EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[rageoftyrael]

See, now apparently eselam is the person who started this thread, but is it just me, or does he appear to be trolling? By trolling, i mean it appears he is just trying to make people mad. There are certain points where he says something that indicates reasonable intelligence. He then goes on to call people liars. His comment about, who was it, audodidact? that she didn't understand his barber comment. Dude, it's glaringly obvious what your saying, it's just flawed! I won't explain why, cause at least 3 other people already have. She then states she does understand, and explains to him why it is flawed, he then is like, sure.....(obvious sarcasm)

That pigeon comment by father heathen says it all here guys. We are reasonable, we do our best to put forth evidence, and logic. We try to be polite, but it become hard, because it's like bashing our heads into a wall. It serves no purpose, other than to cause us personal pain. We truly are wasting our time, at least on eselam, and ghostaka. They have done nothing but poorly attempt to refute, and have made no real concessions. Which many atheists are willing to do!

I've said this before, and i'm gonna say it again. I hate religon, cause it is unflexible. Science is flexible. Why? Cause it's allowed to be wrong. We can go back, after gaining new information and go oops, and retract something. Religion can't do that. Why? Cause no one can admit their god might be wrong.

I'll say this again, for all the people who have already said it. Refute this, and you are lying.

IT HAS BEEN SAID REPEATEDLY, THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A PERFECT THING. IT CAN, AND MOST LIKELY WILL CHANGE OVER TIME, AS NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE ARISES. NOT ONLY THAT, RELIGION AND EVOLUTION CAN COEXIST! QUITE EASILY!

Okay, i'm done, and unless i see some kind of attempt from ghostaka or eselam to at least try to see it our way, i'm not gonna post anymore. I'm not playing chess with the pigeons. Yeah, i know this is kind of offensive, but it isn't like you guys listen to polite posts either, so i'll vent a little. God, i had to read 8 pages of this since the last time i was here, and i didn't agree with everything all the atheists said, but i darn near screamed every time eselam and ghostaka put down anything. Why? They only refuted(tried to anyway, didn't take, but they don't understand that) every comment made by everyone else.

Makes sense to me.

 

[slave2six]

Guys... I think it would be a good idea not to turn this into a case of Islam versus Evolution. Islam and the ToE are completely compatible.

Sorry dude but all of Judeo-Christianity and Islam fall to pieces if the explanation of why people are bad (e.g. the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man) is not factual. Evolution contradicts the possibility of such a story and consequently the two are not compatible.

 

[JMorris]

Sorry dude but all of Judeo-Christianity and Islam fall to pieces if the explanation of why people are bad (e.g. the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man) is not factual. Evolution contradicts the possibility of such a story and consequently the two are not compatible.

unless your not a fundie, and you acknowledge the Myth of Adam (and Steve) to be allegory, and not something to be taken as literal history.

 

[slave2six]

unless your not a fundie, and you acknowledge the Myth of Adam (and Steve) to be allegory, and not something to be taken as literal history.

In which case there would be no need for literal sacrifices, forgiveness, atonement, mercy, blowing up people to please God, and all the rest.

 

[DarkSun]

Sorry dude but all of Judeo-Christianity and Islam fall to pieces if the explanation of why people are bad (e.g. the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man) is not factual. Evolution contradicts the possibility of such a story and consequently the two are not compatible.

I'm Christian and I see no problems with evolution.

 

[DarkSun]

unless your not a fundie, and you acknowledge the Myth of Adam (and Steve) to be allegory, and not something to be taken as literal history.

In which case there would be no need for literal sacrifices, forgiveness, atonement, mercy, blowing up people to please God, and all the rest.

Yeah, see, I really don't understand why people would take half of the OT literally. It was written by men inspired by God, wasn't it? It didn't magically fall out of heaven one day. It is prone to some error. I mean, why take the story of Creation as per the Bible literally? It could be just as powerful as a metaphor.

Eating from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden could just as well symbolise becoming more and more aware of ourselves, more apt at what we do and seemingly more intelligent as we have evolved as a race. Becoming "aware" of everything, even our own mortality, is what has made us human. We even question our own existence. What a paragon of animals are we!

The snake probably symbolises evil, human flaw and the temptation to do what we know is wrong. But a talking snake? How? Its jaw isn't made for that kind of thing.


But my point is there are no problems with evolution if you don't take the OT as canon.

