why Creationism is farcical and Evolution is a meritable Scientific Concept

[torkham]

1-7 are responses to your 'irrelevant' questions and statements, just look above

8, so, ironically you think it is not falsifiable, what is the conclusion then? it remains a theory in its current state and becomes a fact? (which you deny), unless you are suggesting it is not scientific because it cannot be falsified? which is illogical. i might suggest you read Karl Popper book:

Popper, Karl (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, ISBN 0-415-04318-2, page 419

BTW: this is a harvard reference format

9. icons, parables, imagery, similes, metaphors, call it what you like, adam and hawa produced children. these brothers and sisters did what? produce more children? hmmm interesting. BTW have you considered that Adam could imply humanity, mankind.

That's is why I have even said in another thread that we need to know arabic, and not just any arabic but arabic of thousand years ago. That's why I keep saying Quran is profound.

paleantology is an art! fossils of amazing life form all over the world, sea shells, shark teeth and marine life bones in the middle of of the arabian peninsula, the angles sedimentary layers visible in subduction zones of the great mountain ranges littered with fossils, the variety of current organisms and their fossilised ancestral remains that show gradual change, and the implications made from gradual change giving rise to new ideas, thats INDUCTION, the same that describes science.

Shagley Alchemie, you made your points, I have made mine.

and you like my response short, here is a full stop(.)

[Alchemist]

^ LOL

You are asking me to read karl popper?
Have you??

Karl Popper, Unended Quest (London: Routledge, 2002) 194, Questia, 4 Sept. 2007 . Originally published in 1976.

p. 195
I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme–a possible framework for testable scientific theories.
…
p. 197-199
As for Darwinian theory itself, I must now explain that I am using the term “Darwinism” for the modern forms of this theory, called by various names, such as “neo-Darwinism” or (by Julian Huxley) “The Modern Synthesis”. It consists essentially of the following assumptions or conjectures, to which I will refer later.(1) The great variety of the forms of life on earth originates from very few forms, perhaps even from a single organism: there is an evolutionary tree, an evolutionary history.

(2) There is an evolutionary theory which explains this. It consists in the main of the following hypotheses.

(a) Heredity: the offspring reproduce the parent organisms fairly faithfully.

(b) Variation: there are (perhaps among others) “small” variations. The most important of these are the “accidental” and hereditary mutations.

(c) Natural selection: there are various mechanisms by which not only the variations but the whole hereditary material is controlled by elimination. Among them are mechanisms which allow only “small” mutations to spread; “big” mutations (“hopeful monsters”) are as a rule lethal, and thus eliminated.

(d) Variability: although variations in some sense-the presence of different competitors-are for obvious reasons prior to selection, it may well be the case that variability-the scope of variation-is controlled by natural selection; for example, with respect to the frequency as well as the size of variations. A gene theory of heredity and variation may even admit special genes controlling the variability of other genes. Thus we may arrive at a hierarchy, or perhaps at even more complicated interaction structures. (We must not be afraid of complications; for they are known to be there. For example, from a selectionist point of view we are bound to assume that something like the genetic code method of controlling heredity is itself an early product of selection, and that it is a highly sophisticated product.)

Assumptions (1) and (2) are, I think, essential to Darwinism (together with some assumptions about a changing environment endowed with some regularities). The following point (3) is a reflection of mine on point (2).

(3) It will be seen that there is a close analogy between the “conservative” principles (a) and (d) and what I have called dogmatic thinking; and likewise between (b) and (c), and what I have called critical thinking.

I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme.

It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under “favourable conditions”. But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions are-except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge.

And yet I believe I have taken the theory almost at its best–almost in its most testable form. One might say that it “almost predicts” a great variety of forms of life. 283 In other fields, its predictive or explanatory power is still more disappointing. Take “adaptation”. At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological.
…
p. 200
Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression, it is not so very much better than the theistic view of adaptation; it is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical. But its value for science as a metaphysical research programme is very great, especially if it is admitted that it may be criticized, and improved upon.

