Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[Independent]

What we have of a so-called fossil record is very much incomplete and to assume that a few seemingly related fossils demonstrate evolutionary principles calls for an extreme leap of faith.

I know that you don't accept that a proven line of descent of any individual creature can be traced through fossils. But there are some things we can all agree on (apart from Young Earthers). I am not trying to prove TOE directly here. Instead, I am looking at the evidence from a Creationist point of view to see if it is a better fit than TOE.

1. In its totality, the fossil record does show a trend from the very simplest lifeform to the more complex. The relationship between individual creatures is unclear - but the general trend is beyond doubt. This is not what we would expect to see in a Creationist world. There is no reason whatsover for a Creator to invent creatures in an order from simple to complex over a long period. He could just as easily do them all in one go, or the most complex first, or any other combination in between. Had it been irregular in this way TOE would have been disproven to me or anyone else.

The existence of this progress does not eliminate the possibility of Creationism (God can do whatever He wants) but it is certainly a better 'fit' with TOE.

2. Looked at in more detail, the fossil record shows us beyond doubt that individual features or attributes (eyes, bones etc) appear at a specific point in history and then multiply into different species. We never see features appear anachronistically. Therefore, if the world is created by God, it must be that he decided to follow this particular pattern for reasons unknown. This pattern is consistent with TOE and 'explained' by it. Whereas with Creationism, it is not necessary and actually puzzling.

3. Geographical constraints...we can see certain types of creatures emerging in different parts of the world (eg marsupials in Australia). This is consistent with and explained by TOE (geographical isolation) but is unnecessary and puzzling in the context of Creationism.

4. Contraints of form...we can see that the creatures of this earth, although very diverse, are still within certain patterns. What's more, we can see how parts of the body (eg the bones of the inner ear) appear to have been re-worked and re-fashioned from other parts and other functions through history. Although the line of descent one to the other cannot be proven, it has a form consistent with that descent. Why is that? Even within a Creationist point of view, it would make more sense and fit more of the evidence to suggest that God has taken an existing bone (for example) and remoulded it to the next purpose. But this is so like what TOE also suggests that I'm not sure what Creationism adds...

To summarise...TOE is consistent with and explains more of the available evidence, even if we lay aside all claims for the descent and ancestry of any particular creature. TOE fits with the idea of a logical and consistent God more than Creationism.

 

[Muhaba]

What we have of a so-called fossil record is very much incomplete and to assume that a few seemingly related fossils demonstrate evolutionary principles calls for an extreme leap of faith. In fact the fossil record demonstrates counter-evolutionary principles in that the changes did not occur gradually over eons of time, but rather quickly and in a concerted manner. Surely you have heard of the Cambrian Explosion. The manner by which God created the various species of life is beyond my ability to comprehend. I can see the 'evolution' of a single human embryo into first a zygote, then an infant, then a juvenile, then to an adult as a possible analogy for evolution of the species, but the process of human growth and development is programmed at the fusion of an egg and a sperm and occurs in an ideal environment for its nourishment and protection. Conversely, the information for the so-called evolution of the species from a Common Ancestor is not found in that crudely simple and microscopic unicellular 'ancestor'.

Very informative post. Jazak-Allaho khairan! I wonder if the person inquiring about this has read it. A lot of times it seems these atheists / agnostics skip over much of the posts and just continue to repeat their biased ideas - without any scientific proof to back what they are saying.

 

[observer]

A lot of times it seems these atheists / agnostics skip over much of the posts and just continue to repeat their biased ideas - without any scientific proof to back what they are saying.

You may disagree with the scientific proof for evolution, but to say there is none to back it up is just not true.

 

[Muhaba]

What exactly did the children do to be punished by HIV?

Just curious as I would imagine a ultrapowerful creature could have maybe come up with a more effective and humane way of dealing with this. Aren't the parents already going to Hell, so he has to torture and kill their kids here too?

What if the wife who loves her kids terribly, has a slimebag cheating husband, which she didn't know about. So the kids have HIV (which the father couldn't care less about) and the wife has to watch her kids (and possibly herself) go through the anguish of HIV.

And could you also draw the line for me how this evil causes earthquakes and typhoid?

Bottom line, don't pay interest or eat bacon, otherwise I'll torture and kill you kids. This is just the result of primitive tribal thinking.

First you want freedom to do whatever you like and then when God doesn't use His power to stop the suffering that the likes of you cause, then you start complaining about God's Justice and Power!

God has given specific commands - that women must cover, that men and women must not freely mix with each other, that parents and society must care for their daughters and not allow them to put themselves in danger by wandering out alone at night or go to unknown places, that alcohol should be banned, that men and women should only have relations through marriage, etc. etc. When someone wants to implement such laws you call Islam an oppressive religion, a backward religion, a tribal religion etc etc. But when you get the freedom that you want and the results are suffering of the people especially innocent children, then you complain why God didn't stop it from happening. Well maybe the answer to this is through the earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Maybe in God's Wisdom it is kindness to the children to allow them to die through such natural disasters instead of enduring suffering in the world and also potential suffering in the next because such evil parents are sure to raise their children in ungodly ways bound for hellfire.

