EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Buttons*]

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.

Actually I do. When I was a kid, I used to wonder about that sort of thing all the time. "How in the world can they tell what fits where?" Well, for the most part, I think people look to fossil imprints, similar to something like this:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/534994650_523a92ede1_o.jpg

I imagine that this, coupled with the many thousands of hours of scientific work finding out what connected to where (making sure it actually fit, and didnt' just cram it where it looked right.) AND some of the rare cases where the bones were actually buried in tact (like, finding a whole T-Rex skeleton mostly put together in the way it would have been) help show the case that there is some evidence for how the skeletons fit together.

It's not as if dinosaurs and other creatures' bones were thrown half in one part of the globe, and half in another, or that we only have a tooth, and we build the creature around that... it's more like we find almost a complete skeleton.... (if we look hard enough.) and work from there. In some cases, we aren't so lucky, other animals could have dragged a few bones away, they could have been turned into fossil fuels by now, some may have been crushed by the weight of other structures formed atop of these bones... and this is why in some cases, we aren't so lucky to find the whole bird in tact.

 

[Buttons*]

@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

Thats how things work on this forum in the debate section. Two sides, screaming at each other instead of listening. In reality though, aren't we all wasting our time?

 

[Gharib]

Actually I do. When I was a kid, I used to wonder about that sort of thing all the time. "How in the world can they tell what fits where?" Well, for the most part, I think people look to fossil imprints, similar to something like this:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/534994650_523a92ede1_o.jpg

I imagine that this, coupled with the many thousands of hours of scientific work finding out what connected to where (making sure it actually fit, and didnt' just cram it where it looked right.) AND some of the rare cases where the bones were actually buried in tact (like, finding a whole T-Rex skeleton mostly put together in the way it would have been) help show the case that there is some evidence for how the skeletons fit together.

It's not as if dinosaurs and other creatures' bones were thrown half in one part of the globe, and half in another, or that we only have a tooth, and we build the creature around that... it's more like we find almost a complete skeleton.... (if we look hard enough.) and work from there. In some cases, we aren't so lucky, other animals could have dragged a few bones away, they could have been turned into fossil fuels by now, some may have been crushed by the weight of other structures formed atop of these bones... and this is why in some cases, we aren't so lucky to find the whole bird in tact.

i can understand the imprints, they tend to be very clear most of the time showing the whole body of a creature.

have i asked you if you know about the "nebraska man" story?

Nebraska Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Breathe]

@all:
i think you are just wasting your time.

But but but... I'm posting images of circular logic! Where else could I do that if not in a Creationism vs Evolution or thread?

 

[Buttons*]

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.

Are we implying that dinosaurs actually did evil? I don't think they had enough brain power to do that much evil...

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.

This is true, however, it could have come from simple observation. If anyone pays enough attention - they notice that civilizations come and go. Also, the verse doesn't mention specific groups of people... like the Aztecs for instance. It just gives a broad generalization. The Bible says similar things.

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.

How does that explain the fossils found that seem to be transitions between animals of the past and animals of today?

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

So because scientists don't proclaim that God is actually the reason behind all these fossils, you think that their evidence is inadmissible? If a scientist was to say "these are all creatures created by God in an instant," end of story, would you think they had enough evidence for their claim?

It seems you aren't looking at the same kind of thing that scientists are. Science needs more than "God did it," to try and understand why things are the way they are. If they did only use God as evidence, we wouldn't know hardly anything about our world. (BUT there are scientists who believe in God, and that this evidence, fossils, is proof of God's work.) Not that fossil evidence is completely defunct. Almost no one would take them seriously in the academic world.

 

[Buttons*]

i can understand the imprints, they tend to be very clear most of the time showing the whole body of a creature.

have i asked you if you know about the "nebraska man" story?