--------------------------
^ The words of Karl Popper ..read it and weep son.

Look...you obviously missed the 50 page debate we had on evolution and now you are waltzing in here with your big shot degree trying to defend a theory that you don't even know a thing about just because you are a big shot and the theory is a big shot. Be that as it may ...everything you have so far is just fluff. I am not impressed.

And then you have a problem with believing that Adam and Hawa's children reproduced because they were related to each other? Why? Because you think "inbreeding is bad"? LOL
Do you even know why inbreeding is bad? What makes you think they would have recessive traits to begin with, genius?
Do you even know anything about genetics that you are coming here and shooting off your mouth at me? Stick to what you know ...making paper airplane models..

[torkham]

that's cut and paste.

your cut and paste reference p200, last sentence, well around that time after thomas kuhn came in and suggested paradigms, in scientific revolutions. so it can be falsified, it is a matter of time. we will sit here and argue, time will defeat you and me.

you want me to weep? brave words from behind your computer.

[torkham]

you have a bad problem. you are attacking me with paper plane references,
i am shooting my mouth off at you? did you sense schadenfreude in my remarks, did it hurt? it was clearly a debate. I kept it decent. ok i mocked your avatar name, base metal stuff, sensitive.

[khushal]

@Alchemist

Evolution defined as "a change in gene frequency" has been proven in a laboratory but where is this 50 page thread that was discussed earlier that you are talking about because I can not find it.

[Gulalai]

@Alchemist

Evolution defined as "a change in gene frequency" has been proven in a laboratory but where is this 50 page thread that was discussed earlier that you are talking about because I can not find it.

http://www.pashtunforums.com/science-29/evolution-why-us-7060/index37.html#post465306

[khushal]

Thank you gulalai,
I don't know why I couldn't find it, I guess I skipped a step when I evolved to whatever I am. They told me not to skip steps but you know people they don't listen.

[Gulalai]

lol hes khabara na da (:

[Batman Girl]

h3y W0tz d!S !!!!

3v0luT!oN !5 aGa!nSt !5laM CuZ !n !sLaM W3 b3L!EvE dAt G0d !5 0mN!p0n3nT n 0mN!sC!3nt d3n h0w y0u SaY daT g0d !5 n33d 3v0luT!oN f0R hUmAnz 2 3v0lv3 cUz dAz lyk3 s3yin dAt g0d !z n0t p3rf3ct dAt gOd !z n0t aLl kN0w n aLl p0w3rfUl.

aLs0, w3n y0u sAy3t d!z, d3n g0d aLs0 n33d 3v0lUt!0n 2 3vOlv3 (aZtAgHf!rUllAh) S!nC3 h3 n0t kn0w mAk3d p3rf3ct hUmAn m3aN!nG g0d n0t aLl kn0w n ALl p0w3rfUll

n0w dAz m3an dAt y0u g0d !z 3v0luTion f0r y0u n y0u w0rSh!p nAtUr3 cUz 3v3ryf!n !z rAnd0m mAde n0t sUmf!nG g0d wAnt.

bahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

! n3va w3nT sch00l n ! kn02 diz, bahahahaha l00k t0rkhAm h3 f!nK!n lYk3 w3st3rn m3nz.

aM ! sMaRt? :P

tOrkHaM y0u c0nFuSet.

[torkham]

scimitarX introduced a video to help clarify issues from another thread 'evolution why us'. he also referred to the animosities in the former debate and did not wish such to happen.

alchemist joined this thread to show his dissertation on evolutionary biochemistry, unfortunately, not keeping with decent etiquette, he got emotional and then patronising. this i felt was sign of his arrogance, that is knowing niche biochemistry quite well, and failing to find audience in peer review journals where he may have been better suited, decided to showcase his knowledge in this forum instead.

it is his patronising words, like in the former thread 'evolution, why us' where he refers to those who did/could not respond to his knowledge of biochemistry, as 'kids' and 'high school' types. and in this debate, the same pattern again, emotional responses.

a debate is a debate so the audience can benefit, and resorting to insults is sign of weakness if not failure to conduct a debate in a constructive manner for the benefit of other readers.

i presented a view, and responded to his. his response was initially sound and then degraded to peurile, only an egotist responds the way alchemist did.

alchemist reduced the credibility of a potentially good debate to amriki reality tv level.

[Alchemist]

@Alchemist

Evolution defined as "a change in gene frequency" has been proven in a laboratory but where is this 50 page thread that was discussed earlier that you are talking about because I can not find it.

change in gene frequency?


LOL

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

[Alchemist]

scimitarX introduced a video to help clarify issues from another thread 'evolution why us'. he also referred to the animosities in the former debate and did not wish such to happen.

alchemist joined this thread to show his dissertation on evolutionary biochemistry, unfortunately, not keeping with decent etiquette, he got emotional and then patronising. this i felt was sign of his arrogance, that is knowing niche biochemistry quite well, and failing to find audience in peer review journals where he may have been better suited, decided to showcase his knowledge in this forum instead.

it is his patronising words, like in the former thread 'evolution, why us' where he refers to those who did/could not respond to his knowledge of biochemistry, as 'kids' and 'high school' types. and in this debate, the same pattern again, emotional responses.

a debate is a debate so the audience can benefit, and resorting to insults is sign of weakness if not failure to conduct a debate in a constructive manner for the benefit of other readers.

i presented a view, and responded to his. his response was initially sound and then degraded to peurile, only an egotist responds the way alchemist did.

alchemist reduced the credibility of a potentially good debate to amriki reality tv level.

whatever dude ...

I had respect for you...

up until 5 posts prior. And now this ^^ ...what is that? Testimony for the court?

Why would you try to defend a theory which you don't even know the details of? WHY?
Why would you subordinate Quran to science? Why would you tell people that they'd better first get knowledge from china before opening the qur'an? And why would you class Adam as iconic? Does that mean that the Qur'an is just a fairy tale to you?

Don't try to make this about my "net-iquettes".
Yeah, I am a little peeved at having the theory of evolution be associated with the success of the vaccine for small pox and the wright brother's efforts to glide....because this debunked theory has not produced even one beneficial outcome for humanity! Instead it has allowed for many to disbelieve in the Power of Allah...which is beyound their pathetic grasp of even an iota of what is deemed "reality" in their own perceptions.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Evolution is a test that god brought, by way of the devil. Remember god told bliss that he was gonna condemn him to hell, ibliss told god one thing. That he would grab as much of Adams heritage as he can.

It seems a lot of people are failing this test. Not that it is easy, as Evolution makes sense to the weak faiths. I have a lot of respect for Alchemist. His belief of the all mighty is unshakeable.

you can't be serious

so if evolution is trying to test us, then that means God is intentionally trying to deceive mankind; you'll believe a hadith is false but that idea of God essentially lying to humanity is real?

please tell me you haven't thought this through.

[torkham]

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.

[کیش]

you can't be serious

so if evolution is trying to test us, then that means God is intentionally trying to deceive mankind; you'll believe a hadith is false but that idea of God essentially lying to humanity is real?

please tell me you haven't thought this through.

I belief you did not read my response clearly. Where did I say god is lying to humanity? Where did god say that Evolution is real? Then in "reality" it's true?

Remember god created Adam from clay, then Eve from Adam's ribs. God created Jinns from fire.

Hell will be filled with people, don't forget that.

2:
23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

24. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.

8. Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.

(the last one could be said about evolutionists)

13. When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know

This is how you evolutionists think like. Saying creationism is "farcical". Did yu notice how all these surahs are from 2 buqarah? Such a complete book.

God is seeing who is a real believer, it's the devil's world to play. Are you going to fall for his tricks? It seems Alchemist is real, he isn't falling for his tricks. I didn't know they were Afghans falling for this.

Edit
2:214

Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? they encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah." Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!