EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

yeah what ever,

Actually NO!
Not "what ever".

If you're ignorant to clarifications made by others then you do not actually discuss anything fairly. If evolution DOESNT state what you claim and this has been explained time and time again then this is very telling. In this board it has been explained time and time again. It would amaze me if you hadn't come upon one of those explanations and it would even amaze me more if one who takes so much effort to discuss the topic never has heard about this very basic fact.

 

[Magic Man]

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 know this is off-topic, but it's your thread, and you brought it up, so a quick response.

Humans, including barbers, aren't omnipotent, which is why they can't make sure every person who wants a haircut gets one. Are you saying Allah is not omnipotent, and that's why there are people starving to death?

 

[Ghostaka]

*SIGH*

For that argument to work you need to prove (with evidence) that the qur'an is inspired by allah. To prove that it was inspired by allah you have to prove (with evidence) that allah exists.

It was not inspired, it was revealed; unlike the claims of Christians.

It's a circular arguement. It doesnt work.

Why doesn't it work? Can you prove (with evidence) that the Qur'an is not the word of Allah? Predicament.... do you see what I mean?

The burden of proof (with evidence) is still your the failing point here.

The same goes for your case.

You will have to do better if you want a non-believer to start believing.

This is something that you have not understood, quite. Nobody accept Allah (SWT) can allow you to believe in Him and suddenly take notice of the Signs He has put in this Earth.

If Allah Wills, I could talk to you for the rest of your life and you will still be a non-believer. Again, nothing happens without the Permission of Allah.

Or perhaps the next time you hear/see a verse of the Qur'an or anything really, you could seriously start questioning your (lack of?) faith and start searching for truth (at which I may add; all you A-team buddies will disdain you for )... do you get what I mean?

If you are unhappy in your life for some reason unknown to yourself and decide to sincerely question what the purpose of this life is (through contemplation etc) who knows what might happen lol.

Peace be upon you.

N.B. Not Proselytizing but sorry for the irrelevance, a PM did not seem suitable for this one. It is seems like something everybody should remember (to me at least).

 

[Ghostaka]

Oh look, it's not just me making irrelevant posts . This thread seems to branch off a lot in peoples' minds! Don't hate.

Oooh, I'm gonna get a verbal beating for this one!!!

Peace be upon you (and let it slide )

 

[Autodidact]

*SIGH*

For that argument to work you need to prove (with evidence) that the qur'an is inspired by allah. To prove that it was inspired by allah you have to prove (with evidence) that allah exists.

It's a circular arguement. It doesnt work.

The burden of proof (with evidence) is still your the failing point here.

You will have to do better if you want a non-believer to start believing.

-Q

Please start a thread for this discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

Then stop bringing God/Allah/whatever into this thread. To have this debate, it must progress without the assumption that there is a higher power. You call for evidence, since the Quran is not evidence and there is no evidence for God, one cannot assume God exists.

Please keep this in mind when debating.

Actually, I think you'll find it progresses more smoothly with the assumption that there is. It works either way, and we atheists are better able to entertain an assumption.

 

[Autodidact]

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

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

A water beetleA 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 predatorydiving 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.

I'm not a paleontologist, so don't have enough expertise to critique this find from a basis of knowledge. Neither do you, but I see that doesn't stop you from correcting the experts who do. In fact, I'm guessing that before yesterday you had never heard of it. In the typically arrogant fashion of ignorant creationists, you assume that you have more expertise in 5 minutes than the people who have devoted their adult lives to studying the question.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the point you critique, the existence of spiracles like other modern creatures, is exactly one of the things that makes this find so exciting and intermediary. Many modern creatures have spiracles--fish don't. That's one of the ways that we know Tiktaalik is intermediary.

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.

exactly. A dolphin is modern. It is not a fish. It's a mammal. It's descended from land animals. And it has a trait the same as Tiktaalik. This is evidence in favor of Tiktaalik being intermediate.

I had the pleasure of an online contact with Per Ahlberg, one of the researchers who worked on this find. An important thing to understand about is that the paleontologists who went looking for it didn't just happen upon it. Based on ToE, they made a prediction of where to look for this important intermediate, what kind of rock to look in. So they invested a lot of time and money, took a chance, and their prediction was fulfilled. They found it in the exact rock formation their theory predicted.

Since you don't know science, you don't know that this is the kind of evidence science is built on: making a prediction and having it confirmed. Finding it where they predicted is powerful evidence in favor of their theory.

Actually, it's not a tiny bit. Remember that when you have bones of a single limb, in effect you have two, due to bilateral symetry.

The picture is an educated guess. The concrete conclusions based on what they have is much stronger. Importantly, they have the wrist bones. These are clearly transitional; there is no other explanation that works better.

one down, millions more to go.

actually, not even one down, but you're too uneducated to know it.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

At this point I'm going to start charging people who make me repeat this, since it's the first thing I said, and I've now said it around 40 times. Allah exists and He created us and evolution exists. These are not mutually exclusive. The only question ToE answers is not who created us, but how. This is your last free pass, eselam. Next time I have to tell you this I will charge you.

