Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

I assume, you have already heard responses to your own commentary.

If we look at an ostrich. What we have is a bird, that cannot fly. Now, what does that mean to you? There are many birds with wings that cannot fly. But they do still use their wings. We know they do. We can see how they live in todays time. Do you think that birds in todays time, are suffering because they have wings that they cannot use for flight? If you do believe that, I would say that is not true. And we know it is not true, because we know there are many functions of wings aside from flight. And even penguins with only half wings, still make good use of them (they are just one of many examples of birds that use "half wings").

What else...kiwis, penguins have wings too and cannot fly. Emus, several species of duck, rails, etc.

And so, we can see that, it is not truly a liability to be "half formed".

And for your last comment there. I dont know what you mean. I apologize. You said, you can see how, if we were to assume evolution of all life on earth, you could see how a...for example, a raptor could be a mid form between modern bird and ancient reptilian theropod. But you do not see how that bridges species? I dont understand what you mean.

I have edited my other post regarding the birds argument.

As for the raptor, i am not an expert on structures so honestly can not say how similar they are (i will look into this to fill gaps in my knowledge), however, wings are more than just bone. To say that a raptor is a missing link between dinosaurs and birds, means that there must be sufficient proof to link the two, rather than the shape of claws.

Wings are more than just bone structure of claws (assuming that this is a crystal clear linking between the two claws, and not just different types). You need ribs to be different, the weight of the organism to be different. You need significant changes in the structure of the entire organism.

Aside from the shape of the raptors claw, is there anything else about it's structure?

To go from a dinosaur to a bird, you need a change to the entire structure.

the birds structure, and the one next to it look entirely different .

EDIT: you make a fair point regarding the eagle, but what i meant was (maybe it was not clear) is that if - for the sake of argument- we accept the eagle evolved from non flying ancestors, there must have been ancestors that were very close to flying, had their structure almost tuned to fly, but could not.

However, these birds would not be best adapted for land .

Think of the Last ancestor before it could fly. If we assume the complex set of systems for flying evolved, and as the eagles structure must be absolutely spot on, it is feasible to say that before the eagle 'flew' there must have been an ancestor so close to being able to fly, requiring another convenient mutation?

EDIT: how could an organism, almost built for flying having all of it's features fine tuned for flying, live on land and not be at a disadvantage to organisms who have their features fine tuned for land? This contradicts the theory of natural selection does it not, thus negating the formation of that organism in the first place (assuming i am right).

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Questions such as: What is the point of theory of Evolution? Are neglected and are not encouraged. For the answer proves that it is pointless. Academic Scholars and Scientist are i

I guess, ill make this here. My previous topic on morals condones the theory of evolution, and im sure there are many people here who would automatically reject my concepts just because i use evoluti

How is Prophet Adam’s (A.S.) creation (about 5,764 years ago) make sense when fossils found from human beings are almost 25 million years old? question From the beginning

Posted Images

EDIT:

regarding my point on organisms that are almost adapted to flying but can not fly, it is fair that you have brought up birds that can not fly. However, penguins have bodies perfectly suited to the artic. their 'wings' are used for sliding. Ostriches have long legs and necks for running, and i am sure their wings have a use.

however, if you take an actual bird that flies. I.E an eagle, and try imagining an ancestor of the eagle, which Almost could fly like the eagle, but did not? Could an eagle survive with almost formed wings? The eagle relies on it's flight to survive, as do other birds.

penguins do not have the bone structure needed for flight, and neither do ostriches. Their bone structure is perfect for the lands they live in. But imagine a creature with the bone structure for flight, losing it's claws for wings, it's scales for feathers, but not being able to fly? That is just like a bird which can not fly. Surely an organism better adapted for flight, will be at a disadvantage when it's strengths are not on land.

Though i see your view, in that one animal which may show some similarities to two other species could be seen as a missing link, and that if all live evolved, every species is one which is part of that gradual evolution of life on earth, so serves as a missing link, this does not adress the missing links inbetween species and hence i disagree with this notion, for reasons cited above.

Well, here is the catch. You said "eagle relies on its flight to survive", so could an eagle survive with almost formed wings?

The answer is no, an eagle wouldnt survive with almost formed wings. However, we know, as you have also said. These changes take millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years.

