EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Gharib]

to everyone, please can we drop this, i don't have the knowledge i thought i had so, it is poitnless to argue with me, it would be like arguing with a 2 year old, mama, dada.

but if anyone is willing to help me understand evolution and answer some questions for me then go ahead.

 

[Gharib]

Yes, Tristesse, it's rough to put your opinion out there and then have 5 people explain how wrong you are. It's a good idea to gently educate people and help them eradicate their own ignorance, if possible. However, I would like to point out that esalem starts from an unfortunate position of ignorance, which puts him at a disadvantage. The smart thing for him to do is to admit this and use this as an opportunity to learn about the subject. That's what I'm offering to do--to teach him. Instead, he ignored the information presented and put his ignorance on display as a confident assertion.

i have admitted it many times before in this threas, you guys have a very short memorie, maybe 3 seconds like a gold fish , don't take it seriously ok.

and i do not mind that many people are telling me i am wrong, i'm used to it. i too can think for my self but all the RF members think otherwise. how sad for them.

 

[Tristesse]

i have admitted it many times before in this threas, you guys have a very short memorie, maybe 3 seconds like a gold fish , don't take it seriously ok.

and i do not mind that many people are telling me i am wrong, i'm used to it. i too can think for my self but all the RF members think otherwise. how sad for them.

Well, you were the one who brought the topic up. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have on evolution, but if your going to start a topic, having no knowledge of what your refuting, and naming it evolution, what a lie, you better be prepared to back up your assertion with real facts and hard evidence. Otherwise it's just a bias you have. Oh and btw evolution isn't just some idea that a few hold, just about every scientist, and the religious ones too, all agree that evolution did and does happen. The only ones who disagree with evolution are people, non-scientists. Because most of the time it has to do with ignorance, or just a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[Magic Man]

well i did say i want to.

can i ask a question first, what part does chance have in life being formed, or in evolution. this part is the one i have a problem with most.

Chance played a part in life being formed, but not in evolution. In evolution the guiding force is natural selection. And the chance that played a part in the beginning of life was bound to happen with the conditions we had.

to everyone, please can we drop this, i don't have the knowledge i thought i had so, it is poitnless to argue with me, it would be like arguing with a 2 year old, mama, dada.

but if anyone is willing to help me understand evolution and answer some questions for me then go ahead.

I would like nothing more than to help you understand evolution. Ask away, and I'll answer. Just promise that you'll listen when we answer your questions, please.

 

[Autodidact]

well i did say i want to.

Great. It was a while ago, but as I recall from your previous post, you agree that new species do come into existence by the process described by the Theory of Evolution (ToE), right? (I think it was post #224 or thereabouts.) So you understand how we get new species, and agree with what ToE says about that, right?

can i ask a question first, what part does chance have in life being formed, or in evolution. this part is the one i have a problem with most.

As far as life being formed, it's a separate subject. Science hasn't solved that for sure yet, so let's set it aside and talk about ToE, O.K.? Well, I tried to answer this question here,but I must not have succeeded, so I'll try again.

Basically, it's a two-step process. The first step is variation--that's mostly chance. The second step is selection--that's not chance at all. Variation gives you the material to be selected. Natural selection, well, selects from those choices.

Say I need a new ad for my product. I put my team in a room and have them brainstorm ideas--that's like random mutation. Then I present all the ideas to the client, who chooses one--that's like natural selection; that's not random at all. Now imagine a year has gone by, and the client wants to change the campaign a little. I get the team together again to brainstorm changes--that's like reproduction with variation, what Darwin called descent with modification. The client picks which one they like again--that's like natural selection. Does this help?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

can i ask a question first, what part does chance have in life being formed, or in evolution. this part is the one i have a problem with most.

Chance may not be the best word for it. Indeterminate is better. The difference being that there are some biological rules that govern how mutations happen and what they effect. chance implies that anything can happen. the same is true for abiogenesis, the formation of life.

