EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[rockondon]

thats a tough question to be honest, i just am agains the whole thing such as apes becoming humans (thats after many generations), bears becoming whales (whats interesting is that land life came into existence due to water creatures having to live in land, then they just went back did they?) so by evolution i mean all the impossible things, they are impossible to me. thats why i am agaisnt it.

Things you don't understand seem impossible to you because you don't understand them. Perhaps you don't want to understand - perhaps you prefer a pleasant sounding lie to a truth that you have a difficult time accepting. And perhaps Allah appreciates your self-deception, but I doubt it. If He were here, I think He would want you to be true to yourself and quit blinding yourself to the wonder of His creation.

I'm guessing you accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Which is kind of like accepting that its possible to clap your hands once, but its impossible to clap them a dozen times. You see, tiny changes (microevolution) can, over time, accumulate to become big changes (macroevolution). We all have mutations in us, more than 100 in fact, and these tiny changes are what makes us evolve over time. If you look at an ancestor from millions of years ago, of course those changes are drastic and difficult to imagine how it could have happened. But if you were able to watch all the stages between the two, it would be easy to imagine.

but natural selection is random. there is nothing to guide nature in the selction process, so something without a mind makind something is totally random. isn't it?

Do you feel that an infertile creature has just as much chance as siring offspring as a fertile one? Do you feel that a creature that cannot feed itself has just as much chance of surviving to sire offspring as one that can feed itself? Do you feel that a creature that is shunned by others of its kind for its appearance has as much chance of finding a mate as one that was born with desirable characteristics?
The attributes that animals are born with make a big difference. Its definately not random. Its not survival of the luckiest - if it was we'd probably still be single celled organisms.

well what if we said we will select the first 100 tosses how sure can you be that all of them will be the same outcome (ie heads or tails), then on the next trial there is a change, the same for the third trial and so on, thus there will never be a clean outcome.

What if we had a thousand coins, and the ones that land on heads have a better chance to survive than the ones that land on tails. And what if 100 of those coins had traits that give them a slightly better chance to land on heads than the other 900? Well, those 100 coins would be more likely to pass their genes on to their baby coins, which would pass their favorable traits on to their baby coins, and so on, eventually resulting in a population of coins that are all very good at landing on heads. And this population might look just a little bit different than the one you started with. Bingo - you got evolution.

 

[Gharib]

ok since i have not brought up a "real" argument heres one, in relation that dinosaurs became birds, overtime;

one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducccia from the university of north carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. he says:
"Well, i've studied bird skulls for 25 years and i don't see any similarities whatsoever. i just don't see it..... The theropod origins of birds, in my oppinion, will be the greatest embarrasment of paleotology of the 20'th century."


and i would encourage everyone to look at this link from wikipedia
Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is one of the many reasons why i do not beleive in evolution, just see what evolution scientists are doing to cover the truth.

 

[Gharib]

heres another argument, i've posted this before, but i can't right in a propper maner so i'll just past the info ok;

Nebraska Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This illustration of H. haroldcookii, by artist Amedee Forestier, was modelled on the Java Man.


Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax,[citation needed] the classification proved to be a mistake.
It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was falsely identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct genus of Peccary called Prosthennops and its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.[1]
Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.

Nebraska Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


just look at what they were able to know about the Nabraska man only because of a tooth. they knew that his wife looked like, the environment,......etc

 

[kai]

ok since i have not brought up a "real" argument heres one, in relation that dinosaurs became birds, overtime;

one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducccia from the university of north carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. he says:
"Well, i've studied bird skulls for 25 years and i don't see any similarities whatsoever. i just don't see it..... The theropod origins of birds, in my oppinion, will be the greatest embarrasment of paleotology of the 20'th century."


and i would encourage everyone to look at this link from wikipedia
Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is one of the many reasons why i do not beleive in evolution, just see what evolution scientists are doing to cover the truth.

I see you have used an Evolutionist in you anti evolution argument,Feducccia beleives that Birds evolved from Reptiles and not dinosaurs. But still evolved.


and i dont get yopur point with Ota Benga?

 

[Gharib]

just to add one more thing, lets not turn this into a thread for making enemies, i mean lets go about in a friendly way, in a not so serious tone. is everyone ok by that, cos i don't want to take it to a point where someone has to lash out at someone, so i think it would be best if we didn't take it tooooo seriuosly. i know that there are many RF members that accept evolution, and this thread was created to continue the matter here rather than on a different forum and thread.