Every time you do this, you make the non-Muslims here think you are brain-damaged, since you can't grasp or retain such a simple concept.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

yeah what ever, what did humans evole from then?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:bow:

 

[Ghostaka]

I'm not a paleontologist, so don't have enough expertise to critique this find from a basis of knowledge. Neither do you, but I see that doesn't stop you from correcting the experts who do. In fact, I'm guessing that before yesterday you had never heard of it. In the typically arrogant fashion of ignorant creationists, you assume that you have more expertise in 5 minutes than the people who have devoted their adult lives to studying the question.

We are the first to say that Allah knows best. You are assuming that the experts "who do" know are not wrong. You're "quick to jump the gun" when slandering people and lecture people on calling you "ignorant". Can't your comment be taken as "arrogant' yourself? Just comment without the insults if we want to keep the debate here at and adult level (with presumable maturity ).

Don't take offense, just take it as constructive criticism...

Peace be upon you.

 

[Autodidact]

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

An error made in 1917, never widely accepted as a human ancestor, based on a single tooth, correctly repudiated by 1925? Yeah, sure, why?

 

[Autodidact]

yep just like evolution.

IN what way is ToE circular?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

At this point I'm going to start charging people who make me repeat this, since it's the first thing I said, and I've now said it around 40 times. Allah exists and He created us and evolution exists. These are not mutually exclusive. The only question ToE answers is not who created us, but how. This is your last free pass, eselam. Next time I have to tell you this I will charge you.

Every time you do this, you make the non-Muslims here think you are brain-damaged, since you can't grasp or retain such a simple concept.

:bow:

 

[The Neo Nerd]

This is something that you have not understood, quite. Nobody accept Allah (SWT) can allow you to believe in Him and suddenly take notice of the Signs He has put in this Earth.

WOW

Allahs a pretty hard guy to please

 

[Autodidact]

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?

Yup.

You can see it yourself if you're ever in Ottowa.

and have you ever compared it to a croc;

[/quote]

No.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

You don't know the first thing about the huge amount of evidence that supports ToE, so you're in no position to refute it. Step 1: Learn what the evidence is. Step 2. Try to refute it. (hint: it's not primarily fossils.)

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Got anything from this century?

 

[Autodidact]

We are the first to say that Allah knows best. You are assuming that the experts "who do" know are not wrong. You're "quick to jump the gun" when slandering people and lecture people on calling you "ignorant". Can't your comment be taken as "arrogant' yourself? Just comment without the insults if we want to keep the debate here at and adult level (with presumable maturity ).

If I tried to tell and Islamic scholar about Islam, wouldn't I look like an arrogant schmuck? If you want to criticize the consensus of paleontologists, get a degree in paleontology, or at least quote someone who did.

If you hire an expert doctor to diagnose you and then tell him you know better, because you read something on the internet yesterday, what does that make you look like?

What you all are saying is that the thousands of biologists who have been trying their hardest to poke holes in ToE for over 100 years are a bunch of idiots and liars, and that you, armed with your magic ignorance, know better than they. It's not them that you make look like idiots and liars.

If you want to do science, do science. Science isn't based on ignorance; it's based on knowledge. Got any?

Alternatively, if you want to reject science, that's your prerogative. Please be consistent and reject all of it, including the computer you're using to do so. Unfortunately, we would no longer be able to enjoy this conversation.

 

[painted wolf]

Just two quick points on the fossil record...

1) Anyone who uses "nebraska man" as an example only demonstrates how little they pay attention.
"nebraska man" was invented by newspapers based on a guess by Osborn who said that he didn't think there was enough to say for certain and was going to go back to check for more fossils as soon as he could get the money. He thought it was an ape not a hominid.

"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..." "Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)

Very few other scientists were convinced by such scrappy material and it was never accepted as genuine.

Osborn and other scientists were quick to call the 'illustration' of 'nebraska man' in the paper (and the article itself) useless and scientifically stupid.

"such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate." (quoted in Wolf and Mellett 1985)

He went back to look for more fossils and found that it was a peccary (not a pig) and quickly retracted his earlier claims... demonstrating not that science is untrustworthy... but the exact opposite. Science is self correcting and if it had not been for over eager journalists no one would ever have heard of 'nebraska man'.

2) Tiktaalik is known from over 20 individuals... not "3 bones". They represent not only adult individuals over 11 feet long but juvaniles just a 3 feet long and everything inbetween. The most complete individual found so far includes the skull, front limbs, spine and ribs going back to the pelvic area. Others include the pelvic area and tail... giving us a pretty comprehensive look at what this critter was like.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

You can see it yourself if you're ever in Ottowa.

Ottawa

240 McLeod Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada