Creation Versus Evolution

Israfil wrote: 1) life started in some goo of organic compounds 2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance)  In other words, because an elephant, isolated on a island over time becomes small, does not imply, that 1 or 2 are true, which is at the heart of evolution.   There is not a single schred of evidence that strongly supports one and two. They have tampered and tweeked the definition of "speciation" so that one could include fruit flies that have hari growth that another group of fruit flies does not have as two different species. Smoking mirrors! Analdus, I'm confused at your question because you are saying two things here.

LOL...yes of course I am saying two things, I even numbered them as two things, one and two. Two points that evolution fails to prove or even predict (a "real" scientific thoery should make predictions, evolution has not been able to predict anythimg, and being a "tautology", it always agrees with everything after the fact!).

My question was actually a proposition: evolution fails on two major points, and the proponents like to hide behind the banner of "adaption" to promote the theory, but the novice usually fails to see the smoking mirrors and see that adaptation does not prove the bases of evolution: life came from nothing, and mutations cause speciation.

From what I'm reading are you asking how does evolution prov e that all life started out as an "organic soup?" And also how does speciation occur from this?????

I stated that rather clearly? I am going a bit further to emphasize that evolution fails to prove either.

There is no evidence to show that random mutations have created us as a distinct species. That is speculation. Your claim does try and fit into the extremely loose use of the concept of "mutation giving rise to speciation". The evolutionist must prove that mutations started life, and that life grew into some other species. In the above bold you are asking how evolution proves life began (a third question) which is the wrong one to ask.

Actually it is a very salient direction that I used. Evolutionist claim that they have not just a theory, but a proven factual theory that explains how life began and developed. This is the bottom line. If a theory makes a claim, then it needs to prove it. The theory of evolution is the only theory in the realm of science that is given a free ride.

And that was not a third question, but a reiteration of the two points of centention that I proclaimed in the beginning.

If you want answers to the actual scientific theory on explain how Earth had the compounds to produce life you would have to seek out astronomist.

No, astronomy did not engender the threory of evolution. That is the realm of biology, and so I put forth my demand for proof from those who made the claim.

Just briefly off topic some scientist introduce the theory that in the prehistoric times the Earth (prior to the existence of dinosaurs) was bombarded by meteors and comets and these introduce the life giving compositions in earth. Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon dioxide (including other gases) including bacteria were all compositions in the order of creation of life.

speculation. which takes "faith" to believe in.

And if true, still does not prove that mutations give rise to speciation.

Evolution does not explain how life develops but how organisms evolve and adapt. Two different theories here.

Poppycock! Evolution proclaims that the changes which are seen as adaptations prove that mutations cause speciation, which also, supposedly proves that a cell formed in a goo which gave us birds and man and apes and fish.

I agree that evolution cannot tell us how life began, but evolutionists do claim that life started from a series of mutations, which came, somehow, from nothing.

evolution fails to explain the very basics of "cellular" evolution because it fails to show just how complicated systems came into being. As an example, the blood clotting system. The blood clotting system must have two essential components: clotting at the right time and place. If not, the system will die. It is that simple. The blood clotting system is extremely complicated, and it is also in the most simplistic form (you cannot take away or add to it). To use the idea of cellular evolution would only show the extreme weakness of the theary and the reason why evolution is a "dead end". If you say that the blood clotting system came into being through random mutations, then you must show how the system worked with only a one or two or a few basic elements. Of course this would be impossible given that nothing can be taken away or added without destroying the system thus kiling the organism. The system is "irreducible". The chances that the system "just" came into being from some huge ramdom dice role is impossible. Brother Andalus your asking questions that seem to show you have no real knowledge on evolution.

I beg to differ. I just presented you with a huge delima for evolution. In the past, evolutionists had an easy ride with just showing how certain things resemble one another, and it was easy to make connections (based upon supposition). But late in the 20th century, molecular biology grew as did biochemistry, and behold, evolution begins to fail. Mutations occur at the molecular level, according to evolutionists, because change must take place at the molecular level. Irriducible complex systems exist in biological systems, and these systems cannot have evolved, and the chances that they just appeared are impossible. Perhaps brother, you are not up on the details that accompany the idea of evolution.

 

After reading Charles Darwin's book in college (including updated material) I don't think Darwin's theory was to show the complexity of cellular division rather, to show how organisms evolved in certain conditions and to show how this occured.

Thats because science did not know anything about the realm of molecular biology. Watson and Crick were far from gracing the earth. Ignorance on the part of Darwin does not invalidate my point. Adaptations simply are no big deal, and do not prove that life came from a single cell. I am aware of what Darwin proposed, but Darwin's theories fail to predict or explain phenomena that is continuously being discovered. His deciples just revent his wheel, and continue to update it, and proudly boust how his theories have held up.

Later retuned explainations showed how "genetic drift" plays a role in this development. I'm surprised you didn't read that part. The complexity of the blood clotting system has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the physiological structure.

Are you kidding? Nothing to do with evolution?????? Brother.....are you so entangled in this horrible theory that you are being loyal or are you truly not connecting the dots?

The ideas on genetic drift is another realm that is useless as long as nothing in the thoery is able to show how the systems of the organsim evolved.An organism cannot have evolved if it has an irreducible complex system. It is on the theory to provide answers.

Do you understand what takes place in the clotting system? I would be happy to go into details.

The basis of natural selection was that species that were able to adapt into a certain environment thrived versus those that didn't. The species that survived passed on their genes which produced offspring wiht the same genetic composition as the the previous.

I am aware of what adaption is, and I am aware that it does not prove speciation or that life started from nothing (a metaphysical idea at the bases of evolution), and I am also aware that natural selection cannot show how irreducible complex systems emerged.

A good example are the Gallapgos (I might have mutilated that name) Island birds. Darwin spent some years looking at these birds. On the Island when it rains the seeds that the birds eat in the trees shrink therefore large beak birds are unable to pick the seeds up, but smaller beak birds are able to therefore, the large beak birds eventually starve and die while the smaller beak birds survive. During a dry spell it is the opposite. Because the seeds become too large the large beak birds thrive and small beak birds die off.

I am aware of this story. My reply: So what? What do the Dallas Cowboys have to do with the price of bannanas in Nicaragua. My point being, that a bird with a different size beaks does not prove speciation.....something jumped from a reptile to a mammal.....a cell mutating into a larger creature....a beast mutating into a human..etc, etc. I do not disagree that some adaptation takes place, I do find it to be a fallacy to try and stretch this as a proof for the entirety of evolution.

Once more, none of this supports that founding ideas of evolution. I have personally heard supporters and scientists state that macro changes (adaptation) automatically gives "micro" (different species forming, life from nothing, etc). This is a fallacy. Now I feel like I'm going back to highschool with this but all life comes from a single celled organism, this has been proven.

Actually, you might check out what a proof is and is not. And assertion with weak speculation and adaptation examples doe not prove that a cell started all life. And while you are finding your proof, also explain how the irreducible system of blood clotting was able to evolve.

Since this transformation (e.g. from water animals to land animals) all humans have one ancestor that descended from the central southern regions of Africa. From this came the migration eastward in to the Eurasian continents. From thousands upon thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousands) came the development of different adaptations. Humans began to change. It is obvious from the different types of ethnic groups and skin pigmentations you would think this is the case. I mean Andalus come on. All humans share the same genetic stuff so how would you would theorize how we are so externally different?

You are simply preaching Brother! I know what the claim is, the problem is that there is no proof for this claim. Of course humans share common "stuff", we are all human!

Come on brother!!!!! lol

ditto! 

To give you the respect you deserve I'll respond to you when I'm not done.

Why Evolution is supported

My reasons

1) All humans have shared genes, however, all of our genes are hereditary from our parents, eye color, hair color, skin tone etc. Our genetic makeup is the result of earlier adaptation in various environments. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

2) Phenotype is the result of the interaction of the genotype in their environment. Genetic variation happens through the fluctuation of one particular allele which may or may not become prevalent in other forms of that gene. What does this mean? Evolution forces these alleles to shift in one direction or another. This partial explanation shows the driving force of Evolution on a cellular level. Of course there are several processes that could be explained however I wanted to note what I found very important as one of the driving forces of cellular evolution. 

