very elementary level, you must have heard of the second law of thermodynamics. in layman's terms, 'all systems tend to move from order to disorder unless enery is expended to keep them in order'. apply it to evolution. how did life start? how did ordered lifeforms come from disorder, chaos? if order came from disorder4 only one conclusion can be reached- that energy was used. this energy could not have come from the sun or from lightening (these are mere excuses from evolutionists). put whatever you desire in a swimming pool. whatever you think necessary for the origin of life. sterilize it. then heat it . treat it with any form of energy that you wish. keep doing it for as long as you want. then tell me if you got even a single, perfectly-functioning living cell out of it. try it and tell me if it works. i assure you it wont. if you (using your brain) are not able to do it, what makes you think trillions of species, all with an uncounted number of members, totalling up to only-God-knows how many cells, came about by mere Chance. if chance is able to do so, it must be more intelligent than you. if you can accept chance as an intelligent Being, why do you have trouble accepting God?
i am sorry, but i have to go now. will continue this tomorrow.
Last edited:
From the philosophical or logical point of view then, your argument goes, "The Universe is so big and complex that it must have been created by an even Bigger and More Complex Deity". To which the obvious question is, Who created the even bigger and more complex Diety? No one is not a proper answer because if the Universe is too complex, then God and the Universe is even more complex. Why not simplify it and remove God? If God does not need a Creator, why does the Universe?
Of course from a religious point of view you could say that the Quran tells you and I won't complain. But if you want to make an argument based on logic it has to explain why God should exist logically.
Why prejudices am I showing?
Ahh, an oldie but a goodie - Aristotle used this argument. If everything had a Cause, what Caused God? You can define God as the Ultimate Cause but that leaves you with several problems. How do you know this Ultimate Cause is your God as opposed to, say, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It is not enough for you to prove a God, yo need to prove your God. Second, why make it all so complicated? If there is an Ultimate Cause, why not assume the least complex Ultimate Cause and say it was the Big Bang? After the Big Bang do you need God in any sense to shape the Universe as we know it until, say, Abraham?
Oh excellent. Entropy. I do admire someone who can cover all the major bad arguments against evolution. OK. Let's go with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Why couldn't it have come from the Sun? Evolution would claim not to reduce entropy, in the sense of reducing chaos, in the Universe as a whole, just locally. So energy comes from the Sun, builds organisms here, but the over-all impact to the Solar System is an increase in disorder even though the local effect might be an increase in order.
The Earth took a laboratory the size of the Earth about a billion years to come up with the first living celled creatures. Of course we can't do that in an afternoon. But the Miller experiment proved we can get some of the way and we can build semi-plausible models of how the process worked.
Again you are misusing the word chance. Evolution is not a random process. The "strong" survive, the "weak" die. On average. Evolution does not need intelligence at all. And the problem would remain - who designed the intelligent Being you need for your theory? If He could have arisen without a designer, why not the inifinitely less complex and more simple Universe?
Last edited:
I still contend that evolution isn't as proved as atheists claim it to be! Supression of alternative theories point to that.
And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened. Else it is simply invalid. Let's take a parable.
Consider the pagan Arabs' belief that the sky rested on mountains. Now lets say that someone works out a theory about exactly how they rest on mountains. Then someone points out "Do you have any evidence that the sky rests on mountains?". Is it a valid answer to say "My theory doesn't deals with that, it deals with how the sky rests on mountains!".
Obviously if the foundation of the theory is lacking, then it is invalid.
And I know that evolution doesn't deal with how life first occured, but for evolution to be valid its proponents have to show how it happened. Else it is simply invalid. Let's take a parable.
Consider the pagan Arabs' belief that the sky rested on mountains. Now lets say that someone works out a theory about exactly how they rest on mountains. Then someone points out "Do you have any evidence that the sky rests on mountains?". Is it a valid answer to say "My theory doesn't deals with that, it deals with how the sky rests on mountains!".
Obviously if the foundation of the theory is lacking, then it is invalid.
root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
Supression of which theories do you refer to?
Here is the dictionary explanation of "Evolution":
Here is the scientific interpretation of "Evolution":
I think the problem you have is that creationists consider Evolution
No disrespect, but I think the "average" person would consider the dictionary or scientific term for "Evolution". Perhaps, some could say that evolution must explain the creation of the universe to fully validate evolution which clearly is nonsense
Last edited:
Evolution is supported by more people than atheists. But it is a scientific theory. Which means that no one ought to accept it as Truth in the sense that religions teach Truths. It needs to be tested. It needs to be able to explain the evidence. It needs to provide a logical and coherent explanation of the process. It has and still is. It does. Which alternative do you think works better? What do you think has been "suppressed"?
Which they do. Evolution provides a pretty good explanation. Again evolution rests on three basic premises
1. Deep Time - the Earth is very old
2. Hereditary - children inherit characteristics from their parents
3. Selection - those "better" adapted at any one time have more offspring than those that are not.
Which of these do you think is wrong? If you do not think any of them are wrong, why don't you believe in Evolution?
to the Muslims
Nice.
Why on Earth would they be? The smart question would be why any creatures human at all but perhaps not. Think about it - some animal can make a neat living by eating grass on the plains of Africa, and another can by hunting krill in the Antartic Ocean, and another by sucking up ants in Argentina. Why would they evolve to look like us?
to the Muslims^
Because human beings are the pinnacle of all creatures in the known universe, all evolution should lead to creatures becoming human-like.
And why have some species not "evolved themselves out of existence" in the few millenia we have kept track of them?
Still charmed.
What on Earth makes you think that? God can create creatures as He likes, but evolution has to work with what it has - both in terms of creatures that exist already and the environment they fit into. Even if humans were somehow so very special, and there is no evidence for it I can see, evolution can only produce what is better locally - so a better ant-eater, not a better pinnacle of all creatures.
Some species have evolved themselves out of existence. Extinction, usually with the help of a lot of humans, is well documented.
root
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 73
Yes, what about God, A great hypothosis.
The theory of Evolution is not concerned about how the very first cells came to be, this is still a great scientific mystery. Evolution only describes how life evolved from the first primitive cells.
If you want to use the hypothosis that "God" created the first living cells then that would be for yourself. The fact that "God" created the first cells hypothosis has no bearing on evolution. Thus belief in creation (of the first cells) and Evolution can and does not conflict with God. This is why many religous people aspire to evolution and retain faith.
By being dogmatic in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and if you don't mind me saying "ignorant" to the theory of evolution & science itself we as man risk being held in the dark ages controlled by myth and superstition and ultimately turning a blind eye to what we know to be the truth.
Evolution does not disprove God or religions, it forces us to face the truth in regard to how "man" came to be...............
I don't quite get that. Evolutionary forces acting upon any species is survival of the fittest/luckiest and adaptive. Many species have simply died out because they could not adapt or were not lucky enough, this is why so many gaps exist in transitional forms.
Some species don't change at all over long time because they don't need to, evolution predicted that such life exists remained unchanged from the dawn of origins because thioer environment will hardy change, thus the evolutionary forces don't act strongly against such species.
Hardly the universe. Our planet is all we know about currently, however the Dinasaurs were far more succesful than us currently since the lifespan that these guys dominated the planet is considerably longer than ours. Survival of the luckiest (their luck ran out when the comet that created the KT Boundary smashed into the planet). This changed the course of evolutionary history and mammals were able to exploit new niche markets and quickly mammals became the next dominant force that ultimately lead to "man". Again, mass extinctions (of which the earth has had several) can easily put an end to the human being the "Pinnacle" of evolution.
Last edited:
Little in that makes sense. Evolution does not deal with Ultimate Questions. Although it does provide a coherent possible explanation for the origins of life, it does not insist on the lack of any aid from God. Nor does it start from nothing. It works with what is available in small steps.
Soldier2000
Active member
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 4
heigou said
which makes no logical sense whatsoever!
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what you’re saying, the evolution theory does not eliminate God-
So from what you are saying that believers of evolution cannot eliminate God, hence chance that God might exists-
Which gives you two solutions?
A = God Doesn’t exists
B = God Exists
A
If God exists = what revelations has be sent to mankind- is the revelation consistent with what your saying? I.e. that he created the primitive cell, and then humans evolved from it-
B
If he doesn’t exists then you’re unable to solve the great scientific mystery – how the first primitive cell came into existence?
which makes no logical sense whatsoever!
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what you’re saying, the evolution theory does not eliminate God-
So from what you are saying that believers of evolution cannot eliminate God, hence chance that God might exists-
Which gives you two solutions?
A = God Doesn’t exists
B = God Exists
A
If God exists = what revelations has be sent to mankind- is the revelation consistent with what your saying? I.e. that he created the primitive cell, and then humans evolved from it-
B
If he doesn’t exists then you’re unable to solve the great scientific mystery – how the first primitive cell came into existence?
- Status