The birds that had half wings...that eventually became eagles. We not eagles. So while eagles could not live with half wings, their ancestors (which were not eagles), most certainly could. While wings change, so does the entire body. So the eagle, wasnt the eagle in the past. It was something else that didnt rely on wings.

Heres another example that may help. Humans, rely on a powerful multi part heart. If our heart wasnt suited for our body, we would die. So how could a human live with a half heart? Just as the question, how could a bird live with half wings?

Well, the answer is, humans didnt exist that far back in the days where our heart was a "half heart".

Know what I mean? It is true that a human couldnt live with a half heart. But humans didnt exist back then, so a half heart was all that was needed.

And with birds. The birds, like an eagle. Didnt exist back then. So there was no eagle in need of wings.

The organisms that are "half" organisms, arent truly "half". They have their own traits that allow them to thrive. A T rex, only had "half" arms (see how tiny those things are?). But that doesnt make the T rex is less of an awesome dinosaur, just because he cant use his arms like we can. It doesnt hurt the survival of the t rex, because what he lacks in his arms, he makes up with his big teeth.

And all animals are like this. Any common fossil that you will ever see. Including bird ancestors with half wings. They have other traits to help them out.

Aside from the shape of the raptors claw, is there anything else about it's structure?

To go from a dinosaur to a bird, you need a change to the entire structure.

the birds structure, and the one next to it look entirely different .

EDIT: you make a fair point regarding the eagle, but what i meant was (maybe it was not clear) is that if - for the sake of argument- we accept the eagle evolved from non flying ancestors, there must have been ancestors that were very close to flying, had their structure almost tuned to fly, but could not.

However, these birds would not be best adapted for land .

Think of the Last ancestor before it could fly. If we assume the complex set of systems for flying evolved, and as the eagles structure must be absolutely spot on, it is feasible to say that before the eagle 'flew' there must have been an ancestor so close to being able to fly, requiring another convenient mutation?

Oh yes, there are...i wish I could point you to a paleo class right now. The list of...shared features between birds and dinosaurs is very extensive. Everything about the comparable claws, the skulls, the teeth, the hip structures...

Every single detail is comparable and there are ...well let me see if i can find a diagram.

If you think about it. If we assume that raptors evolved into birds. In this hypothetical world, every single trait should be similar in one fossil or another, simply because the two animals essentially become indistinguishable from eachother.

You get fossils that are a mix between bird and reptile, and paleontologists sit around arguing over what the animal is, because they cant decide if its a bird or a reptile because the animal is literally both.

And this is very common. The transition between mammal and reptile, is notorious for this. Peleontologists arguing over whether or not the animal is one or the other.

The last ancestor before an eagle could fly, well, birds do not just fly or not fly. They glide, they can fly for short spans of time. They can use their wings to get to difficult areas that otherwise couldnt be reached by purely land animals etc.

So, even an ancestor, just before flight, still could have a large number of valuable traits to choose from with its wings.

http://www.valleyana...ryx (SH 17).JPG

If a bird like an ostrich can survive in this world, i think it is, and this is my opinion, if something as dopey as an ostrich can survive out here, I am quite certain a theropod killer can survive with a shafty ability to fly.

Those things were vicious. Have you seen jurassic park? They'd tear mankind in half. Even further down the line, with feathers, all it means is, the ferocious little guys can swoop in from a tree top (which they used their half wings to help them climb.

This video speaks for itself on the usefulness of wings, prior to use for flight.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here is the catch. You said "eagle relies on its flight to survive", so could an eagle survive with almost formed wings?

The answer is no, an eagle wouldnt survive with almost formed wings. However, we know, as you have also said. These changes take millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years.

The birds that had half wings...that eventually became eagles. We not eagles. So while eagles could not live with half wings, their ancestors (which were not eagles), most certainly could. While wings change, so does the entire body. So the eagle, wasnt the eagle in the past. It was something else that didnt rely on wings.

Heres another example that may help. Humans, rely on a powerful multi part heart. If our heart wasnt suited for our body, we would die. So how could a human live with a half heart? Just as the question, how could a bird live with half wings?

Well, the answer is, humans didnt exist that far back in the days where our heart was a "half heart".

Know what I mean? It is true that a human couldnt live with a half heart. But humans didnt exist back then, so a half heart was all that was needed.

