why Creationism is farcical and Evolution is a meritable Scientific Concept

[Alchemist]

alchemist we started by talking of a credible explanation for evolution/creation.
then what followed was really an exhibition of what you know and what i know. it was not constructive, it became egotistical, i don't know what points you scored or who you really convinced with your knowledge of evolutionary biochemistry - that's why i said may be your debate is better with someone who knows biochemistry.

there is no defence for theory of evolution, the defence was for the method by which it is deemed plausible for further investigation in search of a truth, a truth we muslims accept due to faith. if there is faith and belief then is evidence to justify it necessary? not in my opinion, i have held my belief in the quran, i deign to even use words creation when it comes to my belief, because creation in western knowledge context is something i would not compare to how allah(s) created us.

i expressly used the phrase 'this world', in worldly pursuit of knowledge, scientific method is meritable (for belief is already there if you are a muslim).

i do believe though if one wishes to understand the profound quran then one should know of the world we live in. i learnt quran in a madrassah in nangarhar and by 7 i had read the quran in arabic, without understanding arabic. later as a teenager i started to look for meanings, explanations. i remember muslim academics referring to embryology in the quran; how can one understand that if you dont know the details of embryology. that is what i meant by learn of the world around you. having learnt the quran and accepted it at 7 is belief, it was (and is) my belief, but i could not argue the science, i couldn't, [maybe you could at 7 or 12 or 15, i find that slightly incredible].

alchemist i dont know what experiences you have (age, education, life) but I know that this topic is hotly debated, and people, muslims as well, get extremely violent about it, because challenging notions is like shaking someone's foundation of belief in general and belief in islam, and heir tcredibility.

i think your last message challenges my reference to the 'iconic' idea. i do find singular adam and singular eve illogical in the way science operates (open debate), hence i clearly wrote what if it is a notional concept, icon, etc.

i find the whole idea of searching for evidence to justify islam (creation etc) alien to my belief in islam. i believe in islam full stop. i only enter this realm to shut kafirs up with thier system of understanding.

infact i saw the previous thread 'evolution, why us' and kept out of it because of my belief. i became curious the second time it was in the forum.

i am not here for respect or ego trip, i am old enough to know that when this computer is switched off i am back to reality. in this virtual arena people brag, exhibit/show off, use and abuse people, and a few are convincing . i was hoping to get something useful rather than what has sadly happened.

First of all, you are mistaken to believe that there is any form of "Credibility" to the theory of evolution.
The Phylogenetic Tree is a farce and has been uprooted by much more recent studies that show the difficulties that scientists find in assigning clades...the process itself is unscientific since the scientists believes that they are being both objective and subjective at the same time - which is why there are so many different phylogenetic trees that are suppose to be both generic and specific simultaneously...in practice it is a naive set theory...which leads to the paradoxes ... Evolution (dawkins) says that the eye developed by chance, if this were true then the genetic programing for the embryological development of the each eye evolve only after the gene for each step has evolved...but recently scientists have found that the same coordinating gene is involved in the embryological steps of eye making in both mice and wasps. Coordinating genes, homeotic genes, work in other parts other than the eye and they are found across many species ...how do you explain the development of the coordinating genes before the "evolution" of the embryological steps themselves? You can't.

And what problem do you have with believing in Adam and Hawa?
What do you know of the theory of evolution that contradicts the belief in the origin of humanity from one father and one mother?
Do you believe that different humans evolved differently? That asians evolved from a different type of primates than africans? there is nothing "scientific" or concise about the theory of evolution since it is mute on the origin of man...the y chromosome may date 50,000 yrs but the maternal mitochondria dates further back...but even then it is only a rough estimate.

And what method do you think evolutionists apply that is scientific?
Palaeontology is more of an art than it is a science...

And a historical science is not the same type of science used by a physician or a physicist....maybe a cosmologist.

[khushal]

change in gene frequency?


LOL

Do you know what the Hardy Weinberg Principle is, son?

Calm down Senorita,
is it that time of the month again.
How does the Hardy Weinberg principle negate what I said.

[طالب]

Great video, very informative. The point he makes at 2:02 is the same exact point I was making.