 

[Independent]

I wonder if the person inquiring about this has read it.

Yes I have (if you mean me) and replied to it above. I should add that the Cambrian explosion and other variations in the evolution rate are fully addressed within TOE, as I presume Mustafa knows. What would threaten to invalidate TOE is not changes in rate, but anachronistic develpments - but these never occur.

 

[Muhaba]

Yes I have (if you mean me) and replied to it above. I should add that the Cambrian explosion and other variations in the evolution rate are fully addressed within TOE, as I presume Mustafa knows. What would threaten to invalidate TOE is not changes in rate, but anachronistic develpments - but these never occur.

Actually your post was just a repetition previous ones. You didn't really reply to the argument raised by Br. Mustafa.

And you didn't provide evidence. Just stating that fossil records show something is not evidence. You have to include examples, which fossils prove your statement, how many fossils, where they were found, by whom, when, etc along with other supporting evidence, and finally backing it all up with citations - books and scholarly works, scientific websites, etc but not personal websites.

 

[Independent]

Actually your post was just a repetition previous ones.

I am obliged to repeat some things because they are not being answered. Part of the reason for that is that I am posing the question the other way round. Creationists habitually attack TOE and look for any flaw in any part of any evidence. A single flaw is deemed to bring the entire edifice crashing down and (mysteriously) prove Creationism at the same time.

I think it is interesting to look at the world from the point of view of the other side and this is what I am doing. I am trying to see whether what we know about the world fits best with Creationism, or with TOE. Which explains more evidence, which less.

And you didn't provide evidence. Just stating that fossil records show something is not evidence. You have to include examples, which fossils prove your statement, how many fossils, where they were found, along with other supporting evidence, and finally backing it all up with citations - books and scholarly works, scientific websites, etc but not personal websites.

This is not a reasonable or practical request. 100% of fossils support the observations I have made above. (For example, the first vertebrates appear in the cambrian explosion and are common afterwards, but there are none at all before.) No one is providing that kind of evidence about anything here. Also, it's not necessary, because the statements i have made about the fossil record are, as far as I know, not disputed by anyone (except Young Earthers) including Mustafa - at least not so far.

What he does disagree with is the notion that any ancestral line of descent or relationship can be traced between particular fossils. I am not claiming this in my observations above so it doesn't matter one way or the other, as far as my argument goes. I'm also not making any argument from genetics so any problem he may put forward in relation to genetics/mutation rate etc is not relevant here.

I am saying that TOE still fits the remaining evidence better than Creationism - and makes even more sense with a God who has also created the laws of physics etc.

 

[observer]

And you didn't provide evidence. Just stating that fossil records show something is not evidence. You have to include examples, which fossils prove your statement, how many fossils, where they were found, by whom, when, etc along with other supporting evidence, and finally backing it all up with citations - books and scholarly works, scientific websites, etc but not personal websites.

Well, here's a quick overview of human evolution in the fossil record with most of the info you ask for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

This is a link from the Smithsonian Museum, one of the most respected museums in the US, probably in the world. http://humanorigins.si.edu/

This is a link from Berkely about the evolution of man, notable scientists furthering the theory and a quick explanation of how evolution research has progressed http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_17

I mean, there are thousands of books on evolution. Your high school science text book will have explained what we know about evolution.

Bookwise, the grandaddy is Darwin's Origin of Species. The further reading list at the bottom of the wiki article is pretty comprehensive. I mean, it's pretty pointless to throw links about and books but evolution is the most readily accepted theory of the origin of life amongst scientists. It is not a crackpot theory that people desperately cling to to debunk god.

 

[MustafaMc]

God did make laws for the development of living things but within that species. For example, how a creature develops from conception to birth and then from birth to death all is according to laws and not direct intervention by God.

Assalamu alaikum, you are exactly correct about 'laws for development' and they are most amazing such as specific temporal and spatial of genes that are identically present in all cells of an individual. In contrast, there has not been demonstrated one iota of evidence that this prepotency was present in the supposed 'Common Ancestor'. The cascade of extremely precise changes needed for the development of a higher organism from an infinitely simpler one screams for the need of a Higher Being to make those changes down to the smallest detail of every single base pair in the genome of a species. The infinite wisdom needed merely to develop DNA and the process for its translation into specific protiens is enough for me to say, "Subhan'Allah" and it increases my faith in Allah (swt). It further amazes me how the beauty of this and the impossibility of its emergence through naturalistic evolution escape the atheist and agnostic.

 

[MustafaMc]

We consider atheist to mean being without belief in Gods, and Agnostic to mean being without knowledge of Gods. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Many theist I know are also agnostic.

I consider an atheist as one who actively believes that God does not exist, an agnostic straddles the fence and doesn't believe one way or the other while theists believe there is a God. Atheist = "God does not exist", Agnostic = "God may or may not exist", Theist = "God exists". Simple, but that is how I see it.