And with birds. The birds, like an eagle. Didnt exist back then. So there was no eagle in need of wings.

The organisms that are "half" organisms, arent truly "half". They have their own traits that allow them to thrive. A T rex, only had "half" arms (see how tiny those things are?). But that doesnt make the T rex is less of an awesome dinosaur, just because he cant use his arms like we can. It doesnt hurt the survival of the t rex, because what he lacks in his arms, he makes up with his big teeth.

And all animals are like this. Any common fossil that you will ever see. Including bird ancestors with half wings. They have other traits to help them out.

Oh yes, there are...i wish I could point you to a paleo class right now. The list of...shared features between birds and dinosaurs is very extensive. Everything about the comparable claws, the skulls, the teeth, the hip structures...

Every single detail is comparable and there are ...well let me see if i can find a diagram.

A t-rex would need to grow some pretty big wings and it's arms would not be able to provide for it the wings it needs.

However, your point regarding the similarities between the structures seems like one that i would like to do research on. (your point on similar hip structure ect)

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: how could an organism, almost built for flying having all of it's features fine tuned for flying, live on land and not be at a disadvantage to organisms who have their features fine tuned for land? This contradicts the theory of natural selection does it not, thus negating the formation of that organism in the first place (assuming i am right).

Because features do not focus on one ability to survive. Think about an ancestor prior to an eagle, that...lets say it could still glide, and use its wings to get up into trees and it could use its wings to keep itself warm and keep warmth around its children etc. Odds are, it had teeth and greater sized talons too. Odds are it hunted in packs (as per the fossils we find), odds are it was still super fast too.

Even if the "eagle" couldnt simply take off and fly, it would still have the ability to be a pretty awesome animal.

Here is the main point here.

And if you look at any common fossil in existence you will see this.

There is no such thing as a "half" animal. It is true that you may find birds with what appear to be "half" wings. But they are fully developed animals, just as we are.

Just as a penguin is a "full" animal with "half" wings, all animals that have ever thrived, are the same way. The same goes with eagle ancestors. Where they lack one trait, they make up with another.

A t-rex would need to grow some pretty big wings and it's arms would not be able to provide for it the wings it needs.

However, your point regarding the similarities between the structures seems like one that i would like to do research on. (your point on similar hip structure ect)

Yes, its honestly very...whats a good word.

Paleontologists dont play around.

they are...extensively detailed with their analysis of fossils. Like a dentist knows traits of teeth. Or like a surgeon knows traits of certain organs.

Every single bone that exists has details attributed to it. And when it comes to fossils, they dont mess around.

And even though I have done research along side paleontologists, They are far better versed than I am with such details. (even though I am not exactly completely blind).

Every single part of each bone, has its own measurable dimensions, its own traits that define what a bird or reptile is.

Archaeopteryx+Color.JPG

edit edit

btw, I am in the chat at the moment.

Also, if a bird is not a flying bird, then all of its traits will not be fully adapted for flying. Traits evolve simultaneously. One traits does just evolve while others sit back and wait for their turn.

As the wings grow, the bones thin. As the teeth shrink, the beak sharpens. etc. As the bones thin, the animal gets smaller etc.

It occurs, due to selective reasons, simultaneously. And if, lets say an animal evolves a trait that does handicap it. That animal will be killed, and will vanish from history. While all the other 5 trillion animals continue forward.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: how could an organism, almost built for flying having all of it's features fine tuned for flying, live on land and not be at a disadvantage to organisms who have their features fine tuned for land? This contradicts the theory of natural selection does it not, thus negating the formation of that organism in the first place (assuming i am right).

Because features do not focus on one ability to survive. Think about an ancestor prior to an eagle, that...lets say it could still glide, and use its wings to get up into trees and it could use its wings to keep itself warm and keep warmth around its children etc. Odds are, it had teeth and greater sized talons too. Odds are it hunted in packs (as per the fossils we find), odds are it was still super fast too.

Even if the "eagle" couldnt simply take off and fly, it would still have the ability to be a pretty awesome animal.

Here is the main point here.

And if you look at any common fossil in existence you will see this.

There is no such thing as a "half" animal. It is true that you may find birds with what appear to be "half" wings. But they are fully developed animals, just as we are.

Just as a penguin is a "full" animal with "half" wings, all animals that have ever thrived, are the same way. The same goes with eagle ancestors. Where they lack one trait, they make up with another.

Yes, its honestly very...whats a good word.

Paleontologists dont play around.

they are...extensively detailed with their analysis of fossils. Like a dentist knows traits of teeth. Or like a surgeon knows traits of certain organs.

Every single bone that exists has details attributed to it. And when it comes to fossils, they dont mess around.

And even though I have done research along side paleontologists, They are far better versed than I am with such details. (even though I am not exactly completely blind).

Every single part of each bone, has its own measurable dimensions, its own traits that define what a bird or reptile is.

Archaeopteryx+Color.JPG

edit edit

btw, I am in the chat at the moment.

I will certainly look into this.

i will need to read further regarding this. could you enlighten me on more information or a book i could read?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will certainly look into this.

i will need to read further regarding this. could you enlighten me on more information or a book i could read?

Hm.

Well,

I mostly learned from textbooks.

Neil shubin: your inner fish. Is decent. Other than that, I only really read geology books.

Maybe king pomba can offer some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. Now, I dont consider my research to be on missing links. I dont consider missing links to exist.

Well you're wrong.

I believe it was khadim who said earlier, if you would like to see missing links, just go to a museum. Because all fossils are "missing links".

Thought you said missing links don't exist?

If life evolves in a succession over time, then any and every fossil could be considered a "missing link".

This is wrong as well,the definition of a missing link is an intermerdiary fossil between two fossils that are missing.

me tries to keep track of his kitten while typing.

You're cool.

Something like...an amphibian for example. Isnt commonly considered a "missing link", however, they are a bridge between reptiles and fish. And even a person who isnt familiar with any succession, could see that something like a salamander, looks like a cross between an iguana (lizard) and an eel (fish).

And obviously, an iguana and eel are just off the top of my head. A raptor, looks like a cross between a...basic theropod, and...a lightly feathered bird.

False argumentation from similarity in anatomy.

1. All things which are similar come from same origin.

2. Mountains look like clouds.

3. Mountains and clouds come from same source.

This syllogism is absurd,therefore truth is the antithesis of the first principle,therefore all things which are similar do not come from same source.

archy-bambirunFFF-resize.jpg

So, even before looking into any of this. It is, fairly easy to take notice of. And so...and, before I jump too far ahead. I was taught about the earth as a geologist, not a biologist, so I understood things about the earth, prior to seeing the fossils within them. I was never taught about evolution in my early studies, but I could see that it was true, simply because, every time I went out to go play in the dirt, the fossils were right there looking back at me.

Again this proves nothing.

There is no succession in form,they are simply matched according to their anatomy.

What you showed was pure variation in anatomy.

But once i had recognized the succession, it was really only then that I bothered to see what biologists had to say about it. And, of course they were already way ahead of me and had been talking about it for the past 200 years.

But once we understand the succession, then accepting evolution is fairly easy to do.

I could talk about my own personal research, or we could talk about the generic research you hear about on tv. Let me know which you may be interested in. My research was on ancient invertebrates.

Can I see some of your research?

The main thing to recognize is just that...there is a succession of fossils.

Once you see the succession, then nothing else really matters. Its fairly straight forward.

As an example, if mammals supposedly evolved from reptiles, then they should reside in younger aged rocks. (And they do.)

And you can apply this to just about any animal that has existed in the past 600 million years.

Using what methods?

Very famous scientists have state that radiometric dating isn't reliable ,many different dates can be extracted from the same source.

Neither is dating using strata.

For example I can give you many scientific journals which show how radiometric dating/strata/taxonomy/phylogy construction is biased.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, you seem to be mistaken, you seem to be responding to my post like it was addressed to you but the parts of the post that were addressed to 'logical islam', only the bottom part was addressed to you. I will answer some of the things you raised a little later though.

I will fix up this one thing though:

You're confusing breeding/farming with natural selection.

Humans causing it isn't natural selection.

Please note in my post i never said it was natural selection. In fact, i refered to it as artificial selection, which im sure if you know anything about biology, is what i was talking about. You probably just missed that bit. - "Again, its quite uncontroversial those things can happen. We've bred dogs ranging from tiny poodles up to huge afghan hounds. We used a mechanism much similar to what i showed you with the lemon tree. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years with livestock and crops. That is artificial selection or us forcing the hand of nature. "

It's a classical example used in biology education to show that traits can be shaped and selected for, its just in this case that it is us doing this selection rather than any kind of naturalistic selective pressure.