[torkham]

First of all, you are mistaken to believe that there is any form of "Credibility" to the theory of evolution.
The Phylogenetic Tree is a farce and has been uprooted by much more recent studies that show the difficulties that scientists find in assigning clades...the process itself is unscientific since the scientists believes that they are being both objective and subjective at the same time - which is why there are so many different phylogenetic trees that are suppose to be both generic and specific simultaneously...in practice it is a naive set theory...which leads to the paradoxes ... Evolution (dawkins) says that the eye developed by chance, if this were true then the genetic programing for the embryological development of the each eye evolve only after the gene for each step has evolved...but recently scientists have found that the same coordinating gene is involved in the embryological steps of eye making in both mice and wasps. Coordinating genes, homeotic genes, work in other parts other than the eye and they are found across many species ...how do you explain the development of the coordinating genes before the "evolution" of the embryological steps themselves? You can't.

And what problem do you have with believing in Adam and Hawa?
What do you know of the theory of evolution that contradicts the belief in the origin of humanity from one father and one mother?
Do you believe that different humans evolved differently? That asians evolved from a different type of primates than africans? there is nothing "scientific" or concise about the theory of evolution since it is mute on the origin of man...the y chromosome may date 50,000 yrs but the maternal mitochondria dates further back...but even then it is only a rough estimate.

And what method do you think evolutionists apply that is scientific?
Palaeontology is more of an art than it is a science...

And a historical science is not the same type of science used by a physician or a physicist....maybe a cosmologist.

1 your implication of my words is incorrect. the theory is incomplete, however the way of explaining the formation of man is being carried out is credible, ie the method of science; forming hypotheses, looking for genteic evidence, looking for patterns and omissions, making conclusions and eliminating less robust ideas, this method is reliable. the results will be inconclusive for a long time. it works for many worldly phenomena.

2 not interested. because this minutae of evolutionary genetic knowledge is for gene biochemists, maybe for a scientific journal where you will find appropriate responses.

3 Adam Hawa issue no problem for believers. it is illogical if you use axiom-theorem method of enquiry. many axioms are needed to to show a singular adam and hawa leads to population of the world. each axiom of course needs to be a fact. it leads to classic problem associated with deduction.

4 begs the question if I believe in evolution. I don't for I am a muslim.

5 I dont know what method an evolutionist might apply. if the evolutionist is biased, a method to suit the outcome may be chosen.

6 true, each area of knowledge has it's own method of enquiry, as you point out historical scientist, physician, physicist and cosmologist.

OK most of your questions answered. point 6 is the key, in a belief system faith is used, in physical sciences empirical evidence is sought, rational positivists look for even rigorous empirical evidence and hard logic.

I have relied on aqida tawhid and iman and it is ultimately sufficient for me. i think the searching of proof is (essential) really if one is not convinced. I am convinced.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Belief in Darwinism is apostasy.

[Alchemist]

1 your implication of my words is incorrect. the theory is incomplete, however the way of explaining the formation of man is being carried out is credible, ie the method of science; forming hypotheses, looking for genteic evidence, looking for patterns and omissions, making conclusions and eliminating less robust ideas, this method is reliable. the results will be inconclusive for a long time. it works for many worldly phenomena.

2 not interested. because this minutae of evolutionary genetic knowledge is for gene biochemists, maybe for a scientific journal where you will find appropriate responses.

3 Adam Hawa issue no problem for believers. it is illogical if you use axiom-theorem method of enquiry. many axioms are needed to to show a singular adam and hawa leads to population of the world. each axiom of course needs to be a fact. it leads to classic problem associated with deduction.

4 begs the question if I believe in evolution. I don't for I am a muslim.

5 I dont know what method an evolutionist might apply. if the evolutionist is biased, a method to suit the outcome may be chosen.

6 true, each area of knowledge has it's own method of enquiry, as you point out historical scientist, physician, physicist and cosmologist.

OK most of your questions answered. point 6 is the key, in a belief system faith is used, in physical sciences empirical evidence is sought, rational positivists look for even rigorous empirical evidence and hard logic.

I have relied on aqida tawhid and iman and it is ultimately sufficient for me. i think the searching of proof is (essential) really if one is not convinced. I am convinced.

You just contradicted your self ...

Point 1 and point 5. You don't know what method is used...but you assume its scientific. First know...then come tell me if it's scientific or not. Thanks.

