The blind faith of the evolutionists

[Parsimony]

It is about the planet and its distance from the sun and not from which position we are looking to,IOW Mercury will be always nearer to the sun than earth and Mars will be always farther from the sun than earth.

In which case the word "above" does not apply at all.

You are right,i missed to quote for you the next verse.

Do you not consider how Allah has created seven heavens in layers.(71:15)
And made the moon therein a [reflected] light and made the sun a burning lamp?(71:16)

It mentions the Sun, but I don't see it saying that the orbits are specifically ones that go around the Sun. Since the verse also mentions the Moon, you could just as easily argue that it is about orbits going around the Moon instead of the Sun.

The sun is mentioned,actually i have expected the results of the size of the paradise in relation to the width of the 7 heavens before starting my calculations and i worked with the 2 verses to confirm the veracity of the verses about the 7 heavens.(see my thread God does exist)

Yeah, I already saw that. Your calculations are very circumstance-dependent. You count Pluto as a heaven but Pluto can travel more than 7 billion kilometers from the Sun. That puts a rather large margin of error in your 4.5 billion kilometer calculation.

Thanx .

You're welcome. At least providing a test by which a theory can be falsified is a scientific approach to a matter.

 

[FearGod]

In which case the word "above" does not apply at all.


It mentions the Sun, but I don't see it saying that the orbits are specifically ones that go around the Sun. Since the verse also mentions the Moon, you could just as easily argue that it is about orbits going around the Moon instead of the Sun.


Yeah, I already saw that. Your calculations are very circumstance-dependent. You count Pluto as a heaven but Pluto can travel more than 7 billion kilometers from the Sun. That puts a rather large margin of error in your 4.5 billion kilometer calculation.

Thanx .
You're welcome. At least providing a test by which a theory can be falsified is a scientific approach to a matter.

I found out that we had already discussed it in my thread (God does exist) and we agreed not to agree,then i wonder why you are repeating what we had already discussed,if i remembered then i won't continue from the beginning.

If you have anything to discuss other than what we had already discussed then you can post in my thread about that specific issue as not to deviate the thread from its intended purpose,thanx

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes. Pretty much. It's called "speciation" if you want to look for it.

Evolution 101: Speciation


"Kind" is a term that was popular when essentialism was prominent, but nothing in DNA or otherwise can truly separate individuals into "kinds". You have populations with variations, and "kind" isn't an accurate biological term anymore.


Have you heard about green sea slug? It's considered both plant and animal, last I heard.


Well, yes and no. Since birds evolved through a different path: The origin of birds

But yes, since much much earlier, maybe it was an insect that dinosaurs came from. Not sure. I would have to look it up.


Humans evolved from a shared ancestor to the apes. We are of the primate family.

Thanks for the info. I am not sure if it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that we are evolved from apes. It can be said that, all species has been always evolving, but there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that if an animal and tree for example are evolved from same species. Is that fair?

Let me give you an analogy as to what I mean. Consider when we are in the womb. In the first days we looked like a warm, and nothing like human, and gradually we evolve in the womb until we become complete as we are now. However, regardless if we looked like a warm, we were still human, not a warm. Now, similar evolution on human may have been going on through millions or billions of years. Maybe we looked like a warm, or fish, but still we were a distinct specie.

 

[Parsimony]

Thanks for the info. I am not sure if it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that we are evolved from apes.

It can, actually.

 

[FearGod]

Human understood to be evolved from Apes in Africa.
When did the first human entered Europe and which kind of species,was it sapiens or other kinds than sapiens?

 

[Parsimony]

Human understood to be evolved from Apes in Africa.
When did the first human entered Europe and which kind of species,was it sapiens or other kinds than sapiens?

Based on what I've just read on Wikipedia, the oldest human fossils currently known in Europe are those of Homo erectus georgicus at 1.8 million years old.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Or I'm right. Hmm?

Factually you are not. On what basis do you bring your scientific claim that evolution is false? What are the evidences that you base this upon?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Human understood to be evolved from Apes in Africa.
When did the first human entered Europe and which kind of species,was it sapiens or other kinds than sapiens?