Now to the bit where i was actually talking to you.

Sure ,first tell me what created you.

You don't even know what created you,your scientists can't even figure out a proper origination model (abiogenesis).

If you don't even know what entity/process created you,then how can you know the how?

Again, lets look at a passage from George Rey:

By contrast, literally understood, religious claims are oddly detail-resistant. Perhaps the most dramatic cases are the claims about creation. Whereas scientists regularly ask about the details of the “Big Bang” --there is an entire book, for example, about what happened in the first three minutes (see Weinberg 1977)-- it seems perfectly silly to inquire into similar details of just how God did it. Just how did his saying, “Let there be light,” actually bring about light? How did He “say” anything at all (does He have a tongue)? Or, if He merely “designed” the world or the species in it, how did He do this (are there blueprints of the individual particles/ animals)? Was it just the quarks, the DNA, or the whole body? Or just some general directives that were executed by some angelic contractors? At what specific point does He --could He possibly-- intervene in the natural course of events without causing utter havoc? Does anyone really think there is some set of truths answering these questions? Perhaps; but it is striking how there is nothing like the systematic research on them, in anything like the way that there is massive, on-going systematic research into the indefinitely subtle details of biology, physics and cosmology. As Kitcher (1982:ch 5) points out, even so-called Creation Science” is concerned only with resisting evolutionary biology, not with seriously investigating any of the massive details that would be required for the Creation story actually to be confirmed.

You seem to be an self-professed expert in showing what you believe is wrong with evolution. Fine. What's your alternative theory though. How did we get here if it was not through evolution. God did it and he simply magicked us up? Where are the details? That is hardly an explanation at all. Lets turn the tables shall we, if you think evolution is so wrong, tell me how you think it happened. Note, you didn't answer my question, i asked if you could explain in detail how God created us and you just posted a bunch of "fluff" that had nothing to do with the question. You danced your way around my original question and didn't say anything like a response. You still haven't answered what i'm asking, tell me in detail, your alternative theory to evolution, tell me how God did it ?

I don't want any kind of fluff or misdirection, its a simple question and thats all i want a response to, the underlined bit, shouldn't be too hard for someone of your intellect should it?

Just briefly skimming through i haven't seen you present any comprehensive alternative theory that could seriously replace evolution after you're so intent on bringing it down besides simply saying that God did it. That's three words and its most definitely not any kind of respectable scientific body of theory.

Maybe king pomba can offer some.

The thread i linked a few pages back is a great, great way to start. Belial and I tackled a lot of the common questions and misconceptions people seem to have about it, its a good place to start i think. So, i'd really encourage him (her/them?) to read that. Otherwsie, any standard highschool textbook (which they already seem to have) would do a decent job. I haven't found anything thats more casual that does a better job than a textbook and its a bit hard to avoid anything that does make it feel like work. I recall you had some decent youtube videos (like a series from the same guy) floating around.

Edited by kingpomba
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
This is wrong as well,the definition of a missing link is an intermerdiary fossil between two fossils that are missing.

Ha! Well isn't that a convenient personal definition!

"Evolution is fake! You haven't found the missing links!"

"Well, define 'missing link.'"

"A missing link is an intermediary that hasn't been found."

LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

kadhim

To be fair, I think he means: a "missing link" is an intermediary which is predicted to exist but has not been found, the non-existence of which would seriously question the theory.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Well, then by those grounds, there's no such thing. I.e. the notion of evolution doesn't depend on any newly expected fossil. It's supported by a wide range of interlinking, intersupporting evidences from a number of different areas.

My question would be, to those spilling an incredible amount of digital ink here flailing against evolution would be, "what is your emotional concern here?" And, no, don't say "I'm not emotional, it's just cold concern for 'The Truth.'" No, be honest, you're passionate, you're combative. Someone who it's just an intellectual thing, the tone is more "gee, I don't know. I don't think about this a lot, because, let's face it, it doens't much affect my day to day as an average person, but I'm a little skeptical."

You don't amass pages long articles if that's where you're coming from.