Point 2 ...you actually admit that you are not interested in what evolution is ...so I don't even understand why you are still responding in this thread...egotism? Maybe.

It seems like you are trying to isolate science from religion... fair enough. However you haven't done a good job of that in this thread.

[Alchemist]

Calm down Senorita,
is it that time of the month again.
How does the Hardy Weinberg principle negate what I said.

I am calm ... punani...and yeah, its the time of the month that you get your butt handed to you on a platter.


How does it "negate" it?

I asked you if you know what it is...because if you did know then you would know when frequencies of allele do change ....so can you name the 5 conditions and show how it leads to "speciation"...if it all? Can you? No? Oh....so that means you don't know what you are talking about ...thanks for your "opinion".
Here is some advice - don't skip bio class.

[MostafaM]

I guess the most clueless person here cannot deny that for example microbes are subject to (micro-)evolution aka change of their DNA that leads to a change in their outward appearance, metabolism etc., too.

If simple cells are subject to evolution in short periods of time, why is it hard to grasp that more complex living subjects can evolve and change, too, given the millions of years since the earth came into existance?

[khushal]

I am calm ... punani...and yeah, its the time of the month that you get your butt handed to you on a platter.


How does it "negate" it?

I asked you if you know what it is...because if you did know then you would know when frequencies of allele do change ....so can you name the 5 conditions and show how it leads to "speciation"...if it all? Can you? No? Oh....so that means you don't know what you are talking about ...thanks for your "opinion".
Here is some advice - don't skip bio class.

Your not calm, your acting like I insulted your hero, Ahmed Shaw Masood. If you were calm, you wouldn't bark useless insults at people.

First, what your doing is creating a straw man fallacy. You have to learn how to debate rationally and civilly. So far you have demonstrated neither.
I never said that "a change in gene frequency" leads to speciation. I just said that "a change in gene frequency" does occur. This has been observed.

Second, as far as looking for the smoking gun, you will never find it because "proof" is the domain of mathematics. Science is all theory and opinion that is formed with whatever evidence is at your disposal at the time. There are millions of reasons why or how something could have happened.
For example Atomic theory is the best explanation(or the most widely accepted theory) for atoms but that does not mean it is the only theory that is plausible because non of them could be absolutely proven.
The greeks believed that a rain god made rain, all science does is propose a theory that water vapor condenses, but we don't know for certain, the rain god could be the culprit.

You are asking torkhom to prove it, he can not, this is not mathematics.
So get off your high horse and stop selling pork products.

[Alchemist]

Your not calm, your acting like I insulted your hero, Ahmed Shaw Masood. If you were calm, you wouldn't bark useless insults at people.

First, what your doing is creating a straw man fallacy. You have to learn how to debate rationally and civilly. So far you have demonstrated neither.
I never said that "a change in gene frequency" leads to speciation. I just said that "a change in gene frequency" does occur. This has been observed.

Second, as far as looking for the smoking gun, you will never find it because "proof" is the domain of mathematics. Science is all theory and opinion that is formed with whatever evidence is at your disposal at the time. There are millions of reasons why or how something could have happened.
For example Atomic theory is the best explanation(or the most widely accepted theory) for atoms but that does not mean it is the only theory that is plausible because non of them could be absolutely proven.
The greeks believed that a rain god made rain, all science does is propose a theory that water vapor condenses, but we don't know for certain, the rain god could be the culprit.

You are asking torkhom to prove it, he can not, this is not mathematics.
So get off your high horse and stop selling pork products.

stop selling pork products?
And I am making strawman arguments?


You are pork your self. First you insinuate that I am a girl on her period and now your calling me a dog because I am barking? ...yet I am the one who is being insulting?

Hello? Projection?

"I never said that change in gene frequency leads to speciation....I said that change in gene frequency is evolution" ...oh wow...big difference. Excuse me...for not noticing your genius and brilliance. My... how did I miss that?


Technically, you can't really prove anything in mathematics either because math is highly abstract...just ask Bertrand. Or as one man said "proofs are to mathematics as spelling (or even calligraphy) is to poetry." To prove simply means to convince. I ask you to prove what you are saying, and you tell me that it is impossible to prove anything beyound a shadow of a doubt and get so metaphysical about it that you start to say silly things like "I am not even convinced I exist...can you prove that I exist?". (No, you don't...you are just an extra in my movie filling background space.) So if you can't prove evolution...and can't be bothered to do so ...then gtfoh. :D

[khushal]

stop selling pork products?
And I am making strawman arguments?