The first homo sapiens to enter Europe was a homo sapiens. Perhaps other hominids may have reached Europe first but our species was already separated from them before we left Africa.

 

[Father Heathen]

Do you think Darwinian evolution is a blind faith ?

With the insurmountable mountain of evidence that supports it? No, not really.

 

[outhouse]

Factually you are not. On what basis do you bring your scientific claim that evolution is false? What are the evidences that you base this upon?

I bet its facts like these



This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, theist included, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

With the insurmountable mountain of evidence that supports it? No, not really.

As of now most schools have outlawed creation being taught in science classes.


I have faith one day that our children will no longer be poisoned by this mythology and all schools will have it outlawed.:yes:

 

[FearGod]

Based on what I've just read on Wikipedia, the oldest human fossils currently known in Europe are those of Homo erectus georgicus at 1.8 million years old.

right,fossils show that Homo erectus lived earth before 2 millions years ago and survived till before around 100000 years.

Evolution is known to be a gradual process,so how you explain that Homo erectus lived about 2 millions of years still as Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens just evolved before 200000 years while homo erectus was still existing on earth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

right,fossils show that Homo erectus lived earth before 2 millions years ago and survived till before around 100000 years.

Evolution is known to be a gradual process,so how you explain that Homo erectus lived about 2 millions of years still as Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens just evolved before 200000 years while homo erectus was still existing on earth.

You understand that evolution isn't a line right? Its not pokemon.

 

[Bunyip]

right,fossils show that Homo erectus lived earth before 2 millions years ago and survived till before around 100000 years.

Evolution is known to be a gradual process,so how you explain that Homo erectus lived about 2 millions of years still as Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens just evolved before 200000 years while homo erectus was still existing on earth.

That is just how evolution works. The theory of evolution explains how that happened. All during that period homo was evolving gradually.

 

[FearGod]

That is just how evolution works. The theory of evolution explains how that happened. All during that period homo was evolving gradually.

How it is gradual and homo erectus didn't change for the whole period of 2 millions of years in different parts of the world.

IOW,if changes wasn't noticed for that long period of time,then how it is gradual.

 

[Bunyip]

How it is gradual and homo erectus didn't change for the whole period of 2 millions of years in different parts of the world.

IOW,if changes wasn't noticed for that long period of time,then how it is gradual.

Homo erectus was changing all that time. Species change over time, that is the basic principle of evolution.

 

[FearGod]

Homo erectus was changing all that time. Species change over time, that is the basic principle of evolution.

How it was changing and it was still homo erectus for 2 millions of years?
Would you please illustrate ?

 

[johnhanks]

right,fossils show that Homo erectus lived earth before 2 millions years ago and survived till before around 100000 years.

Evolution is known to be a gradual process,so how you explain that Homo erectus lived about 2 millions of years still as Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens just evolved before 200000 years while homo erectus was still existing on earth.

I know you hate being told this, but you really need to do some reading on how evolution works.

Members of one species (e.g. H. erectus) do not all evolve in lock-step into a different species. A widespread species like H. erectus exists as many reproductively isolated populations, some of which accumulate genetic traits not shared by other populations. If one of these isolated populations becomes so genetically different from the rest that it can no longer interbreed with them, it may go on to become a distinct species; there is nothing to stop the rest continuing as they are, as clearly happened with lots of erectus populations.

 

[Bunyip]

How it was changing and it was still homo erectus for 2 millions of years?
Would you please illustrate ?

Because there is change within a species. When all of those changes add up enough to warrant a distinction we name the new species homo erectus.

As I said, this is the most basic principle of evolution and you seem to fail to grasp it - how can you meaningfully doubt, or debate evolution if you do not even understand what the word 'evolution' means?

 

[johnhanks]

But yes, since much much earlier, maybe it was an insect that dinosaurs came from. Not sure. I would have to look it up.

The separation of the vertebrate lineage from almost all invertebrates had happened a long time earlier, with the protostome-deuterostome divergence. So no, no insect ever evolved into any vertebrate.