Obviously you have a very deep set reaction against this theory - you somehow feel threatened by it somewhere very very deep down at the core of what is most important to you.

My question is, "why?" Why do you feel threatened by the concept of evolution?

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Well isn't that a convenient personal definition!

"Evolution is fake! You haven't found the missing links!"

"Well, define 'missing link.'"

"A missing link is an intermediary that hasn't been found."

LOL.

I disagree.

Creationists, or those with the belief that due to the lack of scientific evidence for evolution, say that if evolution were to be the slow progression of a species, then out of the 250 million fossils, there is not a single 'missing link'.

It can not be coincidence that every single intermediary fossil has been destroyed.

if A went to b c d e f g to go to H, H is not an intermediary, nor is A, as they are seperate totally....where has b c d e f g gone, which show the transformation

I am ignoring the implausibility of mutations, being the cause of progression.

Missing link is not a term made up by creationists. Darwin himself predicted many missing links would be found in innumerable quantities in the earths crust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then by those grounds, there's no such thing. I.e. the notion of evolution doesn't depend on any newly expected fossil. It's supported by a wide range of interlinking, intersupporting evidences from a number of different areas.

My question would be, to those spilling an incredible amount of digital ink here flailing against evolution would be, "what is your emotional concern here?" And, no, don't say "I'm not emotional, it's just cold concern for 'The Truth.'" No, be honest, you're passionate, you're combative. Someone who it's just an intellectual thing, the tone is more "gee, I don't know. I don't think about this a lot, because, let's face it, it doens't much affect my day to day as an average person, but I'm a little skeptical."

You don't amass pages long articles if that's where you're coming from.

Obviously you have a very deep set reaction against this theory - you somehow feel threatened by it somewhere very very deep down at the core of what is most important to you.

My question is, "why?" Why do you feel threatened by the concept of evolution?

With all due respect, what you have said is not entirely needed on these forums. It is not targetted at me, however he is just searching for the truth.

No-one can achieve any answers by taking the passive approach you used. We are conscious, intelligent breathing human beings, with a natural innate sense of curiosity.

Thorough debates has ensured progress, and emoved stangnancy, politics influencing scientific ideas and such.

I could re-direct the question to you, what about his passion to learn, to read, and his above-average knowledge regarding evolution threatens you ?

This is the information age. We should all be amassing books every single day.

This post was not meant in a malicious way, but a constructive open way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I disagree.

Creationists, or those with the belief that due to the lack of scientific evidence for evolution, say that if evolution were to be the slow progression of a species, then out of the 250 million fossils, there is not a single 'missing link'.

It can not be coincidence that every single intermediary fossil has been destroyed.

if A went to b c d e f g to go to H, H is not an intermediary, nor is A, as they are seperate totally....where has b c d e f g gone, which show the transformation

I am ignoring the implausibility of mutations, being the cause of progression.

Missing link is not a term made up by creationists. Darwin himself predicted many missing links would be found in innumerable quantities in the earths crust.

Well, again, if you define a missing link as something missing, then a found fossil can't be a "missing link." You're rigging the definitions to achieve something you want to see.

I frankly don't get the impression that you have any coherent idea what you're looking for. What do you mean there are no fossils? There are tonnes of fossils. What in the world are you on about?

You're complaining that of the nearly infinite gradations of transformations of species, only some are recorded in the fossil record? You're complaining that a finite record doesn't contain an infinite number of data points? I think you need to review your maths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't want to come across as all charged up about this myself. I just want to prompt deeper questions to get more to the root of why a Muslim would be so driven to want to try to disprove evolution in the first place. It is highly confusing to me.

Perhaps because he see's no logic in the theory, in terms of the mechanism and evidence?

It is not as if evolution is a law like gravity, and you have groups hopelessly trying to prove it wrong.

Evolution is not a scientific fact, or close to it. It lacks proof, and against is are proposed many scientific evidences. The reason why many universities have professorial that believe in it is more to do with politics, and less to do with it being established truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

With all due respect, what you have said is not entirely needed on these forums. It is not targetted at me, however he is just searching for the truth.

No-one can achieve any answers by taking the passive approach you used. We are conscious, intelligent breathing human beings, with a natural innate sense of curiosity.

