Can any creationist tell me ...

[blü 2]

Mr Bain

So you accept abiogenesis then?​

In this thread I'm not talking about abiogenesis. I'm asking the question set out in the OP.

 

[blü 2]

Kemosloby

Because the scientific community wont allow there to be a scratch on evolution theory, any such scratches will be rapidly discarded as false.​

I trust you wouldn't accuse people of dishonesty like that unless you had evidence to back it.

So give me at least one clear example where real science, from creation scientists as such, would have altered (and so of course will alter) the theory of evolution but was dishonestly rejected by reputable journals of science.

If you have no such examples, then shame on you for your statement.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution (a purely natural process without God) is about 19% in the U.S. according to Gallup, and much lower elsewhere, so apparently it's arguments are not all that convincing.

Belief the earth goes around the sun ain't 100% either.

It says God put Adam in the garden and sent the animals to Adam to be named as God created them.

Eve also had to be created because out of all those animals, Adam couldn't find a mate to reproduce with. Kinda makes you wonder how Adam and God worked that out ....

Thank God beastiality wasn't defined as a sin until later!

 

[Muslim-UK]

So when you wrote, "Nothing in Evolution theory goes against creationism in Islam," you weren't referring to the Darwin's theory of evolution? What then? The evolution of the automobile? The evolution of the English language?

100 years or so before Darwin was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, 18th Century, who proposed his theory of the transmutation of species. I was referring to the modern understanding of small mutations spanning millions of years to explain the variety amongst species and common ancestry by chance.

I don't know Darwin's religious views. I began looking into it just now here, but didn't finish reading, because the first few sentences were neither interesting nor useful. His theory is compatible with my secular humanist beliefs whatever his religious beliefs if any.

Why would it matter if you are correct?

Proponents of Evolution use the theory to take God out of the equation, everything is random chance and life evolved over Millions of years. I say no, GOD is the force, the designer, the Creator behind it all, so give thanks to Him alone.

Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. Qur'an 24:45

1400 years ago the Qur'an said that God is able to recreate humans from their own semen in forms that they are unable to envisage:

Do you see your own semen? Do you create it or Do We [Allah] create it? We decreed the death among you and nobody beat Us to alter your form and raise you in forms that you do not perceive. And you have figured out your first form if only you would remember. Qur'an 56:58-62

Change of form is evolution. Change of form from our own semen is evolution indeed. The Arabic words "Ghair Masbookeen" means nobody beat us to it. Since God is saying that nobody beat Him to evolving man from his own semen this means that evolution is God made. There is nothing in the Qur'an that tells us whether Adam & Eve pbut looked like us or looked like Homo sapiens.

The Qur'an also says that if God wishes He can make our descendants nonhuman just like our ancestors:

Your Lord, the Rich and Merciful, if He wishes, can discard you and succeed you with "WHATEVER" He wishes; Just like He created you from the seed of another clan. Qur'an 6:133

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Proponents of Evolution use the theory to take God out of the equation, everything is random chance and life evolved over Millions of years.

That just isn't true mate, there are religious people who accept the evidence for evolution, like Francis Collins former head of the Human Genome Project. He, by the way, says the genetic evidence alone confirms evolution, never mind the fossil records.

The point is evolution is not a 'defeater' for people who believe god made everything, though it does mean they have to read a lot more metaphor into their holy books. Religious people who are literalists don't like evolution because it conflicts with what they believe, evolution isn't looking for a fight, it is the god botherers who find it irksome who imagine that.

If the theory of evolution is shown to be false with compelling evidence tomorrow, that would not be a 'defeater' for atheists either by the way. There are more possibilities than evolution or "god did it!".

 

[blü 2]

Kelly ot Phoenix

Is the word iawantamotto known to you?

 

[blü 2]

Well, ladies and gents, Muslim-UK has told me he's a creationist who's cool with evolution, and I appreciate his input.

But no other creationist has gone near the question in the OP:

If the theory of evolution is wrong and 'creation science' is real science, why has 'creation science' not put the tiniest scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, even thought they've had 56 years or more to do so?​

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, ladies and gents, Muslim-UK has told me he's a creationist who's cool with evolution, and I appreciate his input.

But no other creationist has gone near the question in the OP:

If the theory of evolution is wrong and 'creation science' is real science, why has 'creation science' not put the tiniest scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, even thought they've had 56 years or more to do so?​

The question is wrong. Hence no good answer to it.

 

[Muslim-UK]

That just isn't true mate, there are religious people who accept the evidence for evolution, like Francis Collins former head of the Human Genome Project. He, by the way, says the genetic evidence alone confirms evolution, never mind the fossil records.

Ok yes, there are Muslim scientists who agree too. I'm talking about the likes of Dawkins.