You are pork your self. First you insinuate that I am a girl on her period and now your calling me a dog because I am barking? ...yet I am the one who is being insulting?

Hello? Projection?

"I never said that change in gene frequency leads to speciation....I said that change in gene frequency is evolution" ...oh wow...big difference. Excuse me...for not noticing your genius and brilliance. My... how did I miss that?


Technically, you can't really prove anything in mathematics either because math is highly abstract...just ask Bertrand. Or as one man said "proofs are to mathematics as spelling (or even calligraphy) is to poetry." To prove simply means to convince. I ask you to prove what you are saying, and you tell me that it is impossible to prove anything beyound a shadow of a doubt and get so metaphysical about it that you start to say silly things like "I am not even convinced I exist...can you prove that I exist?". (No, you don't...you are just an extra in my movie filling background space.) So if you can't prove evolution...and can't be bothered to do so ...then gtfoh. :D

See how insulting you are. I did my muslim duty to advise you to stop selling pork products and you called me pork. You have entered the realm of insanity. I am now advising you to go get psychiatric help before you completely lose it.

[Alchemist]

I guess the most clueless person here cannot deny that for example microbes are subject to (micro-)evolution aka change of their DNA that leads to a change in their outward appearance, metabolism etc., too.

If simple cells are subject to evolution in short periods of time, why is it hard to grasp that more complex living subjects can evolve and change, too, given the millions of years since the earth came into existance?

YouTube - ‪Antibiotic Resistance and Evolution‬‏

YouTube - ‪Investigating Evolution: Anti-Biotic Resistant Bacteria‬‏


oh ...you have no idea how clueless you are son.

Yeah ...this type of vid might BLOW YOUR MIND!


(assuming you are smart enough to understand what they are saying.)

[MostafaM]

The environment aka the biotope sets the charakteristics of the abiotic factors.

The researchers clearly stated that change in the DNA occurs but the bacterias are not fit enough to compete with their unchanged fellow species.

The concept of time is your problem, I think.
Everything longer than 100 years, a time that tops your own lifetime, cannot be understood properly by a normal human mind.
2,5 Billion years or 2,5 * 10^9 years (the starting point of the chemical evolution) is the key concept herel.

The evolution theory has thousands of examples where a species changes and the new branch wouldn´t be competetive with the former IF we neglect the biotop the live in and the abiotic factors that would favour one over the other.

I think, everyone with basic knowledge in biology would understand that.

Apart from that, your arguements don´t get better if call someone "son" or "father".
And I must have missed the mind-blowing part of the videos because thats common knowledge what they are talking about.

[MostafaM]

The real question in evolutionary biology is how complex molecules bonded together to form a more complex structure, a cell, and how they could save data about their own structure and appearance to be able to reproduce.

THIS step leads to a dicrease of entropy and an increase in information and order.
Because this goes against every law of physics and thermodynamics, there might be a link between some kind of creation and it´s evolving nature after on.

But no one can say for sure.
There is no theory or explanation for that so far.

[khushal]

The real question in evolutionary biology is how complex molecules bonded together to form a more complex structure, a cell, and how they could save data about their own structure and appearance to be able to reproduce.

THIS step leads to a dicrease of entropy and an increase in information and order.
Because this goes against every law of physics and thermodynamics, there might be a link between some kind of creation and it´s evolving nature after on.

But no one can say for sure.
There is no theory or explanation for that so far.

Your talking to an idiot.
First he doesn't know how to debate civilly. He goes on rants and insults as though he has a period. When you throw insults back at him, he becomes a raving lunatic.

Second, He thinks he is an Islamic Scholar that has the wisdom of the Quran. The Quran is filled with "Allah knows best" repeated over and over again because humanity does not have the capacity to understand with certainty such matters. Whether its this idiot Alchemist or Darwin, Newton, or Einstein, they are all speculators because that is all we humans can do is speculate. Some speculators give reasons about their opinions, and their opinions or theories become widely accepted with the reservation that another theory is plausible.

Third, one thing that is no speculation is that this idiot sells pork products when he preaches Islam to others. What a hypocrite.