Thorough debates has ensured progress, and emoved stangnancy, politics influencing scientific ideas and such.

I could re-direct the question to you, what about his passion to learn, to read, and his above-average knowledge regarding evolution threatens you ?

This is the information age. We should all be amassing books every single day.

This post was not meant in a malicious way, but a constructive open way.

No, you're being dishonest and evasive here. There has to be some sort of motivation behind why you people, as non-scientists, are so passionately debating this particular scientific theory on this Islamic forum. Mere intellectual curiosity, which is normal, would take on a very different form. You folks obviously feel something much deeper at stake particularly about evolution. I mean, there are any number of interesting scientific theories out there. What is it about this one that motivates such an expenditure of energy?

Perhaps because he see's no logic in the theory, in terms of the mechanism and evidence?

It is not as if evolution is a law like gravity, and you have groups hopelessly trying to prove it wrong.

Evolution is not a scientific fact, or close to it. It lacks proof, and against is are proposed many scientific evidences. The reason why many universities have professorial that believe in it is more to do with politics, and less to do with it being established truth.

What are your qualifications to even make this assertion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, again, if you define a missing link as something missing, then a found fossil can't be a "missing link." You're rigging the definitions to achieve something you want to see.

I frankly don't get the impression that you have any coherent idea what you're looking for. What do you mean there are no fossils? There are tonnes of fossils. What in the world are you on about?

You're complaining that of the nearly infinite gradations of transformations of species, only some are recorded in the fossil record? You're complaining that a finite record doesn't contain an infinite number of data points? I think you need to review your maths.

Missing links was a term produced before 250,000,000 proved there were none. Charles Darwin stated that if his theory were to be correct, there would be an intermediary amount of fossils i.e half forms in the earths crust. There is not even one.

Evolutionists believe the process is slow. Therefore you should have many intermediary fossils, rather than explosions happening again and again.

Look at it this way. All organisms can be placed in the tree of life. Those that jump from one kingdom to another, and are neither, have not been discovered adjoining the two.

No, you're being dishonest and evasive here. There has to be some sort of motivation behind why you people, as non-scientists, are so passionately debating this particular scientific theory on this Islamic forum. Mere intellectual curiosity, which is normal, would take on a very different form. You folks obviously feel something much deeper at stake particularly about evolution. I mean, there are any number of interesting scientific theories out there. What is it about this one that motivates such an expenditure of energy?

What are your qualifications to even make this assertion?

I look at myself as a man of science. I have completed Advanced levels on biology, chemistry, maths, and physics.

I have read many evolutionary books, outlining evidences for and against, and have read material to gain a deeper insight.

I am going to hopefully enter a medical degree, and spend time furthering my research and asking proffesors (different/range of departments).

I make my assertions based on logic, the findings of other scientists, and on-going reasearch. I am open minded to any logical idea.

Science is not only disclosed to the few. The renaissance period chose to end the ignorance. Men need to question every belief, and be versed in a wide range of topics. Leonardo Davanci was a painter and a scientist, a mathmetician and a philosopher, ect.

Many people with no qualifications believe in this theory.

I have done years of research above my qualifications. I am always a student, however, and always willing to learn.

The theory, again, proposes something that many find illogical. The fact that mistakes mutations and mistakes have brought about such intricate perfection around us. Those of the population interested do further research, and then make their judgements from there.

The argument should not be ' why are you arguing ' , rather, provide your proof and i will provide mine, let us come together and discuss, and then agree to disagree at the very worst.

Perhaps i was not entirely clear in my description, so may be my own fault.

The term missing links, or intermediate fossils is not a new term coined because the missing links are missing. This is a play of words.

The word missing, in missing links has little to do with the fact that they are 'missing'.

Assume you had a tower. Evolutionists propose steps to the top of the tower. If you have the top or bottom, it is only logical to assume if that tower was to exist , or the mechanisms for it, you would have a proven documented evidence of all the intermediate parts up to the top. Hence you were define them as ' missing links'.

Darwin called them 'intermediateries'. He stated that if his theory were to be correct, these would be found in great number in the earths crust. Links showing animals half way in-between different kingdoms ect.

250,000,000 fossils later, and his 'missing links' truly are missing.

Even evolutionists admit this.

