• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EVOLUTION, what a lie.

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
challenge to evolutionists:

if evolution is true then that means transitional forms have been found right, for if there haven't then just as darwin himself stated "the theory of evolution would be invalid". so i am challenging you guys to provide evidence of these transitional forms, be it reptiles turning to birds, sea creatures to land creatures, or apes to human, ane transitional form for any scenario would do.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
challenge to evolutionists:

if evolution is true then that means transitional forms have been found right, for if there haven't then just as darwin himself stated "the theory of evolution would be invalid". so i am challenging you guys to provide evidence of these transitional forms, be it reptiles turning to birds, sea creatures to land creatures, or apes to human, ane transitional form for any scenario would do.

There are a lot of transitional forms, but you don't need any of them to confirm evolution. Dna alone confirms evolution.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
challenge to evolutionists:

if evolution is true then that means transitional forms have been found right, for if there haven't then just as darwin himself stated "the theory of evolution would be invalid". so i am challenging you guys to provide evidence of these transitional forms, be it reptiles turning to birds, sea creatures to land creatures, or apes to human, ane transitional form for any scenario would do.

I'm sure painted wolf can provide you with plenty of this, if she feels like it. However, you need to remember that there isn't just one transitional form, there are thousands or more. It's not like there's a fossil that's half-reptile and half-bird. To see reptiles turn into birds, you'd have to look at at least dozens, if not hundreds of pieces of evidence.

Also, remember that humans are apes. We're just a different branch than others like gorillas.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Somehow I doubt it would do any good... other than have me spend a good half hour or more gathering images and explaining the fossils.

wa:do
 

Sententia

Well-Known Member
challenge to evolutionists:

if evolution is true then that means transitional forms have been found right, for if there haven't then just as darwin himself stated "the theory of evolution would be invalid". so i am challenging you guys to provide evidence of these transitional forms, be it reptiles turning to birds, sea creatures to land creatures, or apes to human, ane transitional form for any scenario would do.

Originality is lacking:

6 seconds of reading said:
Common misrepresentations by creationists

Proponents of creationism frequently make false claims about the existence or implications of transitional fossils. Common false claims include:
There are no transitional fossils, made by groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research;[5][3][6][7] such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[5] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and have been called the "favourite lie" of creationists.[3]
No fossils are found with partially functional features;[8] vestigial organs are common in whales (legs),[9] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix). There is also evidence that a complex feature can adapt to wholly different functions through exaptation (such as the wings of birds).
Henry M. Morris and other creationists have incorrectly claimed that evolution predicts a continuous gradation in the fossil record, and have misrepresented the expected partial record as having "systematic gaps".[5] Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms. Progress in research including new discoveries continues to fill in such gaps, and in modern thinking, evolutionary lines of development are understood as showing bush-like divergence, not the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[10] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the following observation of creationist misuse of his work to deny the existence of transitional fossils:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
from: Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Well, I guess you can thank Allah for misleading all those people who believe in evolution, then.

Well... if only facts are real, that takes out a LOT of information we take for granted as real. Thoughts, beliefs, spirituality... all disintegrates unless we have facts to back them up. Our facts for those, thus far, are pretty empty. :(

There are many theories in math, science, and physics that we believe to be true. We put them into practice and so far they are apparently true. However, something may come along to fine tune or irradicate the way we think of things now. Like the theory of planet rotation, for instance. The way we use physics to study Stars that are millions of miles away. These are theories, our best guess. I don't know how a best guess could be a lie.

Lying is knowing better, but promoting a false cover up. I don't see scientists as doing this. Maybe, if this is a trick on God's behalf, God is actually lying. Feeding us false information just to see us squirm? That's not really that loving or thoughtful.
I see no one has responded to this...
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
It's not like there's a fossil that's half-reptile and half-bird.

exactly my point, thus evolution is not real. does evolution not state that species change gradually over thousands and maybe millions of years, so by not having a half reptile-half bird creature, that means that a reptile lived for some millions of years then 'poof' it just suddenly changed to a bird and then that bird gradually changed over time to addapt to it's environment.

and that theory (the one i have just stated) totally contradicts evolution. meaning only one thing, evolution is a lie made up by phony scientists who do not believe in god.

dissprove my claims if you think i am mistaken. anyone can try, not just you.

Also, remember that humans are apes. We're just a different branch than others like gorillas.

just cos you are an ape, it does not make me one. so don't include everyone in that.
 

kai

ragamuffin
challenge to evolutionists:

if evolution is true then that means transitional forms have been found right, for if there haven't then just as darwin himself stated "the theory of evolution would be invalid". so i am challenging you guys to provide evidence of these transitional forms, be it reptiles turning to birds, sea creatures to land creatures, or apes to human, ane transitional form for any scenario would do.


every living thing on earth is a transitional form, every single fossil is a transitional form, everything is constantly adapting and evolving, look in the mirror your one.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
every living thing on earth is a transitional form, every single fossil is a transitional form, everything is constantly adapting and evolving, look in the mirror your one.

nice try, but that does not work with me. how do you know that we will turn into someething else in the future? you don't, thats why for the present time (which is now) we say that evolution has seized taking place due to us not noticing the changes (if that were true anyway).
 