The point is evolution is not a 'defeater' for people who believe god made everything, though it does mean they have to read a lot more metaphor into their holy books. Religious people who are literalists don't like evolution because it conflicts with what they believe, evolution isn't looking for a fight, it is the god botherers who find it irksome who imagine that.

If the theory of evolution is shown to be false with compelling evidence tomorrow, that would not be a 'defeater' for atheists either by the way. There are more possibilities than evolution or "god did it!".

I agree, evolution is a problem for literalists from the Abrahamic faiths, less so in Islam if people would study or listen to those who have done just that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Its more complicated than that.

'Proving'evolution wrong is not a practical argument.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution (a purely natural process without God) is about 19% in the U.S. according to Gallup, and much lower elsewhere, so apparently it's arguments are not all that convincing.

That is one of the more disingenuous attempts at usage of stats I've seen here.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Ok yes, there are Muslim scientists who agree too. I'm talking about the likes of Dawkins.

Dawkins actually says in that video that you don't need to be an atheist to believe evolution is correct by the way.
Islam is calling "first dibs" on evolution now? Sure, even if there is some truth in that it proves diddly squat. Lots of scientists through the centuries were religious, you pretty much had to be back then if you valued your life. It doesn't add weight to their religious beliefs though.

I agree, evolution is a problem for literalists from the Abrahamic faiths, less so in Islam if people would study or listen to those who have done just that.

Atheists are wrong to use evolution to bash theists on the head with, as I say it is not a defeater for belief in a deity. Likewise, literalists should perhaps be less vexed, they simply need to find compelling evidence for the story of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately they have so far been unable to do so, "creation science" or "intelligent design" proponents are not taken seriously by the scientific world, but if they find compelling evidence they will be alright. There is not some conspiracy against them, a silly claim I've heard some religious people make, surely if you believe god is pulling all the strings then you should believe god will provide science with the evidence of a seven day creation eventually? Have faith people!

 

[Muslim-UK]

Dawkins actually says in that video that you don't need to be an atheist to believe evolution is correct by the way.

Yes and he also says most people ignorantly equate evolution with atheism, so as far as he's concerned all he has to do is prove Evolution, which has masses of evidence to destroy religion, which is his goal, though he likely said it in jest.

Islam is calling "first dibs" on evolution now? Sure, even if there is some truth in that it proves diddly squat. Lots of scientists through the centuries were religious, you pretty much had to be back then if you valued your life. It doesn't add weight to their religious beliefs though.

The book written 400 years before Darwin is available online: https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah.pdf <<<Pages 137/138 being relevant to Evolution.

"God knows, and you do not know." The author of the book - God forgive him!-says: I completed the composition and draft of this first part, before revision and correction, in a period of five months ending in the middle of the year 779 [November, 1377 C.E.]. Thereafter, I revised and corrected the book, and I added to it the history of the (various) nations, as I mentioned and proposed to do at the beginning of the work. Knowledge comes only from God, the strong, the wise.

Muslim Scientists had nothing to fear. Early Islam promoted the study of nature and the cosmos to better understand our past.

Western Scholars like Sir William Draper (1875) called it 'Mohammedan theory of evolution of man from lower forms'.

Say, [O Muhammad], "Travel through the land and observe how He began creation. Then Allah will produce the final creation. Indeed Allah, over all things, is competent." Qur'an 29:20

Atheists are wrong to use evolution to bash theists on the head with, as I say it is not a defeater for belief in a deity. Likewise, literalists should perhaps be less vexed, they simply need to find compelling evidence for the story of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately they have so far been unable to do so, "creation science" or "intelligent design" proponents are not taken seriously by the scientific world, but if they find compelling evidence they will be alright.

I agree and this is something for Christians more than anyone else to come to terms with. They should perhaps look at stories symbolically rather than through a literal lense.

There is not some conspiracy against them, a silly claim I've heard some religious people make, surely if you believe god is pulling all the strings then you should believe god will provide science with the evidence of a seven day creation eventually? Have faith people!

You know they are not 7 literal days right?

Qur'an 22:47 compares time of Earth with time in Paradise/Hell (1 day vs 1000 years); while Qur'an 70.4 compares time on Earth with time in wormholes (1 day vs 50,000 years).

Qur'an 7:54 And your Lord, Allah, who created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and then settled on the Throne...

Those six days are on the Throne; so the frame of reference for creation is the Throne, not Earth.

We know the Qur'an tells us the age of the Universe is Billions of years:

I have complete faith in the Creator, the ALL knowing.

 

[Looncall]

That's true, if we define evolution as merely change in life over time, we all agree- including Gensesis- even down to such details as animal life appearing first in the ocean, and culminating with man..

Doing so by millions of lucky accidents... it's worth remembering that very few people believe this anyway outside of a small group of academia- who's record is hardly stellar.