EDIT: to put it succinctly, when the term missing links was first coined , they meant is as 'not discovered yet' . However, it was thought that after extracting many more trapped fossils from the earths surface, we would find them. Contrary to what was predicted, 250,000,000 fossils has not provided a single missing link.

(bismillah)

(salam)

kadhim

To be fair, I think he means: a "missing link" is an intermediary which is predicted to exist but has not been found, the non-existence of which would seriously question the theory.

(wasalam)

Exactly. As people of science and clear thinking, it is only reasonable to ask for proofs.

Thousands upon thousands (could be significantly higher) have been predicted, none found.

Surely is shows an inherent error in the theory being used to predict?

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Missing links was a term produced before 250,000,000 proved there were none. Charles Darwin stated that if his theory were to be correct, there would be an intermediary amount of fossils i.e half forms in the earths crust. There is not even one.

Evolutionists believe the process is slow. Therefore you should have many intermediary fossils, rather than explosions happening again and again.

Look at it this way. All organisms can be placed in the tree of life. Those that jump from one kingdom to another, and are neither, have not been discovered adjoining the two.

This is simply a false assertion however. There are tonnes of intermediate fossils in the record. What are you talking about?

And no, I am not going to spend time going on a web search to spoon feed you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply a false assertion however. There are tonnes of intermediate fossils in the record. What are you talking about?

And no, I am not going to spend time going on a web search to spoon feed you.

The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.

I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.

FROM A WEBSITE:

  • Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.12 The earliest amphibian,Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.
  • Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million yearsyounger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes.
  • Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures:

    Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.
    13
    Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.14

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I look at myself as a man of science. I have completed Advanced levels on biology, chemistry, maths, and physics.

I have read many evolutionary books, outlining evidences for and against, and have read material to gain a deeper insight.

I am going to hopefully enter a medical degree, and spend time furthering my research and asking proffesors (different/range of departments).

I make my assertions based on logic, the findings of other scientists, and on-going reasearch. I am open minded to any logical idea.

Science is not only disclosed to the few. The renaissance period chose to end the ignorance. Men need to question every belief, and be versed in a wide range of topics. Leonardo Davanci was a painter and a scientist, a mathmetician and a philosopher, ect.

OK. So in brief, you are not qualified. Thanks for clarifying.

It is true science is for everybody. Knowledge is for everyone to enjoy and benefit from.

However, science is a specialized domain of knowledge that takes years of study to understand at the level of the technical details.

It's normal for a keen outsider to take an interest in the cutting edges of research, but it is not normal for an outsider to spend hours trying to argue with the specialists when he is not qualified in the field. It's not normal for an outsider to expend massive amounts of energy to try to "refute" scientific theories. I mean, let's pick something from another field, the idea of gravitational waves or dark matter in physics. It's normal for a keen outsider to spend some time learning about these things, to discuss with other interested keen people online. But it would be bizarre for a non-physicist, or even a physicist that does not specialize in those areas, to have drawn out, detailed discussions pretending he is part of the professional debate. People, even keen fans of science, do not normally do this.

You're not having a discussion of this level of energy about dark matter or gravitational waves. So again, I ask what is so special about this theory? Why the special level of interest?

You hint at something of your motivations when you allege that evolution gained consensus acceptance not through its merits, but through "politics." Expand. Why do you REALLY have a bee in your bonnet about this particular theory? What deeper, supposedly sinister things are you really bothered about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So in brief, you are not qualified. Thanks for clarifying.

It is true science is for everybody. Knowledge is for everyone to enjoy and benefit from.

However, science is a specialized domain of knowledge that takes years of study to understand at the level of the technical details.

It's normal for a keen outsider to take an interest in the cutting edges of research, but it is not normal for an outsider to spend hours trying to argue with the specialists when he is not qualified in the field. It's not normal for an outsider to expend massive amounts of energy to try to "refute" scientific theories. I mean, let's pick something from another field, the idea of gravitational waves or dark matter in physics. It's normal for a keen outsider to spend some time learning about these things, to discuss with other interested keen people online. But it would be bizarre for a non-physicist, or even a physicist that does not specialize in those areas, to have drawn out, detailed discussions pretending he is part of the professional debate. People, even keen fans of science, do not normally do this.

You're not having a discussion of this level of energy about dark matter or gravitational waves. So again, I ask what is so special about this theory? