Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Just watched History channel and dinosaurs/evolution discussion briefly. Someone said, we have 'books' written on fossil record, but still many pages are missing. :D
I say a show recently in which they said they arent sure whats at the center of the planet Jupiter. By your logic, that mean Jupiter doesn't exist.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Let's dissect this argument Med911
First of all the statement diwana posted is a statement uttered by a pro-evolutionist ... your statement is actually refuting him not diwana.
Let's consider books written on fossil record, but missing pages argument ... Here the assumption is that a book on fossil record showing the gradual evolutionary process is possible, but yet incomplete. So this statement is attempting to confirm what may not be there.
Now let's look at your statement ... Jupiter - we know it is there we can see it. You have said that diwana is saying that since Jupiter's center cannot be seen Jupiter itself does not exist. That is not true - diwana has acknowledged the fossil records exist ... he is merely saying that the way the pages are arranged is as yet unknown and we are making guesses about whether the fossils even link up in the first place let alone how they are arranged. In which case the analogy should be we can see Jupiter, but we cannot necessarily conclude what the center is made of just by looking at its surface. That is the argument diwana is presenting here.
Your argument back processed on to evolution would read :
Since we can't see evolution the fossil records don't exist ... that is absurd and that is not what diwana is saying ...
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ Yes and thanks.
Evolutionists are baffled how to find ways to prove the theory.
They bring one supposed/assumed evidence and then get surprised that evidence is unable to answer the question. Then they try to use other 'evidence'.
This exercise keeps going on, books are written/sold, shows are made, money making business continues.
They are still both belief's. Only one belief is based on no evidence and the other is based on real evidence that has not been refuted. All things being equal, what would you consider more probable, something based on evidence, or something based on absolutely no evidence.
To be religious and ask for no proof, while demanding extraordinary evidence to proove a science, is being intellectually dishonest
Here you are admitting they both are beliefs. Great! That should help make case against this theory.
Besides this there is no similarity between two. :)
There is no dishonesty. Here is why:
Religion believers never claim to provide any scientific proof. They say scriptures are proofs. They are successful in providing what they claim.
Science believers claim they can provide scientific proofs. So far they are unsuccessful.
Anyhow, there is no need to keep talking about religion and science.
Like I said before, science alone is enough to refute evolution. :)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Let's dissect this argument Med911
First of all the statement diwana posted is a statement uttered by a pro-evolutionist ... your statement is actually refuting him not diwana.
Let's consider books written on fossil record, but missing pages argument ... Here the assumption is that a book on fossil record showing the gradual evolutionary process is possible, but yet incomplete. So this statement is attempting to confirm what may not be there.
Now let's look at your statement ... Jupiter - we know it is there we can see it. You have said that diwana is saying that since Jupiter's center cannot be seen Jupiter itself does not exist. That is not true - diwana has acknowledged the fossil records exist ... he is merely saying that the way the pages are arranged is as yet unknown and we are making guesses about whether the fossils even link up in the first place let alone how they are arranged. In which case the analogy should be we can see Jupiter, but we cannot necessarily conclude what the center is made of just by looking at its surface. That is the argument diwana is presenting here.
Your argument back processed on to evolution would read :
Since we can't see evolution the fossil records don't exist ... that is absurd and that is not what diwana is saying ...
Im not refuting the statement itself. Religion and science are two entirely different realms I understand that. My point is simply that religious people seem extremely disingenuous when they demand for such unreasonable amounts of evidence. That tells me that while they claim their relgion is separate from science, they are infact allowing one belief to prejudice the other. Coming from a pro Evolutionist, that statment means that neither belief in God, nor belief in evolution can be prejudiced by the other. Coming from religious person who doesnt believe in evolution, that statement sounds like an attempt to deflect.
Demanding unreasonable amounts of evidence to prove a Science, which never claimed to be THE truth is just that, unreasonable. All Scientists have to have reasonable amount of skepticism, that's part of the scientific process. But its becomes unreasonable when even in the face of mounting evidence from multiple sources, you still refuse to believe, and ask for infinite amounts of evidence, even to the point of asking for evidence that could never be given. In this case, you demand to see a Monkey turn into a man.
Diwana is concluding that because we havent discovered all of the pages, that then is evidence to disprove Evolution, or bring it into question. But what he is ignoring is that there are multiple layers of evidence that compliment each other. Evolution is supported not just by the fossil record, but by the DNA record, by observation, by biology and anatomy etc. The science does not claim to be THE truth, science as you said is not religion, it has to be based on a preponderance of evidence to support a specific conclusion. The evidence shows that evolution is a reality, and there hasn't been any real evidence to disprove that. The guess is not simply a guess in the sense that you close your eyes and draw a card. The guess is based on actual research. It s a reasonable and logical conclusion drawn from actual data.
