Wonderful video detailing macroevolution

[Raamsade]

The scientists you speak of are the ones who are atheists, so it is normal for them to view Darwinian theories as replacement to religion. And Of course,, this is not a debate, it is a matter of where you align yourself in terms of beliefs.

You're confused. Creationism has been the reigning paradigm for much of human history. It lost allegiance of thinking people because creationism could no longer explain away the hard evidence of "deep earth" offered by such fields as Geology, archaeology and paleontology. The Theory of Evolution only gained the upper hand because it could explain the available evidence better than creationism. Nothing more, nothing else regardless what you convince yourself.

What evidence do I need to present that I am not a monkey?

And where did you get such a goofy idea? Who ever said we are monkeys? We and the great apes share a common ancestor.

 

[Burhan]

You're confused. Creationism has been the reigning paradigm for much of human history. It lost allegiance of thinking people because creationism could no longer explain away the hard evidence of "deep earth" offered by such fields as Geology, archaeology and paleontology. The Theory of Evolution only gained the upper hand because it could explain the available evidence better than creationism. Nothing more, nothing else regardless what you convince yourself.




And where did you get such a goofy idea? Who ever said we are monkeys? We and the great apes share a common ancestor.

How does Geology and Bones of Animals of all kinds dug up, some too familiar and well preserved insects dated as old as several millions of years point out that there is no God? This is what I was exactly talking about of claims you guys make in support of your bs. How does exactly studying the Earth's mantle and crust, gravity, minerals, its changing gravitational field tell me God does not exist?

You are wasting my time.

 

[The_Cosmos]

How does Geology and Bones of Animals of all kinds dug up, some too familiar and well preserved insects dated as old as several millions of years point out that there is no God? This is what I was exactly talking about of claims you guys make in support of your bs. How does exactly studying the Earth's mantle and crust, gravity, minerals, its changing gravitational field tell me God does not exist?

You are wasting my time.

This is your problem, you seem to view science as a threat. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God! That we all agree on. Nonetheless, what evolution does do is that it takes away the need for a god. Of course, you probably believe in the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve and thus evolution does become a problem for you. There is no first man or woman!

Evolution takes away the need for a god but it does not disprove it.

 

[Raamsade]

How does Geology and Bones of Animals of all kinds dug up, some too familiar and well preserved insects dated as old as several millions of years point out that there is no God?

And who exactly said fossils point to no God? No body I know of or read of ever said such thing. Like I said, you're really confused. You seem to be stringing together some barely coherent thoughts then mindlessly throwing them around in the hope some stick.

Stay on the subject. Let me help you. The Theory of Evolution is TOTALLY silent on:

1. The origin of the first living thing. There's a separate field for this and it's called Abiogenesis. Evolution Theory posits that all living things descended from one or few original living things. How that original living thing came is not for Evolution Theory to explain.

2. The existence or non-existence of God. There were atheists long before Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution. So, the two have nothing to do with each other. There are many theists who also believe in evolution.

3. Geology

4. Cosmology

5. The Big Bang Theory

6. The earth's mantle

7. The earth's crust

8. Minerals

9. Gravity

... do you see where I'm going with this?

Go read up on the Theory of Evolution and if you have substantive bone to pick, then do so and I'll gladly disabuse you of your ignorance.

 

[Burhan]

This is your problem, you seem to view science as a threat. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God! That we all agree on. Nonetheless, what evolution does do is that it takes away the need for a god. Of course, you probably believe in the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve and thus evolution does become a problem for you. There is no first man or woman!

Evolution takes away the need for a god but it does not disprove it.

You are wrong, there is no informed Muslim who views science as a threat. Any Muslim will quote the prophet's saying that you should travel as far as china(which was the furthest back then) to seek knowledge. May be you haven't read how I mentioned briefly the role Muslims played in European renaissance .

The whole drive behind evolution is to remove God as a factor in life, And that is there where we take different paths. It is not true that Evolution clarified some mysteries that led to the fact of God not being factor in the Universe, just the whole premise of the theory is to explain life and the origins of life without God. ;Luckily, majority of humans don't buy it.

Good night,

 

[The_Cosmos]

You are wrong, there is no informed Muslim who views science as a threat. Any Muslim will quote the prophet's saying that you should travel as far as china(which was the furthest back then) to seek knowledge. May be you haven't read how I mentioned briefly the role Muslims played in European renaissance .

The whole drive behind evolution is to remove God as a factor in life, And that is there where we take different paths. It is not true that Evolution clarified some mysteries that led to the fact of God not being factor in the Universe, just the whole premise of the theory is to explain life and the origins of life without God. ;Luckily, majority of humans don't buy it.

Good night,

Nowhere did it mention Muslims and like I stated to you in another comment, it was Muslim scientists who presented a less formulated idea of evolution including human evolution. They weren't threatened by science but you're definitely showing yourself the be. You called evolutionary biologists "scam artists"!! Really?! You're not threatened by science. Again, I never mentioned Muslims I only mentioned you.

Evolution explains how life evolved on earth but provides no mention of god as there is no need for a god. Charles Darwin did believe in God himself so your idea of it being a theory to dismiss god is fucking stupendous. Some of the scientists on the genome project were Christians! You seem to be insecure about your faith.

 

[Burhan]

And who exactly said fossils point to no God? No body I know of or read of ever said such thing. Like I said, you're really confused. You seem to be stringing together some barely coherent thoughts then mindlessly throwing them around in the hope some stick.

Stay on the subject. Let me help you. The Theory of Evolution is TOTALLY silent on:

1. The origin of the first living thing. There's a separate field for this and it's called Abiogenesis. Evolution Theory posits that all living things descended from one or few original living things. How that original living thing came is not for Evolution Theory to explain.

2. The existence or non-existence of God. There were atheists long before Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution. So, the two have nothing to do with each other. There are many theists who also believe in evolution.

3. Geology

4. Cosmology

5. The Big Bang Theory

6. The earth's mantle

7. The earth's crust

8. Minerals

9. Gravity

... do you see where I'm going with this?

Go read up on the Theory of Evolution and if you have substantive bone to pick, then do so and I'll gladly disabuse you of your ignorance.

I will take your disqualifications of me due to my confusion and incoherent thoughts. And I read "On The Origins of Species by means of natural selection" by Darwin. I still have the PDF file version of it bookmarked on my work laptop. An atheist coworker recommended me Wikipedia links also which I also read. I haven't seen what leads me to conclude there is no need for a creator and things are well explained for there to be need of God.

 

[Raamsade]

I will take your disqualifications of me due to my confusion and incoherent thoughts. And I read "On The Origins of Species by means of natural selection" by Darwin. I still have the PDF file version of it bookmarked on my work laptop. An atheist coworker recommended me Wikipedia links also which I also read. I haven't seen what leads me to conclude there is no need for a creator and things are well explained for there to be need of God.

And I still don't understand why you're reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species in order to find "the need for creator." Darwin's book is about science not about creator or about religion. It neither validates or invalidates a creator or the need for a religion. It's merely a scientific book offering scientific theory to explain scientific facts. It's like reading a book on technology and then looking for a "a need for angels." It's bizarre.

When I said you're confused and incoherent, I didn't mean it in a pejorative sense. You really are confused.

Pick a topic and then debate the merits of that topic without meandering through endless red herrings.

 

[Burhan]

Nowhere did it mention Muslims and like I stated to you in another comment, it was Muslim scientists who presented a less formulated idea of evolution including human evolution. They weren't threatened by science but you're definitely showing yourself the be. You called evolutionary biologists "scam artists"!! Really?! You're not threatened by science. Again, I never mentioned Muslims I only mentioned you.

Evolution explains how life evolved on earth but provides no mention of god as there is no need for a god. Charles Darwin did believe in God himself so your idea of it being a theory to dismiss god is fucking stupendous. Some of the scientists on the genome project were Christians! You seem to be insecure about your faith.

I thought he renounced Christianity and I have seen quotes alleged from him in his autobiography that point to that. It could be that they are blaming him for disagreeing with the bible teachings and the old testament that didn't sit well with logic. If that is the case, and they allege he was not a believer in God because he expressed disagreements with the bible, he would be in similar situations to many other individuals who had issues with Christian doctrines even though they believed in God. Benjamin Franklin comes to Mind who said to have faith you need to shut the eye of reason. They only rejected trinity or such things that the bible did not support and these were scientists. I would not know. but there are quotes from Darwin allegedly showing how his faith progressively turned into a non-belief due to his origin of species theory.

Anyways, I will sleep now and wish you guys a good night.

 

[Burhan]

And I still don't understand why you're reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species in order to find "the need for creator." Darwin's book is about science not about creator or about religion. It neither validates or invalidates a creator or the need for a religion. It's merely a scientific book offering scientific theory to explain scientific facts. It's like reading a book on technology and then looking for a "a need for angels." It's bizarre.