 

[Gharib]

See, now apparently eselam is the person who started this thread, but is it just me, or does he appear to be trolling? By trolling, i mean it appears he is just trying to make people mad. There are certain points where he says something that indicates reasonable intelligence. He then goes on to call people liars. His comment about, who was it, audodidact? that she didn't understand his barber comment. Dude, it's glaringly obvious what your saying, it's just flawed! I won't explain why, cause at least 3 other people already have. She then states she does understand, and explains to him why it is flawed, he then is like, sure.....(obvious sarcasm)

That pigeon comment by father heathen says it all here guys. We are reasonable, we do our best to put forth evidence, and logic. We try to be polite, but it become hard, because it's like bashing our heads into a wall. It serves no purpose, other than to cause us personal pain. We truly are wasting our time, at least on eselam, and ghostaka. They have done nothing but poorly attempt to refute, and have made no real concessions. Which many atheists are willing to do!

I've said this before, and i'm gonna say it again. I hate religon, cause it is unflexible. Science is flexible. Why? Cause it's allowed to be wrong. We can go back, after gaining new information and go oops, and retract something. Religion can't do that. Why? Cause no one can admit their god might be wrong.

I'll say this again, for all the people who have already said it. Refute this, and you are lying.

IT HAS BEEN SAID REPEATEDLY, THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT A PERFECT THING. IT CAN, AND MOST LIKELY WILL CHANGE OVER TIME, AS NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE ARISES. NOT ONLY THAT, RELIGION AND EVOLUTION CAN COEXIST! QUITE EASILY!

Okay, i'm done, and unless i see some kind of attempt from ghostaka or eselam to at least try to see it our way, i'm not gonna post anymore. I'm not playing chess with the pigeons. Yeah, i know this is kind of offensive, but it isn't like you guys listen to polite posts either, so i'll vent a little. God, i had to read 8 pages of this since the last time i was here, and i didn't agree with everything all the atheists said, but i darn near screamed every time eselam and ghostaka put down anything. Why? They only refuted(tried to anyway, didn't take, but they don't understand that) every comment made by everyone else.

Makes sense to me.

so are you the troll or am i the troll, cos i can clearly see from your posts similar to this, that you just tend to "analyse" the situation Dr Phil and then you make a stupid comment on it.

if you do not have anything valuable to add, please go tell a psychiatrist about your problems. don't come here.

 

[Gharib]

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?

oh come on man, how old are you?

is there something important that you wish to say, or do i have to waste my time with questions like this?

 

[DarkSun]

so are you the troll or am i the troll, cos i can clearly see from your posts similar to this, that you just tend to "analyse" the situation Dr Phil and then you make a stupid comment on it.

if you do not have anything valuable to add, please go tell a psychiatrist about your problems. don't come here.

Rather than call his comment stupid, I think you'd do a better job proving him wrong by actually disproving what he's saying.

No one's asking you to agree with evolution, by the way. If you think it's wrong, then you're entitled to that. All we're asking is that you understand it.

Do you understand the Theory of Evolution, or at least the general gist of it?

oh come on man, how old are you?

is there something important that you wish to say, or do i have to waste my time with questions like this?

I think you might have to waste your time by putting forth an actual argument. Generally that's how debates work. Sorry if it's too inconvenient.

 

[Gharib]

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.

so that just proves my point then.

god has created everything he knows about his creation and yet scientists are saying "this is how god created life" well, 'put it into motion' is what i'm sopposed to say.

one statement down a few more to go.

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.

let me ask you something, is it possible for the ancestor to co-exist with it's descendant? an example would be the Archaeopteryx to co-exist with modern birds?

is that or is that not possible?

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.

so you are saying that a water creature, "evolved" into a land creature, to later change back to a dolphin? does that sound kind of weird, or is it just me?

and from what animal did the dolphin "evolve" from, i know whales "evolved" from bears, so what about the dolphin?

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.

so? is that soposed to mean anything? i'd say it's no more than a lucky blind guess.

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.

seen that before in the quran, so why is it that when muslims say this about the quran people say it's nothing?

what do you have to say about it?

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.

totaly understand.

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.

so what about a crocodile having a wrist bone? how can that be?

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

and this is coming from somone who knows nothing about paleontology right?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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.

Just to rephrase this so everybody gets the true meaning of what you said:
a) Nobody can be blamed for not believing in Allah
b) Neither the Quran, nor any "signs" are selfevident.

