EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Sententia]

In that case, we're all done. Evolution is true. There, settled.

Settled again. Now lets have a moment of silence so everyone who thinks its not settled can catch up.

...

being silent.

...

not talking

...

silently pondering

...

Looking around to see if other people are being silent.

...

Who is that girl smiling at me?

...

Moment is over? no wait... go back.

Ahh well....

True/Not True.... Evolution in its current form is the best theory we have. Creationism is not true if you disprove evolution. Creationism is a joke.

But I have yet to see an argument that disproves evolution. All I see is nonsense like irreducible complexity and design theories... honestly isn't google every where by now? If you can get to RF can't you google the counterpoints or are people just using google to support their claims by heading to hocus-pocus and pseudo-science blogs?

(Yeah... google as a verb... off subject but still funny)

I haven't seen anything that disputes evolution yet but the title is evolution what a lie with the premise that creationism is obviously true. Dunno if I should sigh or LOL.

 

[Gharib]

Yup. Millions of them. Would you like some examples? Or will you just do like Fatihah and assert that the paleontologists who discovered them are lying?

yeah kind of. if there is sufficient evidence, which i must say there is in this example that you have provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik Very important and exciting creature in the important transition from sea to land.



Would you like some more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

i do actually like to see some more examples, because as far as i could tell from the article, scientists have only found these fossils of the so called tiktaalik;



Skull front view




Skull rear view




Limb fin to shoulder




Limb shoulder to fin



so would you kindly explain how scientists came up with the above drawing of the tiktaalik from 3 fossil bones only? i am sure you have heard of the "nebraska man" tale. how sure are you that there is no exageration in this case also, because from what i can see the image you posted is a drawing, there is no actuall FULL BODY fossil to suppor it.

scientists believe that thats how the creature might have looked, but don't have any evidence to support it, appart from those 3 fossils, which are a very tiny part in explaining the animal itself.

they have stated:

Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content.

as for the spiracle, it proves nothing because if that was such an important fact to support tha this animal was a half land-half water creature, then what about this:
Aquatic insects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waterbeetle.PNGA water beetlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whirligigbeetle.PNGA whirligig beetle
Aquatic insects live some portion of their life cycle in the water. They feed in the same ways as other insects. Some diving insects, such as predatory diving beetles, can hunt for food underwater where land-living insects cannot compete.
One problem that aquatic insects must overcome is how to get oxygen while they are under water. All animals require a source of oxygen to live. Insects draw air into their bodies through spiracles, holes found along the sides of the abdomen. These spiracles are connected to tracheal tubes where oxygen can be absorbed. All aquatic insects have become adapted to their environment with the specialization of these structures






Aquatic insects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it seems we have a modern creature with the same special abilities as the tiktaalik.
and there is also the frog. this is one bad example, so please post some more.

as for the primitive lung, that is an example of a dolphin, no big difference in the two. a dolphin has no gills nor spiracles and yet it can stay underwater but comes to the surface to breathe. that is a living example also.

one down, millions more to go.

 

[Gharib]

actually guys, we do have to speak about Allah here, since i am arguing that he created us and evolution does not exist. sorry for posting the other statement before, it was wrong of me to do so.

 

[Buttons*]

Eselam, something came to my attention. Have you ever been to a museum? I have. I've been to several museums. Several have very complete and almost whole skeletons of things that died on display for others to view. There surely are very complete skeletons of animals that make transitions, even if they aren't found by searching google. More than likely, they are catalogued in scientific journals, and are constantly being studied. If you could see all these magnificent creatures that used to roam the world, and how much they look similar to animals we have today (and how some don't) you may be more able to understand how people reconstruct these fossil findings.

 

[Gharib]

I believe that would be for another thread....

i believe so.

No, but Qur'anic science most surely is based of off beliefs and spirituality. It's a holy book, not a science manual.

but science has verified that the scientific examples mentioned in the quran are true, i'm not saying that, scientists are.

IMO, the theory is based on facts that we know about certain things. For instance, we have all these fossils... we have no way to explain them...

islam does.
Allah (swt) says in the quran that examples form people, and other things that existed before us will be preserved in the earth for us to find. just as we have found all these fossils, ruins of cities, etc. another example of why the quran is from god, how could muhammed (saws) have know that fossils would be found by us today? lucky guess right, just like all the other lucky guesses.

we look at the way birds and other animals breed... and we see that most animals want a mate that is the best possible, most physically fit, smartest of the bunch. We take these facts, and it can tell us something about how one type of animal was bred out into several other kinds of animals by geographical location, etc.

see this supports my claims, creatures were fully develop when they came to existence by Allah (swt). it is not hard for him to place animals of the same kind in multiple pars of the earth. he is the all mighty after all.