I will grant you that Jupiter analogy is a bit of. Let me correct it. We cannot see the center of Jupiter, but we do have evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion as to what the center is made of, to high degree of accuracy. In the case of evolution, there is even more evidence to support its authenticity, and as most scientists conclude, to demand even more would at this pont be unreasonable and irrational.
In applying it to Diwana I suppose that would be as follows: Despite evidence tat tells us with a high degree of probability, what the center of Jupiter is made of, since we cannot see the center in actuality, it must not exist. (Diwana's contention is that Evolution is NOT true because we cannot see it despite the evidence.)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ Yes and thanks.
Evolutionists are baffled how to find ways to prove the theory.
They bring one supposed/assumed evidence and then get surprised that evidence is unable to answer the question. Then they try to use other 'evidence'.
This exercise keeps going on, books are written/sold, shows are made, money making business continues.
Here you are admitting they both are beliefs. Great! That should help make case against this theory.
Besides this there is no similarity between two. :)
There is no dishonesty. Here is why:
Religion believers never claim to provide any scientific proof. They say scriptures are proofs. They are successful in providing what they claim.
Science believers claim they can provide scientific proofs. So far they are unsuccessful.
Anyhow, there is no need to keep talking about religion and science.
like I said before, science alone is enough to refute evolution. :)
First of all, here is the definition of what a belief is.
be·lief/biˈlēf/Noun
Now this "belief" can be a belief in a scientific principle, you accept a 'scientific" principle to be true or a :"belief" that a religious doctrine is true.
The difference in the two beliefs is that Evolution is based on actual evidence, while religion is not.
And of course religion doesn't provide any scientific proof. And thats the issue here. Relgion does however claim to be the truth, and we accept this claim that our religion is "true" based on no evidence. Im willing to leave it at that. I dont ask for any extraordinary evidence to support Islam. I dont ask for something unreasonable, like for instance, wanting God to personally hand me a coffee right at this moment. No, all I ask is that my faith be logical, and thats all. But then I also dont ask for unreasonable amounts of evidence to support evolution or any other science either, asking only for a logical and reasonable amount of evidence to support it, which it has in abundance.
When scientists say they offer proof, its proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubts you raise are beyond unreasonable, they are irrational.
Science is not written in stone and no Scientists can ever say that it is. If real evidence is shown to disprove evolution, then evolution will be dropped. The reason it hasnt been dropped is because there hasnt been such evidence, but quite the opposite.
The reason your being dishonest is because you are allowing one belief to affect the other. You yourself are mixing religion and science. The Pro-Evolutionist who expressed your opinion, as Psyah saab pointed out, accepted that science and religion are two separate things, but he did not allow his relgious belief to bias his scientific understanding. While you claim that your relgious belief is seperate from your understanding of Science, you are in fact allowing you religion dictate your understanding of Science, so your entire opinion is prejudiced against Science to begin with. And so your being disingenuous.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ But you see Med911 ... the fossil record is not overwhelming evidence at all ... you know those flick book cartoons ... well in the fossil record there are two pictures and hundred pages of gaps in between ... When we see the pages with the cartoons on them we see two different images, we can try to put our own pictures on those 100 pages of gaps and then flick the pages through to see smooth transitions ... but then someone comes along and says those two pictures are meant to be individually framed they were never meant to be bound in the same flick book together ... Of course if we go in to the fossil record expecting the fossils to be transitional we will find those patterns even if they are not really meant to be there. It's the preconceived mindset that we approach this subject that leads to such drastic differences in the creationist view from the evolutionary view. And that is where I will conclude.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ But you see Med911 ... the fossil record is not overwhelming evidence at all ... you know those flick book cartoons ... well in the fossil record there are two pictures and hundred pages of gaps in between ... When we see the pages with the cartoons on them we see two different images, we can try to put our own pictures on those 100 pages of gaps and then flick the pages through to see smooth transitions ... but then someone comes along and says those two pictures are meant to be individually framed they were never meant to be bound in the same flick book together ... Of course if we go in to the fossil record expecting the fossils to be transitional we will find those patterns even if they are not really meant to be there. It's the preconceived mindset that we approach this subject that leads to such drastic differences in the creationist view from the evolutionary view. And that is where I will conclude.
These arent assumoptions based on nothing. These are conclusions drawn on a whole host of other sciences, all of which compliment these conclusions.