 

[Muhaba]

You may disagree with the scientific proof for evolution, but to say there is none to back it up is just not true.

actually what I wrote was that atheists aren't giving any scientific proof to back u what they are saying.

 

[MustafaMc]

TOE is consistent with and explains more of the available evidence, even if we lay aside all claims for the descent and ancestry of any particular creature. TOE fits with the idea of a logical and consistent God more than Creationism.

I don't have an issue with what appears from the outside as evolutionary origins for species over time, nor do I have an issue with instantaneous creation or the seminal pair of each species. I quite strongly believe in God as the Creator, but I don't know the exact physical means by which God created the species, including humans. I was not witness to the act, but I have the Qur'an that tells me certain things about creation that I accept without knowing whether they are literal or metaphorical. What I take exception to is the complete lack of acknowledgement by evolutionists that naturalistic evolution without any involvement by God in the process is completely inadequate to explain how each microbe, plant and animal species descended naturally from a prokaryotic, unicellular common ancestor.

 

[MustafaMc]

actually what I wrote was that atheists aren't giving any scientific proof to back u what they are saying.

You are exactly correct! We have immensely more knowledge about molecular biology and genetics today, but evolutionists cannot get beyond simple Mendelian genetics of 1900 to have any semblance of science to promote their ToE. They point to fossils and commonality of DNA across species as evidence, but they do not show any model by which the needed changes could have emerged without some Higher Being directing the process.

 

[Muhaba]

I mean, there are thousands of books on evolution. Your high school science text book will have explained what we know about evolution.

I didn't get brainwashed in high school with weird assumptions because I didn't study evolution. studied ecology instead - a much more interesting and more beneficial topic than evolution.

 

[Muhaba]

You are exactly correct! We have immensely more knowledge about molecular biology and genetics today, but evolutionists cannot get beyond simple Mendelian genetics of 1900 to have any semblance of science to promote their ToE. They point to fossils and commonality of DNA across species as evidence, but they do not show any model by which the needed changes could have emerged without some Higher Being directing the process.

i'm sure scientists like you can shed more light on this topic and it's important for scholars of Islam (who already have a sound foundation in Islamic knowledge) to study such things so they can respond to the claims of evolutionists and atheists. A lot of times these atheists are just making assumptions and pretend that what they are presenting is credible scientific facts when actually it's just biased baseless information.

 

[observer]

it's important for scholars of Islam (who already have a sound foundation in Islamic knowledge) to study such things so they can respond to the claims of evolutionists and atheists.

And that's the problem when religion tries to be scientific - you're starting from an answer (you know how life started) rather than a question (how did life start?). The truth should be the truth, islamic knowledge or not,.

 

[observer]

We have immensely more knowledge about molecular biology and genetics today

Indeed we do, and would you say that the majority of biologists and geneticists support or oppose the theory of evolution?

 

[Muhaba]

I am obliged to repeat some things because they are not being answered. Part of the reason for that is that I am posing the question the other way round. Creationists habitually attack TOE and look for any flaw in any part of any evidence. A single flaw is deemed to bring the entire edifice crashing down and (mysteriously) prove Creationism at the same time.

Actually, it's not the flaws or lack of flaws that bring down the edifice but the fact that TOE is contradictory to the statements of God. God has told us in the Quran that He created the first man Himself - God says that He created Adam with His Hands. Basically that proves that Adam was created by God directly and not like the rest of us are created or through evolution. We are all the creation of God but only Adam was created directly.

So, since God tells us that, it means that mankind didn't evolve from apes or anything else. Mankind was created as mankind. God's statement is all the proof we need for this. And since we now have proof (from scripture) that man didn't evolve from any other creature, we know that TOE is incorrect and flawed. No amount of scientific evidence can prove it correct because the theory is baseless.

However, we still need to prove this to atheists and other evolutionists and for that, it's important that we see and study the evidence so that we can bring out the flaws and show that the theory is wrong.

 

[observer]

So, since God tells us that, it means that mankind didn't evolve from apes or anything else. Mankind was created as mankind. God's statement is all the proof we need for this. And since we now have proof (from scripture) that man didn't evolve from any other creature, we know that TOE is incorrect and flawed. No amount of scientific evidence can prove it correct because the theory is baseless.

That's fine, and your faith is your faith. But that is, essentially, the end of the debate then, as we're working to 2 different concepts of proof. Your book can never be "proved" to be from god scientifically and I can never prove to you that there is no god. So it ends up as you saying "God did it" and me saying "No, he didn't" and we're at an impasse.

 

[Muhaba]

That's fine, and your faith is your faith. But that is, essentially, the end of the debate then, as we're working to 2 different concepts of proof. Your book can never be "proved" to be from god scientifically and I can never prove to you that there is no god. So it ends up as you saying "God did it" and me saying "No, he didn't" and we're at an impasse.

There's lots of evidence to prove that the Quran is from God. Just reading it will show you that it is. http://www.quran.com . If you haven't read it, then don't say it can't be proved.