In summary, we have facts, and we make a theory. The theory, looking towards the facts for evidence, seems to make the most sense.

but it doesn't. there are lacking evidences that are very crucial to support those facts that we already have.

I'm not claiming that it's true, I claim that it's a more fitting idea than what has been presented before based on what we have discovered.

yes it is a more fitting idea, if one manipulates it, just has already been done.

 

[Buttons*]

islam does.
Allah (swt) says in the quran that examples form people, and other things that existed before us will be preserved in the earth for us to find. just as we have found all these fossils, ruins of cities, etc. another example of why the quran is from god, how could muhammed (saws) have know that fossils would be found by us today? lucky guess right, just like all the other lucky guesses.

What exactly is the verse that says that? Does it actually say that? Or is it sort of an open kind of suggestion?

see this supports my claims, creatures were fully develop when they came to existence by Allah (swt). it is not hard for him to place animals of the same kind in multiple pars of the earth. he is the all mighty after all.

I don't see what you're saying here. Creatures were fully developed? I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean.

but it doesn't. there are lacking evidences that are very crucial to support those facts that we already have.

What do you think the evidences that are supported by scientists are lacking?

yes it is a more fitting idea, if one manipulates it, just has already been done.

I think all evidences are manipulated one way or another... and it seems like many followers of Islam manipulate evidence (from posts in earlier threads) as much if not more than scientists do.

 

[Gharib]

i am the dumbest idiot on the planet, i am living proof of it, cos i just claimed it

what kind of a pathetic idiot are you man?

i will ask a staff memebr to delete your post.

 

[Gharib]

Once again this all comes down to evidence.

I know i keep saying this, and Eselam keeps on ignoring it.

But how about i put it in big words

DEAR ESELAM

PLEASE SHOW US FACT OF ALLAH. SOME EVIDENCE. SOMETHING MAYBE A NOTE FROM ALLAH SAYING HE EXISTS.

the quran is the word of Allah, thats his note saying that he exists.

MAYBE HE COULD STOP PEOPLE FROM STARVING.

so just because you like to dwell in wealth and don't want to give any to the poor, that makes Allah (swt) responsible for this because?????

here is an example related to this:

a man goes to get his hair cut in a barber. while the barber is working on him, he says to his custoner "god does not exist, for if he did, he would feed the starving people and would not let them die."

the man doesn't say anything and gets up to leave after the barber finishes cutting his hair.

on his way out, he sees a man walking across the street who has long hair and is unshaved and looks filthy. he turns to the barber and says "barbers don't exist, for if they did, that man would have a good hair cut and a good shave".

get it now?

THANKYOU,
LOVE Q

i love you too.

 

[Gharib]

Originally Posted by Autodidact
NO, it doesn't. You don't understand the theory. It mean that you have a pure, obvious reptile. Then a creature that's almost the same, but just slightly bird like. Then another one that's just slightly more birdlike, and so forth, until finally you get one that's clearly a bird. According to ToE, it's not a single reptile/birds, it's many creatures in between. And yes, fossils of many of them have been found.

i am yet to see any of those fossils.

do you remeber that picture you posted about how black eventually becomes white? well if scientists have found such proof of any case, please post it. i do not want something that goes like this though:

Originally Posted by Autodidact
It mean that you have a pure, obvious reptile. Then a creature that's almost the same, but just slightly bird like. Then another one that's just slightly more birdlike, and so forth, until finally you get one that's clearly a bird.

because if i can remember right, if you were in a particular point in the picture, you would not notice the changes in the tone straight before or after it, but you would if you went a few colours or tones further.

O.K.

nope not ok, because that is an example of one creature suddendly "poofing" to another one. where did all the gradual and slow changes go?

you would not see an arm suddenly having feathers one morning, but you would see the skin change first, then you would see those roots of the feathers developing GRADUALLY AS TIME GOES and then you would get feathers, show me a fossil that supports this?

Any other transitions you're particularly interested in? Giraffes? Horses? Whales? What would you like?

[*predicts that you will find a way to deny this important evidence, which is exactly what you asked for.]

your prediction would be right if there is no evidence to support your claims

an old time classic example used by most if not all evolution believers.

do you know what the difference that exists in the lungs of birds and mamals or reptiles is?

does this "transitional fossil" support that difference of the lungs or not?

and just one quick question, how did scientists know that thats how it's feathers looked like?

you do know about the "nebraska man" story don't you?