When I said you're confused and incoherent, I didn't mean it in a pejorative sense. You really are confused.

Pick a topic and then debate the merits of that topic without meandering through endless red herrings.

You would agree atheists like you accept Darwin to be the father of natural selection theory and the origins of species, the theory which consequently leads to the argument of God not being a factor and species are not created distinctly. That is where one should start to check out the claims no?

Actually he sounds more reasonable than some hardcore atheists of today.

"“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.” By Charles Darwin.

Nice confession wouldn't you say Raamsade?

 

[Raamsade]

You would agree atheists like you accept Darwin to be the father of natural selection theory and the origins of species, the theory which consequently leads to the argument of God not being a factor and species are not created distinctly. That is where one should start to check out the claims no?

Then you seem to be dismissing a bonafide scientific theory on the basis of your own sectarian prejudices rather than the merits of the theory. The Theory of Evolution is false because it contradicts your own beliefs. Sorry buddy, but that's not credible argument.

I purposefully said "sectarian prejudices" because not all theists sects share the same origin myths. Only Abrahamic religions, of which Islam is one, believe this Adam and Eve nonsense. The Theory of Evolution doesn't not militate against the existence of God. God or Allah could've created, for example, the first living from which all other living things descended from. Remember, evolution only postulates that all living things descended from a common ancestor. It doesn't say

Actually he sounds more reasonable than some hardcore atheists of today.
"“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.” By Charles Darwin.

Nice confession wouldn't you say Raamsade?

LOL! What exactly do you think he's saying? He's merely speculating the evolution of the eye. There are simple eye designs and complex eye designs all in existence today in the animal kingdom. The complex eye designs, like ours, is descended from the simpler forms.

Interestingly, you couldn't have chosen a worse point to make than the human eye. Octopuses and squids have similar eyes (forward facing) to humans but their eyes are better designed and therefore they have far superior eyesight to humans. If eyes were designed/created rather than evolved, why did Allah give humans eyes of such shoddy engineering? Any competent human engineer would've designed human eye better.

 

[Burhan]

Then you seem to be dismissing a bonafide scientific theory on the basis of your own sectarian prejudices rather than the merits of the theory. The Theory of Evolution is false because it contradicts your own beliefs. Sorry buddy, but that's not credible argument.

I purposefully said "sectarian prejudices" because not all theists sects share the same origin myths. Only Abrahamic religions, of which Islam is one, believe this Adam and Eve nonsense. The Theory of Evolution doesn't not militate against the existence of God. God or Allah could've created, for example, the first living from which all other living things descended from. Remember, evolution only postulates that all living things descended from a common ancestor. It doesn't say



LOL! What exactly do you think he's saying? He's merely speculating the evolution of the eye. There are simple eye designs and complex eye designs all in existence today in the animal kingdom. The complex eye designs, like ours, is descended from the simpler forms.

Interestingly, you couldn't have chosen a worse point to make than the human eye. Octopuses and squids have similar eyes (forward facing) to humans but their eyes are better designed and therefore they have far superior eyesight to humans. If eyes were designed/created rather than evolved, why did Allah give humans eyes of such shoddy engineering? Any competent human engineer would've designed human eye better.

Am I wrong to think you are suggesting other sources more up to date and better informed than Darwin? I made a note of what you said about God potentially(in some atheistic view) setting up the initial process(source) and from there things took shape through natural selection? it is still a leap of faith but better than the zero sum game I heard before.

I realize that two individuals, one theist and the other atheist can read similar data and come to a different conclusion because of the premise they started from. I can think of an example:

To me all animate and inanimate objects are made of the same elements found in the periodic table. Only the percentage of these elements and how they are arranged in these bodies and objects are different(coding in their DNA). A carbon/an element found in chicken would be the same carbon/element found in a human but organized differently in how they link to other elements within the body. Just look at the percentage of DNA(chemical code for traits) that other animals share with the humans in my earlier post. I interpret this data in a similar way to the atheist who claims all animals have one source Only my definition of the source is God. God says in the Quran that he initiates creation and repeats it. To me, science strengthens my faith looking at the data that what God claimed to have done in excellence of creation comes out jumping at me. We all accept the fact of life that to let something be thrown into a stew-pot and let it cook will not generate something specific you wanted out of that. You have to intentionally add ingredients knowing how much and the proportions to get the results you want. And considering how complex creatures are, it is easy to follow that logic and instinct of a higher being pulling the strings behind the scenes for their formation. This, without even touching other great facts in nature that tell us the great thought and deliberation that led to the resulting animal/being.