As far as the fossil record goes, we can date each fossil so we know which came first. We can surmise from the available fossil record and their respective dates that certain anatomical features, which bear striking resemblances to other anatomical feature in a modern or later date fossil, are related. So for example, humans have Coccyx bones. We also see this in creatures who were presumably our ancestors, based on fossil similarities, except that in many of those creatures, these very same bones extended to form a tail. We also see that the Coccyx are the appendages from which tails extend in modern tailed animal (animals who incidentally share an extraordinary amount of genetic homogeneity with us). So its reasonable to conclude, taking into account other science such as genetics, that we are descended from a creature that once had a tail, but then evolved to not have it any longer.
And like I said, its not JUST the fossil record, its other sciences that all show evidence that converge to give us this overarching understanding of evolution as a whole, based on which we can draw reasonable conclusion. The Conclusions we draw are not 100 percent true. Any under grad Philosophy student will tell you that nothing is 100 percent certain, there is an entire branch of Philosophy dedicated to this. But its true in the sense of that it has a high probability of being true considering the evidence at hand. So much so that we consider it to be a certainty.
When I say overwhelming evidence, I mean all thngs considered. Fossil evidence alone is not the smoking gun.
Its all based on degrees of probability.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
** But its true in the sense of that it has a high probability of being true considering the evidence at hand. So much so that we consider it to be a certainty.
When I say overwhelming evidence, I mean all thngs considered. Fossil evidence alone is not the smoking gun**.
This is where you and I differ ...
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
This is where you and I differ ...
You and the rest of the Scientific community... In terms of probability, Evolution is not just likely, its practically certain, and I would go on to say that its in fact inevitable from a genetic standpoint.
Scientists cant go by hunches, they can only accept what the evidence shows to be the most likely reality. To not accept something with such preponderance of evidence, simply when that evidence seems to contradict your religious belief (which you accept without evidence) is as I said before, intellectually dishonest.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ This is where you and I differ ... further ... the dishonesty is on your part
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
You and the rest of the Scientific community... In terms of probability, Evolution is not just likely, its practically certain, and I would go on to say that its in fact inevitable from a genetic standpoint.
Scientists cant go by hunches, they can only accept what the evidence shows to be the most likely reality. To not accept something with such preponderance of evidence, simply when that evidence seems to contradict your religious belief (which you accept without evidence) is as I said before, intellectually dishonest.
You mention probability - let me see the data behind that statement - Come on statistics is part of my day job, please oblige.
Evolution is practically certain - let's assume that certainty on a probabilistic scale is 99% ... Let's see you get there ...
From a genetic standpoint inevitable? - Demonstrate that to me ... a lesson in genetics please! My degree was part bioprocess engineering so it's not as if I won't understand the technicalities.
I totally agree with you that scientists can't go by hunches ... yet you see evolutionists are doing just that.
The reason for not accepting evolution is primarily it is not proven nor even scientific - it is not falsifiable and not testable so where is the evidence? Records shows static data ... I'm gonna have to reproduce my discourse on scientific facts here aren't I?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ This is where you and I differ ... further ... the dishonesty is on your part
Bhai, im only giving you what the evidence shows. Im not making up the facts. There is nothing dishonest in saying that the evidence tells us that evolution has a very high probability to the point of certainty.
It takes less evidence to convict a criminal of an offense.
Now lets be honest with ourselves. Is your objection due to a lack of evidence, or a perceived discrepancy between evolution and Islam?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Why are you getting upset?
Would you like google links? I mean you would have to do some actual reading. I would obviously have to cite the same websites that you could go through yourself. Im not going to go point by point because I dont have the time. But atleast go through the sites and read why evolution is considered to be real.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
Read how multi scientific disciplines converge to demonstrate the veracity of Evolution. I admit that there is a minute chance that evolution is false, and everyone of us sprouted out of the ground like turnips, but the evidence weighs heavily in favor of evolution.
I already mentioned how its inevitable. Im not getting into the technicalities but you dont need a degree in bioprocess engineering to understand that…
Im sure you believe in Micro Evolution, but how Micro Evolution doesnt inevitably lead to MACRO Evolution is beyond me, regardless of whether we are there to see it or not.
So new species can and are produced out of existing ones. How can you claim that species do not evolve and differentiate? But I suspect its some other part of evolution that you disagree with.
I mention probability, because technically speaking, there is nothing that is certain. But we can assume that because of the preponderance of evidence supports a particular conclusion, its highly probable that conclusion is a valid one.
How high a probability in numbers is irrelevant. Its certainly far more probable then any competing theory.
