EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

well look when i made those examples i didn't mean that they evolved overnight.

But that's basically what you're saying. They're only ridiculous if you ignore what comes in between. A dinosaur turned into a bird, but only after millions of years of changes. Just like a 6-year-old can turn into a lawyer but generally only after many years of changes.

but i just used them to show that it isn't logical to say that dinosaurs became birds. and thank you for the info.

What's not logical about it? As I said, it's not logical to say they just poofed into birds, but it's perfectly logical to say they gradually through small changes over millions of years turned into birds. First they turned into a new species that wasn't so different from the old one. Then some of them turned into an even newer species still not that different from the first one. And so on and so on. Each new species is not a lot different from the last, but when you line up many thousands of generations, you start to see the big differences like becoming what we call birds now.

 

[Magic Man]

the sort of adaptation i am speaking of are like me living in a foreign country, so i learn the language in order to live there, thus i am adapting to the environment that i live in. i do not mean that i start to live in trees and i will have to adapt to living in a tree after some milions of years.

Ah, so you mean you think people adapt to their environment, not their bodies. When you say you know that human bodies adapt to their environment, it means a little more than learning a new language. It means that there are physical changes in the body.

can i ask you when modern man remains have been found, the earliest.

You can, and I could tell you, but what does that have to do with anything?

what???? no way.:no:, i've never been an animal nor will i ever be and neither were my ancestors. a clear distinguisher of animal and human is the brain. and ofcourse if one doesn't have a brain they are animals. well not so much a brain because even cows have a brain but the abillity to think, thats what i mean.

Well, you can avoid it all you want, but we are animals, whether or not you want to see it. That doesn't mean we aren't different. Of course we're different from other animals, but in the end we're still animals.

yes yes i know this, but i'm just messing with everyones mind when i say that changes happen in short periods of time. the thing is, ok i'll make some sort of an example, it may be dumb but anyway:

everyone beleives that humans will live in the moon in the near future, ok. so know you and i very well know that there is no oxygen, so i'll ask 2 questions know, this is the dumb part but it is related to the changes that you speak of;

some milions of years have past since the first humans on the moon, so

1 will they addapt to the environment, by changing so much that they will not be required to breathe oxygen, they will become breathless, but still alive. this is in a very long time frame, milions of years

OR

2 humans will become oxygen producers, meaning they will not require special masks or trees or anything that produces oxygen since they will be the source. this is kind of like the first one, but anyway.

Well, we will pretty much always need oxygen, it just depends on how we get it. Fish still need oxygen, they just get it out of the water instead of out of the air. It's impossible to predict exactly how we'll change, even in specific situations. Anything's possible, though, I guess.

ok the one thing i don't get is this; why did all the apes suddenly change a little bit (after many generations) then after the first change why did all the other creatures (the half human half ape) suddenly make the second change all at the same time, after many generations. what i'm trying to say is that why do all the transitional forms. have aspecific time frames into which they can be found. lets say homo habilis existed 4 milion years ago. and they can be found to be say 4 million to 3 million years old. now why aren't any other forms found in that time frame (4-3 milion years old) but they will either be older or younger than that age. the best example i can make is modern man lives in the same time frame as its counsin or ancestor, the monkey. so why didn't the homo habilis aslo have their ancestors or cousins living at the same time frame. and by the way are todays monkeys considered to be our ancestors or our cousins. well not mine but everyone elses.

Well, all of the apes didn't change a little bit. Some of them stayed apes, which is why we have apes today. Think of it more like nationalities. Americans came from England originally. So, today, there are Americans but also English people. Not all of the English people became Americans. Some of those species you mention did live at the same time as each other. Some eventually died out, and others moved on.

The homo habilis, for example (and I'm not a scientist), did have relatives living at the same time.

Monkeys are a very distant cousin of humans. Modern monkeys have changed over the past few million years. We (including you) share a common ancestor with apes and monkeys, although our common ancestor with apes is more recent than our common ancestor with monkeys.