 

[kai]

heres another argument, i've posted this before, but i can't right in a propper maner so i'll just past the info ok;

Nebraska Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This illustration of H. haroldcookii, by artist Amedee Forestier, was modelled on the Java Man.


Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax,[citation needed] the classification proved to be a mistake.
It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was falsely identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct genus of Peccary called Prosthennops and its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.[1]
Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.

Nebraska Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


just look at what they were able to know about the Nabraska man only because of a tooth. they knew that his wife looked like, the environment,......etc

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery,


A clue?

 

[Gharib]

I see you have used an Evolutionist in you anti evolution argument,Feducccia beleives that Birds evolved from Reptiles and not dinosaurs. But still evolved.

can you please show me, thats if you don't mind

and i dont get yopur point with Ota Benga

well thats to show you that many scientist who defend evolution have become delusional, they will do anything they can to protect it, including treating people as animals and locking them up in cages. judge for your self, does that man really look like a transitional form to you, he looks quite modern to me.

 

[kai]

can you please show me, thats if you don't mind

Sure:
Alan Feduccia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well thats to show you that many scientist who defend evolution have become delusional, they will do anything they can to protect it, including treating people as animals and locking them up in cages. judge for your self, does that man really look like a transitional form to you, he looks quite modern to me.

well that was about 100 years ago.

 

[rockondon]

and i would encourage everyone to look at this link from wikipedia
Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is one of the many reasons why i do not beleive in evolution, just see what evolution scientists are doing to cover the truth.

The year is 1904 still? In that case I'm even more angry at medical practitioners that are currently putting holes in the heads of people with mental illness to let the evil spirits leak out.

You disbelieve evolution because someone 100+ years ago who accepted evolution did something immoral? Hold on while I dig up something nasty done by a member of your faith 100+ years ago to refute your religion, lol.

ok since i have not brought up a "real" argument heres one, in relation that dinosaurs became birds, overtime;

one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feducccia from the university of north carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. he says:
"Well, i've studied bird skulls for 25 years and i don't see any similarities whatsoever. i just don't see it..... The theropod origins of birds, in my oppinion, will be the greatest embarrasment of paleotology of the 20'th century."

Chickens grow teeth sometimes. Reason and evidence tells us that their ancestors had teeth, which is why they still have the genes to make them. Your beliefs evidently explain this differently: Allah gave chickens these genes because He is incompetent, apparently.

But anyway, the fact that this one person does not accept evolution is not an argument. Give the evidence and reason.

Nebraska man is not an argument either. Its like saying a mathematician made an error 100 years ago, therefore, the entire field of mathematics is all wrong. Or its like saying a scientist did something dishonest 80 years ago, so lets pretend there's a worldwide conspiracy between scientists to end human knowledge. Or how about there once was a priest that was a pedophile, therefore every priest on earth today and every priest that will ever live are all pedophiles. Its flawed reasoning.

Your repeated references to mid 1900's events is making you look really stupid btw.

 

[Gharib]

well that was about 100 years ago.

ok i beleive you, but still it makes the theory some what unbeleivable, the part that says, dinosaurs started to wave their arms and after a very big time frame they developed wings. you do agree with me on this right?


and for the second par, yes it was 100 years ago, which proves me right. in the early stages of evolution (the tme when darwin brought it up, and i know about the others, greeks and muslims) the scientists made all sorts of unreall or deceitfull things to fool the people, so know people still beleive that those body forms that evolution scientists re-construct are actually 100 % real. is that what oyu think, they are 100 % accurate.

 

[kai]

ok i beleive you, but still it makes the theory some what unbeleivable, the part that says, dinosaurs started to wave their arms and after a very big time frame they developed wings. you do agree with me on this right?
I think that the ancestors of birds developed wings whether they were dinosaurs ( by the way there were flying dinosaurs ) or lizards.and yes it was over millions of years.

and for the second par, yes it was 100 years ago, which proves me right. in the early stages of evolution (the tme when darwin brought it up, and i know about the others, greeks and muslims) the scientists made all sorts of unreall or deceitfull things to fool the people, so know people still beleive that those body forms that evolution scientists re-construct are actually 100 % real. is that what oyu think, they are 100 % accurate.

I beleive that a hundred years ago people had a mistaken view about a lot of things and crooks and charletans are in every profession. Evolution is as old as life itself mans awareness of it is very young.

 

[rockondon]

So what you're saying is, the evidence we've gathered over the centuries that proves evolution to be a scientific fact can be discarded so long as you make silly statements about things that happened 100 years ago?