Nebraska Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No you hadn't until now. It is an interesting story. I agree that people sometimes try to be more important than their work - and that's when you get errors of this magnitude. I wouldn't believe anyone that told me "this is a mammoth" based on one tooth. I do believe the fossils that have been found in tact though. There actually was a mammoth found with muscles, bones, and even hair still in tact. It's hard to refute that kind of evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6284214.stm

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/nearly-intact-m.html

But when there isn't much evidence (no more than a tooth or a hair) one must speculate on the nature of the work. Is it truly scientific? Is it really one man's search for glory? These are questions that must be asked, and not in a judgmental way.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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".

I have to say that that is one of the most coherent arguments you have come out with so far. I really like that analogy.

But barbers aren't allah they are human. Allah has unlimited power, barbers dont.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

yep just like evolution.

Care to explain?

-Q

 

[Gharib]

Are we implying that dinosaurs actually did evil? I don't think they had enough brain power to do that much evil...

thats talking about humans, not animals. well i think both verses are.

This is true, however, it could have come from simple observation. If anyone pays enough attention - they notice that civilizations come and go. Also, the verse doesn't mention specific groups of people... like the Aztecs for instance. It just gives a broad generalization. The Bible says similar things.

no it doesn't speak of a particular group or civilisation, it is general.

How does that explain the fossils found that seem to be transitions between animals of the past and animals of today?

but thats gods' doing, he can create anything he wants, why are you limting his powers i don't understand this? god can create anything he wants, so why would it be hard to accept that god created animals that are similar to some others but didn't come to be in the way evolution says so?

So because scientists don't proclaim that God is actually the reason behind all these fossils, you think that their evidence is inadmissible? If a scientist was to say "these are all creatures created by God in an instant," end of story, would you think they had enough evidence for their claim?

not really. they would have to explain it to make it more effective. i don't need a scientist to tell me that god created all the creatures in an instant, i already believe that, but i would want to know what came first or what came second, and whats what and whats not.

It seems you aren't looking at the same kind of thing that scientists are. Science needs more than "God did it," to try and understand why things are the way they are. If they did only use God as evidence, we wouldn't know hardly anything about our world.

no actually we would. in the quran, Allah (swt) already mentiones the following fields of science:
(note: i'm not good with these terms so i may end up getting some wrong)

biology, astronomy, weather study, geology, marine biology, and maybe a few more.

we are encouraged to find things, science is part of islam, it has come out of islam to be more specific, there are things that are unexplainable, and thats where god comes in.

(BUT there are scientists who believe in God, and that this evidence, fossils, is proof of God's work.)

exactly my point, but some evolutionist who do not believe in god, assert that life came about by chance and evolution started afterwards. trying so badly to not give credit or to prove that god is not the source of all things.

 

[Gharib]

I have to say that that is one of the most coherent arguments you have come out with so far. I really like that analogy.

But barbers aren't allah they are human. Allah has unlimited power, barbers dont.

-Q

new you wouldn't get it.

so are you saying that you believe in Allah (swt) and his unlimited powers?

so a barber does not have the power to offer a free hair cut to a poor man who really needs it?

is that what you are saying?

 

[Gharib]

Care to explain?

-Q

i meant how evolutionists use just about anything to prove their claims. it's like they have problems with their self esteem, unless they make up a new lie to cover up their previous ones and to get media attention.

 

[Gharib]

No you hadn't until now. It is an interesting story. I agree that people sometimes try to be more important than their work - and that's when you get errors of this magnitude. I wouldn't believe anyone that told me "this is a mammoth" based on one tooth. I do believe the fossils that have been found in tact though. There actually was a mammoth found with muscles, bones, and even hair still in tact. It's hard to refute that kind of evidence.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Baby mammoth discovery unveiled

Nearly intact mammoth found at L.A. construction site - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

But when there isn't much evidence (no more than a tooth or a hair) one must speculate on the nature of the work. Is it truly scientific? Is it really one man's search for glory? These are questions that must be asked, and not in a judgmental way.