 

[Magic Man]

ok since i have not brought up a "real" argument heres one, in relation that dinosaurs became birds, overtime;

one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducccia from the university of north carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. he says:
"Well, i've studied bird skulls for 25 years and i don't see any similarities whatsoever. i just don't see it..... The theropod origins of birds, in my oppinion, will be the greatest embarrasment of paleotology of the 20'th century."


and i would encourage everyone to look at this link from wikipedia
Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is one of the many reasons why i do not beleive in evolution, just see what evolution scientists are doing to cover the truth.

Maybe you should read up on Alan Feduccia. He doesn't say that birds don't have a kinship with dinosaurs. He says that birds had a common ancestor with the dinosaurs people think are their direct ancestors. He still thinks birds came from ancestors from the dinosaur age, meaning they still evolved from probably some kind of reptilian ancestor.

 

[Magic Man]

ok i beleive you, but still it makes the theory some what unbeleivable, the part that says, dinosaurs started to wave their arms and after a very big time frame they developed wings. you do agree with me on this right?


and for the second par, yes it was 100 years ago, which proves me right. in the early stages of evolution (the tme when darwin brought it up, and i know about the others, greeks and muslims) the scientists made all sorts of unreall or deceitfull things to fool the people, so know people still beleive that those body forms that evolution scientists re-construct are actually 100 % real. is that what oyu think, they are 100 % accurate.

Huh? Are you saying that because some scientists who accepted evolution a long time ago did some bad things, we shouldn't accept any evidence from that time period? Does that make sense to you?

Besides, we can still look at the evidence now, and decide. It's not like they told us they saw God, and we have to believe them. We can look at the same evidence they did and come to our own conclusions.

 

[Magic Man]

look friend i know everyone is trying to be as smart as they can and no one is trying more than me, cos i'm the one who oppened this stupid thread, but tell me if i'm not sopposed to look at the past of something then how am i going to find arguments to disprove something, what i'm saying is that if i can't look at the past mistakes of scientists that they got wrong about evolution, then how am i going to disprove it. i guess i'll have to think about the future mistakes, and guess what, i got one that totally disproves it; "scientists discover that a man became an ape overnight in germany, and by this amazing discovery the scientists themself say that evolution is a lie, scam, or what ever, because evolution is a slow process that takes millions and even billions of years to see a change in a species" what a wonderfull story. is this what i should be doin? you your self said that scientists correct each other, meaning they find a "missing link" or a "gap" in the research of some other scientist, so why are they allowed to look in the past and i am not?

You're allowed to look in the past. However, you're not exactly doing it the same way scientists are. You're not talking about evidence that disproves anything. What you would need to do is look in the past, find all of the mistakes scientists have made regarding evolution, and show why they're mistakes and don't support evolution. Then, you'd have to give us another hypothesis that could possibly explain all of the stuff that evolution currently explains, that we could test and verify.

Looking in the past to find an example of an evolutionist who did something bad, and then saying "See? Evolution is wrong because this one guy was not a good guy" is not reasonable or productive.

thats the wors post i have seen to date, come on be reasonable. i don't mean any dissrespect but if you think that i can't look at past mistakes, then you tell me why evolution exists, why are we looking at past creatures that have "evolved" and not the future creatures.

Looking in the past at creatures who evloved is a little different than looking in the past at humans 100 years ago. Even if you find one mistake made by a scientist in regards to evidence of evolution, you'd still have thousands more pieces of evidence to discredit. Finding one that's wrong doesnt' go very far in disproving anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

i just am agains the whole thing such as apes becoming humans (thats after many generations), bears becoming whales (whats interesting is that land life came into existence due to water creatures having to live in land, then they just went back did they?) so by evolution i mean all the impossible things, they are impossible to me. thats why i am agaisnt it.