The best thing about science is its self-correcting nature. Of course scientists have made mistakes, they are human after all, but those errors were revealed by....you guessed it....other scientists. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone learns from them. When one scientist makes an error, other scientists race to exploit that error and make a name for themselves. That's what keeps them honest and accurate, as much as possible anyways.

So nobody cares if one guy with great credentials and claims to be an evolutionist disagrees with something. And nobody cares if a scientist lied a century ago. If you really want to refute evolution, tell us a theory that does a better job of explaining the things that evolution explains.

 

[Gharib]

So what you're saying is, the evidence we've gathered over the centuries that proves evolution to be a scientific fact can be discarded so long as you make silly statements about things that happened 100 years ago?

The best thing about science is its self-correcting nature. Of course scientists have made mistakes, they are human after all, but those errors were revealed by....you guessed it....other scientists. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone learns from them. When one scientist makes an error, other scientists race to exploit that error and make a name for themselves. That's what keeps them honest and accurate, as much as possible anyways.

So nobody cares if one guy with great credentials and claims to be an evolutionist disagrees with something. And nobody cares if a scientist lied a century ago. If you really want to refute evolution, tell us a theory that does a better job of explaining the things that evolution explains.

look friend i know everyone is trying to be as smart as they can and no one is trying more than me, cos i'm the one who oppened this stupid thread, but tell me if i'm not sopposed to look at the past of something then how am i going to find arguments to disprove something, what i'm saying is that if i can't look at the past mistakes of scientists that they got wrong about evolution, then how am i going to disprove it. i guess i'll have to think about the future mistakes, and guess what, i got one that totally disproves it; "scientists discover that a man became an ape overnight in germany, and by this amazing discovery the scientists themself say that evolution is a lie, scam, or what ever, because evolution is a slow process that takes millions and even billions of years to see a change in a species" what a wonderfull story. is this what i should be doin? you your self said that scientists correct each other, meaning they find a "missing link" or a "gap" in the research of some other scientist, so why are they allowed to look in the past and i am not?

thats the wors post i have seen to date, come on be reasonable. i don't mean any dissrespect but if you think that i can't look at past mistakes, then you tell me why evolution exists, why are we looking at past creatures that have "evolved" and not the future creatures.

 

[ukMethodist]

well first of all you won't have to worry about it, as opposed to what you are doing know.



just as flapping our arms to kill the flies because they are over-populating, we could somehow develop wings right. from the flapping.

look evolution speaks about changes that are out of this world. ok say you mentioned the environment and i'll say global warming. were are ok up to here right. you are farmiliar with the ice age, so what difference did those people have from us. nothing, they addapted to the environment by keeping warm, defiying the environment. so today if it gets hot we can just as easily go against it and turn our air conditions on. this is easy there is no problem to this, but changing your insides (guts) to fit the wet environment (the oceans) now thats impossible. do you sort of see the difference that evolution has come up when it comes to adaptation. it is not being realisitc, so that more people are left to wonder like it is something beyound our capability.



well yes there can, thats because we have't discovered them yet. for all the deseises in the world there are cures. but we haven't found them yet, it doesn't mean that aspirin will evolve into a cure for lucemia. it is still aspirin.



well i do not worry about it. thats a releive for me.

You clearly have no understanding of the Theory you oppose.

I'm sorry, but that's medieval reasoning you're presenting.

 

[ukMethodist]

so why are they allowed to look in the past and i am not?

Ehm, because you're not working with the scientific method, which is the basis of it all...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

actually nothing is beyound the abillities of Allah. he could have made the big bang, a logic axample rather than just say "POOF" i created earth. but when Allah creates something he only says "BE" and it becomes. that simple.

Ah, so it's not Allah's lack of ability that limits him... it's you.

 

[Caladan]

would you mind telling me? maybe i can learn something. and ask questions.

Im shocked that a person would start a thread calling the theory of evolution a lie, without having an understanding what this study says. how can you call one of the most vibrating fields of research that touches so many aspects of other disciplines, and who many many scientists have labored through modern times to make available to the general public, and have worked on in otder to promote scientific development a lie, without even taking the time and effort to understand what it says?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Im shocked that a person would start a thread calling the theory of evolution a lie, without having an understanding what this study says.

Why? Haven't you dealt with Fundamentalists before?

 

[Caladan]

Why? Haven't you dealt with Fundamentalists before?

Some elements in our societies still make me find myself dumbfounded.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Some elements in our societies still make me find myself dumbfounded.

Yeah, me too. :areyoucra