 

[Gharib]

Chance may not be the best word for it. Indeterminate is better. The difference being that there are some biological rules that govern how mutations happen and what they effect. chance implies that anything can happen. the same is true for abiogenesis, the formation of life.

ok first of all i wan't to start with the chance thing, or indetermination, the creation of life. does anyone have any knowledge of this to disscus it?

i will oppose many views on this, but i will be keeping an open mind ok.

so i'm basically interested in how did everything come to existence by itself.

i do believe that things come to existence by itslef, because god exists from - infinity to + infinity, nothing created him, he just happens to be there, so if i say that i do not believe in things just being there without being created i would not be a muslim.

but since i believe in a god creator, i belive that humans have a purpose in life, to worship that god that created them, and they didn't come about by chance, they were created. so why would science say that we came about by chance or randomness?

 

[Gharib]

I would like nothing more than to help you understand evolution. Ask away, and I'll answer. Just promise that you'll listen when we answer your questions, please.

no problem, i will respect you guys for wanting to help me. and thanks to everyone.

 

[Tristesse]

ok first of all i wan't to start with the chance thing, or indetermination, the creation of life. does anyone have any knowledge of this to disscus it?

i will oppose many views on this, but i will be keeping an open mind ok.

so i'm basically interested in how did everything come to existence by itself.

i do believe that things come to existence by itslef, because god exists from - infinity to + infinity, nothing created him, he just happens to be there, so if i say that i do not believe in things just being there without being created i would not be a muslim.

but since i believe in a god creator, i belive that humans have a purpose in life, to worship that god that created them, and they didn't come about by chance, they were created. so why would science say that we came about by chance or randomness?

Well, we actually don't know how everything came to be at the moment. But, we have to be patient and humble, some answers we may never know.
What we're not justified in doing, is saying I don't know how this could have happened, therefore some divine super being did it. Because you actually haven't answered anything, you still have to answer where the super being came from, so, it's the biggest non-answer.

Why would you oppose any views on the subject? I mean you should oppose them if you have good reasons, but if your only justification is, this ancient book tells me different. Than your relying on really bad reasons.

 

[Autodidact]

ok first of all i wan't to start with the chance thing, or indetermination, the creation of life. does anyone have any knowledge of this to disscus it?

If you want to talk about the creation of life, abiogenesis, then I suggest you start a thread to discuss it. It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is your outrageous statement that evolution is a lie.

i will oppose many views on this, but i will be keeping an open mind ok.

so i'm basically interested in how did everything come to existence by itself.

i do believe that things come to existence by itslef, because god exists from - infinity to + infinity, nothing created him, he just happens to be there, so if i say that i do not believe in things just being there without being created i would not be a muslim.

but since i believe in a god creator, i belive that humans have a purpose in life, to worship that god that created them, and they didn't come about by chance, they were created. so why would science say that we came about by chance or randomness?

If you are interested in the origin of life, why did you start a thread about evolution?

I've explained the core concept of the ToE, and you said that you agreed with it. At this point, since you understand that core idea of ToE, you should also understand that it has nothing to do with what you're talking about now, which is abiogenesis.

In any case, there is nothing anywhere in Biology that says that anything came into existence by itself, that humans do not have a purpose in life, that God did not create humanity, that humanity came about by chance or randomness, or anything else you assert here.

Basically, your problem is that you are rejecting things without knowing anything about them, which makes it very difficult to respond. It's as if someone told you that they reject Islam because they don't believe in zombies, or because they believe that 2 + 2 =4, and Islam asserts that it = 5. You really can't do much with that.

So my suggestion for you is that before you start denying or rejecting things, that you develop some basic understanding fo what it is you're discussing.

Let me ask you this: Is it your position that Islam and all devout Muslims must reject science and the scientific method?

 

[DarkSun]

ok first of all i wan't to start with the chance thing, or indetermination, the creation of life. does anyone have any knowledge of this to disscus it?

i will oppose many views on this, but i will be keeping an open mind ok.

so i'm basically interested in how did everything come to existence by itself.

i do believe that things come to existence by itslef, because god exists from - infinity to + infinity, nothing created him, he just happens to be there, so if i say that i do not believe in things just being there without being created i would not be a muslim.

but since i believe in a god creator, i belive that humans have a purpose in life, to worship that god that created them, and they didn't come about by chance, they were created. so why would science say that we came about by chance or randomness?

Well, maybe God orchestrated the origin of life and evolution. Natural selection and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, unless you choose to interpret scripture very literally.