Ah, so what you're actually talking about is "common ancestry". That's the notion that diverse organisms like humans and gorillas, or birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor that they both evolved from.

So for future clarity, you should make sure to say you object to "common ancestry", not evolution. Evolution is something that happens all the time, every day, right before our eyes. In fact, we've never seen a population not evolve.

but natural selection is random. there is nothing to guide nature in the selction process, so something without a mind makind something is totally random. isn't it?

Not at all. It's determined by the environment in which a population lives. For example, let's say one population has features that allow them to retain body heat (like having slow metabolism and a thick fat layer), and another has features that allow them to get rid of body heat efficiently (faster metabolism and little body fat).

If we place both populations in Alaska, is which one survives the best totally random? Of course not.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Look, people like this will never change. Most of this thread I've skipped through because it's repetitive. You're trying to convince some one who has been programmed not to think for himself because if he did he might think that his whole faith will be rocked. This is not the case at all. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with a god. All it shows is how species change over a period time.

That I know of he's been asked twice about chickens having the gene for making teeth. I know of one because it was me that asked him and I don't think I ever saw a response to the question I asked. Some one else gave the same info and it went unchallenged. All I'm saying is if one knows nothing or very, very little about the ToE why take it upon themselves to spark a debate?

All I know is that if we keep feeding the troll food that they don't then it will prove to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Riverwolf]

All I know is that if we keep feeding the troll food that they don't then it will prove to be an exercise in futility.

Isn't it a bit much to call Eselam a troll just because he's passionately defending his beliefs and trying, based on what he knows (or thinks he knows), to disprove evolution?

He may be mistaken in this case, but he's certainly not a troll.

 

[Magic Man]

Isn't it a bit much to call Eselam a troll just because he's passionately defending his beliefs and trying, based on what he knows (or thinks he knows), to disprove evolution?

He may be mistaken in this case, but he's certainly not a troll.

I have to agree. In this case, eselam has at least shown signs of possibly learning something. I agree that his position is a little hard to take, but there at least seems to be hope. And, yeah, I wouldn't classify him as a troll.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not a troll, just a primate, like the rest of us.
(No insults intended)

 

[Autodidact]

esalem: Have you found out yet what the Theory of Evolution is, what it actually says? Or are you still arguing against something without even knowing what it is?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

esalem: Have you found out yet what the Theory of Evolution is, what it actually says? Or are you still arguing against something without even knowing what it is?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!!!

Asking the witness to understand his own testimony is cruel and unusual!!

 

[Gharib]

ok guys i have to be honest now. we can't go on any further. the reason is because i had no idea i was going to have 20 other RF members here all asking me questions at the same time. this was just a continuation debate sort of thing from another thread, i didn't know that all the RF members were going to join in, who am i going to communicate with first, look at all the questions here, i know that my knowledge of evolution isn't as good as many of yours but thats natural, a non muslim cannot have the knowledge of islam like a muslim who practices it every single day. i appologise if anyone sort of got angry or offended, no bad intetions were meant.

peace out, eselam.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fair enough Eselam, but if you take only one thing from this thread, it should be that there is a unanimous opinion here that you really, really don't know much at all about evolutionary biology...not even the basics.

That by itself is no big deal; we can't all be experts in everything. The important thing is, if you don't know much at all about something, it probably isn't a good idea to try and speak as an authority about it (like declaring "Evolution is a lie").

If you really are interested, you should take the time to learn on your own, and not from Harun Yayha.

 

[Gharib]

Fair enough Eselam, but if you take only one thing from this thread, it should be that there is a unanimous opinion here that you really, really don't know much at all about evolutionary biology...not even the basics.

That by itself is no big deal; we can't all be experts in everything. The important thing is, if you don't know much at all about something, it probably isn't a good idea to try and speak as an authority about it (like declaring "Evolution is a lie").