19% in teh US believe in Darwinism (according to Gallup)

Also classical physics was around longer than evolution, and was far more directly observable, testable etc. I think like Piltdown man & global cooling, academics will just pretend it was never a big deal and they were always kinda secretly skeptical anyway!

"19%" etc That merely points out the (already well known) abysmal state of education in the US.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Is the word iawantamotto known to you?

I was so happy to see you show up here. Yes, I'm IWAM.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@"It Aint Necessarily So

You said.....
Comments like that always remind me of this:

• "You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, (Intelligently designed and created) type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits. (Intelligently and individually designed and created) This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server. (Intelligently designed and created) This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, (by intelligent minds who worked out how to do that using laws that were already put in place by an intelligent mind) all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon. (Science fact is a marvelous thing....science fiction is something else entirely.)

Yes, I'm aware of where that technology comes from. The process described there is yet another testimony to the stunning success of science and attests to the validity of its method and its output.

And I reject your unsupported assertion that the laws of physics come from an intelligent designer. Although that is possible, it is also possibly incorrect. You have made a leap of faith, one I have no reason to take with you.

Nor does science. If it did what you did - unjustifiably insert a god into the equation and drop the naturalisitic possibilities off the list of candidate hypotheses - it would just stop looking for answers. It was science's willingness to do the opposite - to exclude faith based thought from its method - that led to its inception and eclat.

 

[blü 2]

syncretic

The question is wrong. Hence no good answer to it.​

You fail to say why the question is wrong, which is rather odd.

Please set out the problem you see with the question.

'Proving' evolution wrong is not a practical argument.​

Although creationism asserts that evolution is wrong, I didn't ask for a proof of that.

Instead I asked why 'creation science', after 56 years or more, has made not the teensiest weensiest scientific scratch on the theory of evolution.

You'd agree, would you not, that all of creationism's complaints and inveighings against evolution look pretty dang hollow when 56 years have gone by without one single relevant demonstration of error in the science of evolution.

 

[blü 2]

THBB

Atheists are wrong to use evolution to bash theists on the head with​

I know far too many theists who are cool with evolution to think that'd be a useful tactic.

 

[blü 2]

Kelly

Yo, babe! A delight to renew your acquaintance!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Proponents of Evolution use the theory to take God out of the equation

No god concept is required to account for the transformation of the first cell to the tree of life we find today and the remains of now extinct creatures. All we need is a means to generate heritable variation and a process that selects for the best adapted variation. Given those two, not only will biological evolution proceed in a godless universe, it can't be stopped.

everything is random chance and life evolved over Millions of years.

Evolution is not random. It is blind, unguided. What is random is mutation. The process of selecting for or weeding out various mutations is not random. If a population of brown bears migrates to a glacial habitat, they will eventually become white, not black. Mutations generating each will likely arise, but the one that facilitates camouflage will be selected for, and the one that makes hunting or hiding more difficult selected against.

I say no, GOD is the force, the designer, the Creator behind it all, so give thanks to Him alone.

That's fine. As I recently posted to you, I have no reason to drop the naturalistic hypothesis from my list of candidate hypotheses. I remain agnostic on the matter. It is logically possible that gods exist and it is logically possible that they don't.

And as long as I need no god to account for any observation, gods will be at the bottom of that list inasmuch as they add unneeded complexity to the theory.

Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. Qur'an 24:45

1400 years ago the Qur'an said that God is able to recreate humans from their own semen in forms that they are unable to envisage:

Do you see your own semen? Do you create it or Do We [Allah] create it? We decreed the death among you and nobody beat Us to alter your form and raise you in forms that you do not perceive. And you have figured out your first form if only you would remember. Qur'an 56:58-62

Change of form is evolution. Change of form from our own semen is evolution indeed. The Arabic words "Ghair Masbookeen" means nobody beat us to it. Since God is saying that nobody beat Him to evolving man from his own semen this means that evolution is God made. There is nothing in the Qur'an that tells us whether Adam & Eve pbut looked like us or looked like Homo sapiens.

The Qur'an also says that if God wishes He can make our descendants nonhuman just like our ancestors:

Your Lord, the Rich and Merciful, if He wishes, can discard you and succeed you with "WHATEVER" He wishes; Just like He created you from the seed of another clan. Qur'an 6:133

These are your religious beliefs, and they are radically different from the scientific theory, which makes no mention of Allah or man being created from water.

I believe that what you mean is that theistic evolution is not incompatible with Islam or the Qur'an. What you are calling evolution is not Darwinian. Darwin's theory is incompatible with directed evolution.

Once again, that is not to say that Darwin's idea is complete and that there is no intelligent designer nudging the process, just that we don't have evidence for one and at present, have no need or reason to add that idea to a theory that seems to work well without it.