3) Natural selection is a necessary component to the survival of certain organisms. A simple example would be the environmental changes. Most individuals with dark skin complexion are more suitable for hot environments versus those whose skin has a lighter pigmentation. Individuals with lighter skin complexion living in hot climates normally do not last long and eventually would develop skin cancer and die off. Every individual may not succumb to such a fate but a lot would and those that survived may produce offspring some tens of thousands of years later with slightly darker skin complexion.

Central Argument why Creationism doesn't fit

What's interesting here is Creationism is not necessarily criticized for its central belief in God, but because of its story of Noah's Ark. The Ark has an estimated size of a football field in which God has given Noah for him and his family and 2 of every animal on earth. Now mind you, scientist have discovered 12,000 new species! this does not mention species which existed 5,000 years ago. Now given the Ark's size how is it possible to fit 2 of perhaps over 12,0000 species in one boat the size of a football field? God who is the author of all things does not make any errors but perhaps the story in accordance to Biblical standards may be slightly off?

Even if we were suppose that all these species were able to fit on the boat what about after the flood?

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

i will insha allah post my reply to the scientific aspects of the theory at a later time.

Again, this question may be misleading as you state science can "only" prove observable things. Although I'm inclined to agree that science can prove observable facts I would have to add that science can, in addition to proof ,can come up with logical and theoretical propositions that are true.

Theoretical propositions are not the realm of facts unless thoroughly proven by actual observation they are up for interpretation and reinterpretation, we are not dealing with the facts of the moment or even century but absolute facts.

The evolutionist argument against God is solely based on the point that God is not Physically Observable, it is only reasonable we apply the same standards to them otherwise they would be even more deserving of ridicule for lack of scholarly standards.

You have to understand that evolutionary thought has existed for centuries starting with the Greek Philosophers (and Roman thinkers) to Arab biologist such as Al-Jahiz.

Amr bin Bahr al-Fukaymi al-Basri was a Mutazilli, a heretical sect in Islam who's Aqeedah was on shaky ground. There are a number of concepts in evolution which are outright kufr Natural selection being the main one, it would not surprise me if it was in the end simply a Mutazili invention [or confusion as this group was known for attributing things to other than God but not to the extent of kufr] because clearly all observations they could have made at the time were by naked eye or very basic microscopes if they even where around at the time. So now we have to question the basis for there theory and why it was picked up blindly later on.

From wiki http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/History_of_evolution

800s Ad: The medieval Muslim scientist and philosopher Al-Jahiz first describes the struggle for existence which was similar to natural selection.

They could simply be attributing natural selection to him, since they are not versed in theology I doubt they could perceive the subtle differences in logic that would be found in any Muslims arguments.

1000s Ad: The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Haitham elaborates Al-Jahiz's theories and writes a book that explicitly argued for biological evolution (although not by natural selection).

1770: Baron d'Holbach one of the first atheists in the Western world publishes The System of Nature which contains early evolutionary concepts such as the idea that humans evolved over the course of time and that every living thing changes in response to its environment.

Here we have the hand of the atheist attributing creation to other than god prior to that many did not take this path and it is unclear if Amr bin Bahr al-Fukaymi al-Basri a mutazili also did. The Idea of Nature being the force behind change is a pagan one, over the years it seams the concept stayed the same, but the definition of nature to a pagan is vastly different than to an atheist. When modern man says nature is the force of change or evolution most people imply that some sort of process which can be scientifically observed is the agent of change how can this ever be an argument against God he created nature/environment/creation itself. It is an argument when an Atheist declares it a force of change in the absolute sense without possible evidence but as an atheist ideology. The evolutionist in Question Stops talking about science and begins talking about theology, so then nature or natural selection to them becomes a force other than God, Have they Observed a force other than God at work in creation?

They chalange the existance of God by saying things like man evolved from an ape, Have they proven this by clear observation or simply concluded on observale facts,