 

[Tristesse]

Well, maybe God orchestrated the origin of life and evolution. Natural selection and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, unless you choose to interpret scripture very literally.

Thats true, and there are many religious people who except evolution. But the beauty of evolution is that it gives a much better explanation without the need for a god. You can put one in if you like, but thats extra baggage that has no use for the explanation. And is unsupported by the evidence we currently have available.

 

[DarkSun]

Thats true, and there are many religious people who except evolution. But the beauty of evolution is that it gives a much better explanation without the need for a god. You can put one in if you like, but thats extra baggage that has no use for the explanation. And is unsupported by the evidence we currently have available.

Actually, the evidence we currently have doesn't suggest either way.

And personally, I find it hard to conceptualise life being spawned from simple proteins or something when completely left to itself. So I find it more plausible that there was a Designer, and currently, I cannot be disproven.

 

[painted wolf]

Eselam- As a theist I can understand some of your issues with evolution.
As a student of biology and a semi-professional working biologist, I have a growing understanding of evolution and how it works in the day to day world.
I have found that understanding evolution hasn't hurt my faith in creator, if anything it has helped strengthen it.

I would be more than willing to answer any questions you may have on evolution.

wa:do

 

[Tristesse]

Actually, the evidence we currently have doesn't suggest either way.

And personally, I find it hard to conceptualise life being spawned from simple proteins or something when completely left to itself. So I find it more plausible that there was a Designer, and currently, I cannot be disproven.

Right, and when evidence doesn't support either way, thats also called unsupported. For something to be supported by evidence you need evidence for the claim, the lack of evidence makes the claim unsupported. It doesn't mean that the claim is wrong, it just means that currently there is no evidence for support of that claim.

 

[DarkSun]

Right, and when evidence doesn't support either way, thats also called unsupported. For something to be supported by evidence you need evidence for the claim, the lack of evidence makes the claim unsupported. It doesn't mean that the claim is wrong, it just means that currently there is no evidence for support of that claim.

Fair enough. But using the same logic, the claim that abiogenesis and evolution occurred without a creator is also unsupported.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[Tristesse]

Fair enough. But using the same logic, the claim that abiogenesis and evolution occurred without a creator is also unsupported.

I'm glad we agree.

ok, but we're not on equal footing now, I'm not making a claim about a creator, The claim has to be supported by evidence before the claim becomes viable, and I'm also not making the claim that it didn't happen without a creator. I'm simply saying that until the evidence for a creator is presented, than disbelief in that claim is justified. It's like if I told you I was abducted by aliens, and I didn't provide you with evidence for that claim, you become less likely to believe my claim. But than I could just say prove me wrong, but thats not the position you should be in. Until I provide you with evidence of my abduction, than disbelief in that claim is than justified. It's also the reason why most people don't believe in leprechauns, pixies, or unicorns.

 

[Autodidact]

Fair enough. But using the same logic, the claim that abiogenesis and evolution occurred without a creator is also unsupported.

I'm glad we agree.

Yes. But you understand that science doesn't make these claims, right? The statement that any of this occurred without a creator is a religious claim, not a scientific one.

 

[DarkSun]

ok, but we're not on equal footing now, I'm not making a claim about a creator, The claim has to be supported by evidence before the claim becomes viable, and I'm also not making the claim that it didn't happen without a creator. I'm simply saying that until the evidence for a creator is presented, than disbelief in that claim is justified. It's like if I told you I was abducted by aliens, and I didn't provide you with evidence for that claim, you become less likely to believe my claim. But than I could just say prove me wrong, but thats not the position you should be in. Until I provide you with evidence of my abduction, than disbelief in that claim is than justified. It's also the reason why most people don't believe in leprechauns, pixies, or unicorns.

As I said, I'm glad we agree. :yes:

 

[DarkSun]

Yes. But you understand that science doesn't make these claims, right? The statement that any of this occurred without a creator is a religious claim, not a scientific one.

Yes, I understand the distinction. Thanks, though.

I was just pointing out that religion and science don't have to conflict with each other. I understand that religious claims cannot be justified through science itself, because by nature, religion is proven by the individuals' own inductive reasoning, while science proves itself through deductive reasoning. All I was saying was that science cannot fundamentally disprove religion, just as it cannot prove it.

Do we disagree?