Birds use quantum mechanics to navigate by using the gravitational field, a method known as magneto-reception. This was proven in the field and when interfered, birds could not fly at all and were confused. If you say wow! nature is amazing, of course, amazing alright, that same nature you speak of as an intelligent being unknowingly when you are pleasantly surprised, has to have the ingenuity to design something like that because we both know something clueless does not produce good stuff. What you call nature in your joy, I know him as Almighty Allah, the credit you give to nature, I give it to God. Sometimes atheists sound stupid or outright mocking people's intelligence even though they see themselves as smart.

PS: I notice someone else opened similar topic, attention s. We are tired of this already.

 

[supz]

Am I wrong to think you are suggesting other sources more up to date and better informed than Darwin? I made a note of what you said about God potentially(in some atheistic view) setting up the initial process(source) and from there things took shape through natural selection? it is still a leap of faith but better than the zero sum game I heard before.

I realize that two individuals, one theist and the other atheist can read similar data and come to a different conclusion because of the premise they started from. I can think of an example:

To me all animate and inanimate objects are made of the same elements found in the periodic table. Only the percentage of these elements and how they are arranged in these bodies and objects are different(coding in their DNA). A carbon/an element found in chicken would be the same carbon/element found in a human but organized differently in how they link to other elements within the body. Just look at the percentage of DNA(chemical code for traits) that other animals share with the humans in my earlier post. I interpret this data in a similar way to the atheist who claims all animals have one source Only my definition of the source is God. God says in the Quran that he initiates creation and repeats it. To me, science strengthens my faith looking at the data that what God claimed to have done in excellence of creation comes out jumping at me. We all accept the fact of life that to let something be thrown into a stew-pot and let it cook will not generate something specific you wanted out of that. You have to intentionally add ingredients knowing how much and the proportions to get the results you want. And considering how complex creatures are, it is easy to follow that logic and instinct of a higher being pulling the strings behind the scenes for their formation. This, without even touching other great facts in nature that tell us the great thought and deliberation that led to the resulting animal/being.

Birds use quantum mechanics to navigate by using the gravitational field, a method known as magneto-reception. This was proven in the field and when interfered, birds could not fly at all and were confused. If you say wow! nature is amazing, of course, amazing alright, that same nature you speak of an intelligent being unknowingly when you are pleasantly surprised, has to have the ingenuity to design something like that because we both know something clueless does not produce good stuff. What you call nature I know him Almighty Allah, the credit you give to nature, I give it to God. Sometimes atheists sound stupid or outright mocking people's intelligence even though they see themselves as smart.

PS: I notice someone else opened similar topic, attention s. We are tired of this already.

Let me get this straight, you believe that life is far too complicated and intricate for it to have spontaneously occurred... Cool, you are open to interpret it that way. wa caadi. However, you seem to be confusing the nature of this discussion with the other two gentlemen. They are arguing that life must have begun from a common ancestor. They are not actively negating the existence of God. That is a completely different discussion. You can still believe in evolution and in God.

 

[Burhan]

Supz, your cheeks are fat. Have you decided mice or chicken? Before you worry about my beliefs.

 

[supz]

Supz, your cheeks are fat. Have you decided mice or chicken? Before you worry about my beliefs.

Stop being childish. Our divergence with mice was a lot more recent than with chicken. The biological classification in terms of order for mice is rodentia, whilst for humans its primates... You are just too scared to venture out of your bubble.

 

[Burhan]

Stop being childish. Our divergence with mice was a lot more recent than with chicken. The biological classification in terms of order for mice is rodentia, whilst for humans its primates... You are just too scared to venture out of your bubble.

Well this leads to people asking for evidence in the form of transitional species to prove the claim. A simple truth is that if Evolutionary process in any significant way happened to make today's variety of animals possible, and nature was smart to devise this scheme, then it would still be happening and we would witness it happen. We would have by now indisputable evidence left behind by the process that we touch and see. This is the irrefutable fact that puts your claims to rest. A useful process crucial to maintaining life of the species and through which they evolve to survive, would not suddenly disappear. Animals would continue to evolve and we would see for sure half-mice half-ape, or Half-Ape half- human transitioning(you can't tell me it was sudden jump between species either, apparently Darwinians have it that process must be long, so we would have tons of evidence of transitional half-apes half-humans, half-mice-half -ape.. etc.