Can you show that your alternative is even remotely plausable?
I keep mentioning here that what your demanding is extraordinary evidence. Perhaps a time machine?
There is evidence of this differentiation all around us.
It isnt just a hunch, I suppose you could say its a hypothesis, but all science is based on initial hypothesis. Ultimately, a conclusion is based on research and evidence.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Very simply how various disciplines converge to demonstrate that Evolution is true. Or as I put it, highly highly probable to the point of near certainty. This is from a site, not my own…
Paleontology shows us that organisms have changed gradually over time, as reflected in the fossil record.
Bio-geography shows us how new species only arise near very similiar species. Similar species share a common time and place.
Developmental biology shows us that an organism builds on ancestral features as it develops from a single cell.
Morphology shows us how organisms adapt ancestral features to new uses, even when there are more efficient solutions elsewhere in nature
Genetics shows us that we can group species by similarity of genes. These groups even share unused DNA.
The bruden of proof is on those who dont believe it to be reality. The evidence points in the direction of evolution being a fact. If there are those who refute this evidence, then shouldnt it be they who tell us why the evidence is lying?
Evidence of recent evolution, good read: National Geographic | National Geographic
Pattern of short tandem repeats also reflect human evolution, following a pattern that reflects"genetic distances.."
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
This is still going? Med Give up.. Psyah is a bot haha..
Or maybe you guys can just exchange each other's email addresses? :D
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
First of all, here is the definition of what a belief is. be·lief/biˈlēf/Noun
Now this "belief" can be a belief in a scientific principle, you accept a 'scientific" principle to be true or a :"belief" that a religious doctrine is true.
The difference in the two beliefs is that Evolution is based on actual evidence, while religion is not.
And of course religion doesn't provide any scientific proof. And thats the issue here. Relgion does however claim to be the truth, and we accept this claim that our religion is "true" based on no evidence. Im willing to leave it at that. I dont ask for any extraordinary evidence to support Islam. I dont ask for something unreasonable, like for instance, wanting God to personally hand me a coffee right at this moment. No, all I ask is that my faith be logical, and thats all. But** then I also dont ask for unreasonable amounts of evidence to support evolution or any other science either, asking only for a logical and reasonable amount of evidence to support it, which it has in abundance. **
But here s the problem. I agree with your belief on religion reasoning. But science does not have abundance of proof. Something which is merely accepted as 'fact' and not really fact.
Like I said, in terms of using word 'beliefs' religion and evolution are same. Otherwise if one really goes in to what is fact then evolution at least has no strong legs to sand on. Merely crutches of ideas and theories and some anecdotal observations.
When scientists say they offer proof, its proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubts you raise are beyond unreasonable, they are irrational.
But there is a lot o room for doubt when no one has ever seen or demonstrated it. Meaning change of one group of species to other.
Science is not written in stone and no Scientists can ever say that it is. If real evidence is shown to disprove evolution, then evolution will be dropped. The reason it hasnt been dropped is because there hasnt been such evidence, but quite the opposite.
The best evidence aganst it is lack of abundant evidence. The struggle to prove it can be continued, but who will be there to see change or evolution in human to another species?
We have not even seen monkeys changed to human. (Well for a joke maybe. Reminds me the pictures of a politician. ha! ha!.)
Kaun Jeeta Hai Tere Zulf Ke Sar Honay Tak!
The reason your being dishonest is because you are allowing one belief to affect the other. You yourself are mixing religion and science. The Pro-Evolutionist who expressed your opinion, as Psyah saab pointed out, accepted that science and religion are two separate things, but he did not allow his relgious belief to bias his scientific understanding. While you claim that your relgious belief is seperate from your understanding of Science, you are in fact allowing you religion dictate your understanding of Science, so your entire opinion is prejudiced against Science to begin with. And so your being disingenuous.
*Sorry if that is what I came across. Let me make it clear. I really do not see evolution as being a false theory because of ANY religious idea. *
*I have said this repeatedly, scientific evidences and lack of scientific evidences both can refute evolution. No need to bring religion. *
.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace Med911
There are real problems I have with evolution and it goes beyond the gaps between species:
a) The first amino acid
b) The first complex amino acid that created L type isomers of amino acids
c) What conditions led to that complex amino acid being prevalent
d) The step from amino acids to how or why they came together - to serve what thermodynamic function
e) The formation of protein
f) The evolutionary reason for the production of protein
g) The cell
h) The evolutionary reason for the production of the cell
i) The problem that the cell is actually a complex structure, with a number of mitochondria in it which are being produced carry messages and tell the cell where to put waste material, why a process i.e. a barrier - at the cell membrane, the mitochondria and processes they engage in formed. What thermodynamic principle made it favourable for a protein to become a cell and how did the symbiotic relationship between mitochondria and the nucleus and the rest of the cell start to work together.