kai

ragamuffin
nice try, but that does not work with me. how do you know that we will turn into someething else in the future? you don't, thats why for the present time (which is now) we say that evolution has seized taking place due to us not noticing the changes (if that were true anyway).

just because you dont notice it doesnt mean its not happening , a little like not noticing the earth spinning but its still happening. and you wont turn into anything else, you are stuck as you are ,unless you upset strigoi and get turned into a toad
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
just because you dont notice it doesnt mean its not happening , a little like not noticing the earth spinning but its still happening. and you wont turn into anything else, you are stuck as you are ,unless you upset strigoi and get turned into a toad

the spinning of the earth is irrelevant when compared to evolution.

the spinning happens but there are no changes, just like we live but we don't see any changes. they are 2 very different examples.
 

Ghostaka

Active Member
the spinning of the earth is irrelevant when compared to evolution.

the spinning happens but there are no changes, just like we live but we don't see any changes. they are 2 very different examples.

You know I just (well maybe recently?) realized that one of the signs of "it's all over" is when the Earth spins the opposite direction! Well the sign is that the sun will rise from the West which... I would infer to mean the Earth is spin z opposite direction.

Semi-relevant ;).

Peace be upon you.

edit: by "it's all over" I mean the Closing of Allah's door/gate of repentance (that btw is as wide as the distance between East and West - metaphorically it's just awesomely huge ;))
 
Last edited:

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
You know I just (well maybe recently?) realized that one of the signs of "it's all over" is when the Earth spins the opposite direction! Well the sign is that the sun will rise from the West which... I would infer to mean the Earth is spin z opposite direction.

Semi-relevant ;).

Peace be upon you.

ok if you put it that way, i guess you could say that. but still it does not prove evolution to be a fact or real. since there are no transitional forms that are half of one creature and half of another.

if anyone can provide any evidence of such a creature, that actually fits the profile, then i guess evolution is true.

but they don't exist, therefore evolution not real.
 

rageoftyrael

Veritas
i personally feel his comment about the earth spinning is perfectly relevant to this conversation as an analogy. Why? Well, for one, you made the comment it doesn't change, which isn't true. The earth doesn't always spin in a specific set rotation, which means it changes. It may be nothing so obvious as going in the opposite direction, but there are variables.

As for being able to present something that is literally changing, this moment. That's ridiculous, straight out ridiculous. that isn't even how they explain evolution. Evolution usually takes place over a long span of time, with small changes happening, which accumulate over time, and you end up, eventually, with something new. If this wasn't the case, why do we have so many different types of the same kind of animal? Thousands of different varieties of the same animal.... Many different types of dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, fish, it goes on and on. These may be similar to each other, but they have noticeable differences.

you know, i'm certain that people have used breeding as an example of evolution. you can see evolution, to an extent, when people breed different types of dogs to each other, repeatedly, over a span of time, to get a specific trait. Maybe a certain look, or skill. This is a perfectly good example of evolution at work. And even this version, which isn't completely natural, takes time. It isn't instantaneous.

Ah, i just looked over eselam's comment, and you said we change, and don't notice. You are right, you see yourself everyday, and thus don't notice the natural changes that occur to you. This is a very basic idea of evolution here. We change, over time, into something new. You know, we even change mentally, to an extent. I bet, if you could look at yourself 5 years ago, and compared yourself to that person, you'll notice a reasonable amount of differences. Maybe nothing earth-shattering, like no, you didn't turn into a girl all of a sudden, but there are differences.

Basically, you get idiots who think evolution is a miraculous process that happens overnight. It doesn't. A fish in your tank isn't going to turn into a turtle overnight. Or probably at all. Not without the need. Let me give you a reason why things become something new, and kind of how.

Okay, there's a fish. This fish has found it's equilibrium. It's doing fine. But then, oh no, a new type of fish has come into the territory. This new fish has decided that the orignal fish, let's call them eselams, eh? and these new fish will be called ragetyrs, ok? well, the ragetyrs has decided that the eselams are quite yummy. Well, the eselams are not equipped to handle the awesome power of the ragetyrs. So, what will happen is kind of like this. As the population of esalams reduces, only the best will survive. These best will breed with each other. This will eventually help the line improve in general, as only the best will survive. when i say best, i mean the fish that are a little faster, a little smarter, etc. As you get the best of the esalams breeding, these traits become common, thus improving the stock. The reason this works is that any of the esalams that aren't better will be eaten by the ragetyrs. And only the best will be alive to breed, right? This is the simplest explanation i can give of an indepth reason as to why there is evolution. Now, you don't have a new species, but you have a better species, it's not the same, because eventually, all eselams, or at least most, will be at that level, and you will begin to have even better ones, who aren't the norm, but even better. Now, if they have already gotten to the point where they aren't the fave delicacy of the ragetyrs, then there will not be any change, cause there is no need, right? Yeah, that was basic.

Okay, i'm done with my lesson. Wow, that was long, lol. Hope you learned SOMETHING, eselam.

Makes sense to me.:D
 
Top