It will be a waste of time to bring up Dobzhansky's claim of new species of fruit fly. Been there before. The fact that macroevolution unlike microevolution had never been observed is well established.Keep believing and having a leap of faith in the nonsense while I get to enjoy reading the beauty of an Almighty Creator's words that put things in perspective along with science that explains how things work. I have both worlds and I intend to keep it that way.

 

[Jujuman]

Well this leads to people asking for evidence in the form of transitional species to prove the claim. A simple truth is that if Evolutionary process in any significant way happened to make today's variety of animals possible, and nature was smart to devise this scheme, then it would still be happening and we would witness it happen. We would have by now indisputable evidence left behind by the process that we touch and see. This is the irrefutable fact that puts your claims to rest. A useful process crucial to maintaining life of the species and through which they evolve to survive, would not suddenly disappear. Animals would continue to evolve and we would see for sure half-mice half-ape, or Half-Ape half- human transitioning(you can't tell me it was sudden jump between species either, apparently Darwinians have it that process must be long, so we would have tons of evidence of transitional half-apes half-humans, half-mice-half -ape.. etc.

It will be a waste of time to bring up Dobzhansky's claim of new species of fruit fly. Been there before. The fact that macroevolution unlike microevolution had never been observed is well established.Keep believing and having a leap of faith in the nonsense while I get to enjoy reading the beauty of an Almighty Creator's words that put things in perspective along with science that explains how things work. I have both worlds and I intend to keep it that way.

Your lifespan and mine doesn't permit us to witness this macroevolution which itself is merely an accumulation of many instances of microevolution.

The strongest theories/hypotheses etc are those which make the least assumptions and are grounded in the most fact.

An example which comes to mind is marine fossils which can today be found high up in the Tibetan mountains. Now how do we explain such a apparently odd find? The most plausible explanation is that the environment at the time these fossils were alive was a marine one with these mountains having developed long after.

But you would dismiss such an explanation on the basis that we weren't there to witness it ourselves.

This is the same kind of reasoning you use to dismiss evolution and when you provide an alternative you introduce all these unexplained assumptions to the table. You can deny the evolution all you want but you can't deny that just as plate tectonics forms the backbone of Geology it forms the backbone of the Biological sciences.

 

[Burhan]

Your lifespan and mine doesn't permit us to witness this macroevolution which itself is merely an accumulation of many instances of microevolution.

The strongest theories/hypotheses etc are those which make the least assumptions and are grounded in the most fact.

An example which comes to mind is marine fossils which can today be found high up in the Tibetan mountains. Now how do we explain such a apparently odd find? The most plausible explanation is that the environment at the time these fossils were alive was a marine one with these mountains having developed long after.

But you would dismiss such an explanation on the basis that we weren't there to witness it ourselves.

This is the same kind of reasoning you use to dismiss evolution and when you provide an alternative you introduce all these unexplained assumptions to the table. You can deny the evolution all you want but you can't deny that just as plate tectonics forms the backbone of Geology it forms the backbone of the Biological sciences.

Brother, I would not dismiss something like that because Earth's climate went through changes over the centuries and millennia(and more). Some parts of Africa used to be Savanah and huge crocodile fossils were found there. The dry lake beds are still there. Earth's Magnetic field will reverse sometime in the near future because the evidence of past switch was found frozen in volcanic rocks showing how tiny metallic crystals faced different pole than they face today. I would be dishonest to deny the obvious or what I can see right with my own eyes. They can back-calculate genes now of people to tell us how far our ancestry goes. Our Somali ancestry according to genetics goes back to about 30, 000 years estimate, and some of these ancestors crossed to Europe using a land bridge of Ice. Somalia will be an Island and the evidence is there looking back at you if you look at space pictures taken of the horn. These observations both past and future possibilities are not bad guess-work because you can see the hard evidence. Contrast that with claims made as facts and grounded in science but have nothing to show for? Honesty should be required from all corners.

Besides, the whole universe is finite. Our closest and biggest star(Sun) is bound to run out of fuel. Our finite life should not be an excuse for blind faith in pseudoscience. Nothing is built in this universe to last. At least I take faith in the Quran knowing the claims of creation and their maintenance can only be made by a being who is all knowing and capable considering their complexities. And there is reason it is called faith because God is not shaking anyone's hand for sure, nobody deserves such treat and we are all beholden to the almighty whether we accept it or not. We are tiny specs in a vast complex universe, it is our interest to examine our presence in this world and what it all means. At least that is being very human. We are human beings for a reason. We are dominant for a reason.