 

[Gharib]

Eselam, something came to my attention. Have you ever been to a museum?

plenty of times.

I have. I've been to several museums. Several have very complete and almost whole skeletons of things that died on display for others to view. There surely are very complete skeletons of animals that make transitions, even if they aren't found by searching google. More than likely, they are catalogued in scientific journals, and are constantly being studied. If you could see all these magnificent creatures that used to roam the world, and how much they look similar to animals we have today (and how some don't) you may be more able to understand how people reconstruct these fossil findings.

those reconstructions are done so in a way to prove their claims right. because if you have the top half skeleton of a human, how would you know what its' legs looked like or how long they were. you see this fascinates me, a scientist digs up some old bones say a head or a tooth, and he is able to recontruct the whole animal or human that it belonged to. how is that possible, that is against logic and against things that make sense, because contructing the whole body of a whale for example, just because you have found a fin, makes no sense.

surely you understand that.

 

[Breathe]

the quran is the word of Allah, thats his note saying that he exists.

Wheee.

on his way out, he sees a man walking across the street who has long hair and is unshaved and looks filthy. he turns to the barber and says "barbers don't exist, for if they did, that man would have a good hair cut and a good shave".

As a man who loves long hair, I find that offensive! :sad4: ...Just kidding, I know what you meant.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It just keeps on going around and around. It's like a self fulfilling prophecy.

-Q

 

[Gharib]

What exactly is the verse that says that? Does it actually say that? Or is it sort of an open kind of suggestion?

no it actually says that, as far as i can tell anyway, here are some of them:

47:10. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the End of those before them (who did evil)? Allah brought utter destruction on them, and similar (fates await) those who reject Allah.

36:31. See they not how many generations before them we destroyed? Not to them will they return:

an example of this second verse would be, the greeks or the romans or the egyptians, there is clear evidence of their cities and how they lived or when.

I don't see what you're saying here. Creatures were fully developed? I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean.

Allah (swt) can create things in full. he can create a fully grown man without him having being born. he only says BE and it becomes.

What do you think the evidences that are supported by scientists are lacking?

everything. how can you expect an atheist scientist to find something that says GOD EXISTS and to go and actually tell people about it?

I think all evidences are manipulated one way or another... and it seems like many followers of Islam manipulate evidence (from posts in earlier threads) as much if not more than scientists do.

thats because they are not scholars, we should not go telling people what the meaning of a particular verse is. even scholars cannot do it if Allah (swt) does not allow them to understand the meaning of a verse. so i do agree that the meaning of verses have been manipulated, not on purpose though, but by mistake due to not refraining ouselves from trying to explain them to non muslims.

 

[Gharib]

As a man who loves long hair, I find that offensive! :sad4: ...Just kidding, I know what you meant.

good, atleast it got through to you, cos i don't think quaxotic got it.

 

[Gharib]

It just keeps on going around and around. It's like a self fulfilling prophecy.

-Q

yep just like evolution.

 

[Breathe]

good, atleast it got through to you, cos i don't think quaxotic got it.

Wha..?

 

[Gharib]

If it hasn't been quoted here already:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

did you think of that example all by yourself?

wow impressive.

 

[Gharib]

Wha..?

i mean about his example of "if god existed then why are people starving"

 

[Gharib]

NO, it would actually disprove ToE, which is why we don't find that. Do you see why?

No, therefore it is.

What we in fact find is that every fossil of every creature ever found is "transitional" between two other creatures. No fossil has ever been found that's not transitional, because evolution applies to every creature that ever lived. Every one evolved from an ancestor species, and daughter species evolved from it. Would you like some more transitional series? Here's a neat one, whales. Whales are mammals, and evolved from land creatures. Here's just one of the transitional creatures along the way:

Here's its fossil:

[*anticipates eselam rejecting scientific knowledge rather than accept that he has been given just what he asked for.]

these 2 examples are just drawings, someones imagination to be more specific. is there an actual skeleton or fossil that looks like this animal, which has been found?

and have you ever compared it to a croc;

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

@all:
i think you are just wasting your time. Frankly what benefit is there to discuss this issue with eselam and the like. As long as he doesn't provide evidence but just runs his negative campaigns and obviously has no intention of actually discussing the stuff its senseless.

You could just as well spend your time talking to a wall.

Hope dies last they say but frankly even for the last thing there comes a time