sorry to have to break it to you, but from what i could see in the first link, that animal looked like an elephant. didn't mamoths have a diferent skin colour? and didn't they have hair all over their body?

as for the second link, i couldn't make out what the thing was, i didn't really see a mamoth there.

and if you think that, that "intact" elephant is actually a mamoth, then i am convinced that this creature is also living proof of a transitional form supporting the theory that apes evolved into humans;





i don't believe you have heard about Ota Benga, have you?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

new you wouldn't get it.

so are you saying that you believe in Allah (swt) and his unlimited powers?

so a barber does not have the power to offer a free hair cut to a poor man who really needs it?

is that what you are saying?

No i get the point of the whole thing, its a very nice parable.

The difference between a barber and allah is that the barber can offer him a haircut, but only allah can make him have one.

Daaaamn allah can do it himself, he's all powerful remember. With unlimited power allah would just have to think it. *BAM* the guy is cleanly cut and shave.

The barber can also feed the hungry but only allah can feed every hungry person at the same time with a mere thought.

I think you fail to understand the concept of unlimited here. It's like trying to understand the concept of unlimited space i guess.

Allah could feed the worlds hungry and cure all the sick INSTANTLY with a thought and it would be take a insignificant portion of his unlimited power to do so.

Why doesn't he?

-Q

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

and if you think that, that "intact" elephant is actually a mamoth, then i am convinced that this creature is also living proof of a transitional form supporting the theory that apes evolved into humans;

Amazing ... how many times did people say now that the theory of evolution DOESNT claim that apes evolved into humans?
Your ignorance of this very basic and simple fact is somewhat telling.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

i meant how evolutionists use just about anything to prove their claims. it's like they have problems with their self esteem, unless they make up a new lie to cover up their previous ones and to get media attention.

Are you saying there is fanatical evolutionists?

Completely incapable of seeing logic or reason if it contradicts their views on evolution.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Amazing ... how many times did people say now that the theory of evolution DOESNT claim that apes evolved into humans?
Your ignorance of this very basic and simple fact is somewhat telling.

Ohh you mean the 'If we came from apes, why is there still apes?' question?

-Q

 

[Gharib]

No i get the point of the whole thing, its a very nice parable.

sure you do, try convincig yourself of that, not me.

The difference between a barber and allah is that the barber can offer him a haircut, but only allah can make him have one.

no the barber can make him have one also.

Daaaamn allah can do it himself, he's all powerful remember. With unlimited power allah would just have to think it. *BAM* the guy is cleanly cut and shave.

yes that can happen, i'm not saying it can't.

The barber can also feed the hungry but only allah can feed every hungry person at the same time with a mere thought.

so then whats the point of living if we don't work for it?

I think you fail to understand the concept of unlimited here. It's like trying to understand the concept of unlimited space i guess.

i ok with it, i do understand it better than you think.

Allah could feed the worlds hungry and cure all the sick INSTANTLY with a thought and it would be take a insignificant portion of his unlimited power to do so.

yes true. but it would not take anything from his power.

Why doesn't he?

good question, he will tell you that on judgement day.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Ohh you mean the 'If we came from apes, why is there still apes?' question?

-Q

No i simply mean that evolution doesnt say that apes evolved into humans. It states that apes and humans have common ancestors.
That has been said in this board for i-don't-know-how-many-times. But some folks obviously ignore this and just continue with the same old story

 

[Gharib]

Amazing ... how many times did people say now that the theory of evolution DOESNT claim that apes evolved into humans?
Your ignorance of this very basic and simple fact is somewhat telling.

yeah what ever, what did humans evole from then?

 

[Gharib]

Are you saying there is fanatical evolutionists?

Completely incapable of seeing logic or reason if it contradicts their views on evolution.

-Q

yep, did you look at the nebraska man link i posted?

Nebraska Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or what about Ota benga?

Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are quite a few other ones, but i just need to find them.