If you really are interested, you should take the time to learn on your own, and not from Harun Yayha.

well friend you didn't learn on your own, so don't claim that. you are not the guy responisble for all the findings, you learned that wich others said. so in your case those who say evolution is true (the scientist) you learned from them. i who beleive that it is not true, learn from others such as Harun Yahya.

and i had no intetion of dealing with about 20 RF members, it just came up as an argument in another thread, between me and two other members. it's not that i am going to disprove everyones arguments, we simply wanted t discuss the matter in this thread rather than in a non appropriate one.

 

[Stellify]

well friend you didn't learn on your own, so don't claim that. you are not the guy responisble for all the findings, you learned that wich others said. so in your case those who say evolution is true (the scientist) you learned from them. i who beleive that it is not true, learn from others such as Harun Yahya.

and i had no intetion of dealing with about 20 RF members, it just came up as an argument in another thread, between me and two other members. it's not that i am going to disprove everyones arguments, we simply wanted t discuss the matter in this thread rather than in a non appropriate one.

I think Jose's point was that you need to learn about what evolution actually is. For that, the fact that scientists believe in it doesn't matter: you still need to find an accurate representation of the theory to learn from. And it sounds like you haven't found that yet because you've been going to the wrong resources.

In other words, you shouldn't rely on a particular source of information (Yahya, I'm guessing is the good example in this case) simply because it agrees with what you want to believe. You should rely on information that is actually accurate on the subject about which you are trying to learn.


As to the second part of your post, if you wanted to have a private discussion with one or two members, you should have posted this in the "One on One" debate section...not in a public area. Posting it here means other members are free to comment and post on it

Hope that helps!

 

[rockondon]

the only thing harun yahya knows is how to deny the holocaust. How could anyone learn anything from that disgusting human being.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Isn't it a bit much to call Eselam a troll just because he's passionately defending his beliefs and trying, based on what he knows (or thinks he knows), to disprove evolution?

He may be mistaken in this case, but he's certainly not a troll.

I see your point. But now, from reading his last post, he's going to have to go and get an understanding of what the ToE is and what it says. We have all told him and given him examples. This thread is not new so the information is here and externally. If he comes back preaching the same worn out mantra "Evolution, what a lie".....then I have no choice but to conclude he's a troll. Up to now that's the impressions he's given me.

 

[LongGe123]

ok i'm with you up to here. i have come across this sort of thing before. the thing with the rabbits is quite a normal and natural thing. it is not natural selection.nature has no brian, i'm going overboared here, so it cannot think, it is god who changes the environment and it is only he who decides which species will survive and which wont.

which of these examples sounds more logical than the other to you, please tell me:

1 a living being coming to being by chance, out of nothing. nothing can come to existence if it has no one to create it from something or even nothing.

2 a living being coming to existence through creation, from something. god is the most perfect and most powerfull designer in the world. he created everything from nothing, he has no begining no end.

would you (or anyone else) kindly explain how it is reasonable to suppose that if evolution is not the answer that the judaeo-christian theory of creation is the ONLY other option? Doesn't that just display nothing but total arrogance and also the same ignorance you claim others have?

there is NOTHING logical about the story of creation, and there is also no logic in the theory of intelligent design - how could any human dare suppose they grasp the nature of how the universe was really made? at least scientists have the guts to say that they have "ideas" and "theories" whereas the religious among us try to push their "truth" on us all the time, and tell us we're stupid for not believing it!

unbelievable

 

[LongGe123]

and would anyone else like to explain the logic in the sheer arrogance of people claiming that their god is the one and only answer to the question of the existence of the universe? I mean, where's the logic in thinking that our insignificant speck of a planet means anything to any potential being of that kind of power?

where's the logic in supposing that an all knowing all powerful creative force like that would give two craps about what we did with out pathetically short lives on this little rock in the middle of nowhere? do people really think it's LOGICAL that this god character is actually like its written in the man-made bible? REALLY? i mean RRREEAAALLLLY?! JEEZ