j) Why did the cell split ... what thermodynamic principle is in place to say that such and such an arrangement of proteins will create an organism that inherently knowingly or unknowingly wants to survive and has biological processes such as division to achieve that.
k) The multi-celled structures are all many millions of cells, where are the two celled organisms, four celled ones, hundred celled ones, what is the most simple living organism after the amoeba?
l) What was the evolutionary incentive for the formation of multi-celled structures
Look this is only the beginning ... this list will branch off in as many directions as there are evolutionists ... trust me it's not about my perceived conflict with religion, but when I hear a scientific theory I look for certain things and I can't find them in the theory of evolution at all. It sounds to me like a religious belief - and that is what I'm saying here.
Note each question of mine leads to a separate theory it is not fair to say that evolution is 1 theory. It is not! It is a theory based on the idea that another theory might be true based on another theory might be true based on another theory that might be true and so on. When pro-evolutionists say the creation theory is that we sprout up like turnips to ridicule the alternative views is funny because at least we only have one theory which is we sprout up like turnips, but evolution is a compound of the same ... if this little turnip sprouted, and this little turnip and then this little turnip then that little turnip will sprout too.
And then I wonder aren't turnips part of the evolutionary cycle anyway ... is it possible that evolutionists believe that turnips are a product of creation?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I think we are talking about two different things.
Your talking about how Amino Acids formed into Proteins and further into single celled and then multi cellular creatures. Its the very basis of creation. I mean we can take it as far back as we like and it only gets more and more complex. Insert God into the equation if you like, I do. I mean, I admit I dont know why one Amino acid was predominant, divine providence?
Even scientists are only now beginning to understand how Amino acids first formed and how they formed to become Proteins. Why proteins and not something else? Perhaps those were the molecules most in abundance in the soup of creation… Serendipity perhaps.
Evolution as from my understanding pertains to differentiation of established organisms into varying degrees of complexity, with a given environment. How those organisms formed on a molecular level is yet to be fully understood. And most scientists will admit as much.
We are however getting closer to understand the process.
Scientists Create First Synthetic Bacterial Genome -- Largest Chemically Defined Structure Synthesized In The Lab | ScienceDaily
None the less, a lack of answers to your questions does not diminish the theory itself. Questions are there to be answered, not to act as validation of ones doubts. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While we cant at this point answer all the questions, we do have answers to many others.
My point is that there is an abundance of evidence that proves the veracity of Evolution. All these disciplines perfectly compliment each other… At some point one as to simply say, there is just to much evidence for this not to be true. Fossil record for example, at some point, one has to admit, that two animals, with multiple anatomical similarities are very likely to be related.
The other theories you mentioned arent MIGHTS, they ARE. We do find transitional creatures, we do understand the genetics of differentiation, etc. All of these other observations only add weight to the existing theory, they dont diminish it. All those things I mentioned above only add weight to the understanding that creatures evolve.
Again, I use my analogy of the criminal in court. If their is only one piece of evidence that might link a person to a crime, you would have reason to doubt, but MULTIPLE corroborating evidence, is more then enough to convict anyone.
The TURNIP theory is weakened by the fact that its a stand alone theory not strengthened by it. If there is no other corroborating evidence to show we all sprouted out of the ground, then how can anyone assume that we are all descendants of turnips? On the other hand, if you showed me how we are genetically similar to turnips, and show me anatomically that we share features with turnips, and you show me evidence that its possible for us to mutate from turnips into Humans and into other vegetables, then I would say we have genuine science here, and possibly, if no one can prove you wrong, you will be acknowledged as being right. Thats Evolution and thats science. Show us evidence that something is true, otherwise prove it wrong. So far, no other explanation is plausible, and evidence has only increased to establish its validity.
And I dont mean to mock anyone, but people who dont believe in evolution, often do literally believe we simply sprouted out of the earth. Now that to me sounds rather ridiculous, and doesnt make any sense what so ever.
And yeah, I suppose we the mammals and all vegetables have evolved from a VERY distant common ancestor, after all, the Vegetables share the same building blocks we do.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
:)
I dont think you got the inevitability part.
Its really simple. I mean, mutations accumulate. Accumulate over a long times and you have a huge amount of mutations. Eventually there are so many mutations that you have a completely new genome. Thats when you have a new species.
Its like a drop of water in a bucket. Eventually that bucket will spillover.