Frankly what follows is that there is no just case for punishment of unbelievers except for rebellious rejectors (which in my view would never exist given the consequences)

 

[Gharib]

i believe i have read many times in many posts that i do not provide evidence on my side that refutes evolution, and since i already dissproved 2 examples put forward by Autodidact, but was not accepted. then i think i should start putting forward my facts and evidences that say "evolution is nonsense" and if anyone of you dissproves them, then i will accept that.

 

[Gharib]

The Fossil Record
Refutes Evolution​

　
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":
…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.
The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

TO BE CONTINUED...

 

[Gharib]

....CONTINUED

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.
Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.

 

[Gharib]

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of creation. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion", which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.
Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today".30 The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:
This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.
How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".
Obviously, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

 

[JMorris]

Just to rephrase this so everybody gets the true meaning of what you said:
a) Nobody can be blamed for not believing in Allah
b) Neither the Quran, nor any "signs" are selfevident.

Frankly what follows is that there is no just case for punishment of unbelievers except for rebellious rejectors (which in my view would never exist given the consequences)

and to spell it out even more plainly...........

allah gives no free will, he decides who will be his slavish believers, and who will not believe. and then of course, he will punish those who HE has decided will not believe in him. he creates the believers as believers, and the atheists as atheists (or some other religion).
so why i havent i seen the "obvious truthiness" of the koran? because allah made me that way. and when i die, he will punish me for being the way he made me! YIPEE!
allah sounds like a HUGE prick. but then again, allah probably dosent exist; and of course, this is only Ghostaka's interpretation of Allah. and since god is generally a reflection of the person creating him, i wonder why it is that Ghostaka's version of Allah is a prick? hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Gharib]

Tale of Transition from
Water to Land​

　
Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. However, just as Cambrian invertebrates have no ancestors, there are no transitional links indicating that an evolution occurred between these invertebrates and fish. It should be noted that invertebrates and fish have enormous structural differences. Invertebrates have their hard tissues outside their bodies, whereas fish are vertebrates that have theirs on the inside. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken billions of steps to be completed and there should be billions of transitional forms displaying them.
Evolutionists have been digging fossil strata for about 140 years looking for these hypothetical forms. They have found millions of invertebrate fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet nobody has ever found even one that is midway between them.
An evolutionist paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact in an article titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes":
All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armour? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?38
The evolutionary scenario goes one step further and argues that fish, who evolved from invertebrates then transformed into amphibians. But this scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed. Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary palaeontologist and authority on vertebrate palaeontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early reptiles were very different from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet." In his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in 1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the origins of many other major groups.39 Two evolutionist paleontologists, Colbert and Morales, comment on the three basic classes of amphibians-frogs, salamanders, and caecilians:
There is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest known frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very similar to their living descendants.
Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land.
However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct seventy million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist J.L.B. Smith said that "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished".41 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.
Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface.

READ THE BOLD BIT AT THE END ESPECIALLY THE RED.

 

[Breathe]

Do you have a source for this eselam? I believe you are more than likely to have posted this (not badly written, but awfully idiotic theories and proof ) "essay" off of the internet somewhere, thus you're risking plagiarism (which is against the laws here, etc).

Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered.

Wrong.

All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

That is silly. A sudden "WHOOMPF!" and a whole planet is populated with fish and elephants and ducks?

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Even if this were true, it's equally if not more likely for aliens to have done it than a Sky Father.

 

[Gharib]

I recon thats enough for tonight, i'll let you guys digest that first and then continue on from there. Cos i don't think any enzyme would be helpfull in digesting them.

 

[Gharib]

Do you have a source for this eselam? I believe you are more than likely to have posted this (not badly written, but awfully idiotic theories and proof ) "essay" off of the internet somewhere, thus you're risking plagiarism (which is against the laws here, etc).

OH THE REFERENCE IS FROM HARUN YAHYA. WE ALL KNOW WHO HE IS.

That is silly. A sudden "WHOOMPF!" and a whole planet is populated with fish and elephants and ducks?

so scientists claiming that life came about by chance with a sudden "WHOOMPF" is not silly, right?

Even if this were true, it's equally if not more likely for aliens to have done it than a Sky Father.

have you ever seen an alien?

have aliens claimed that they exist?

why would it be more easier to accept an alien over god? this is what i don't get?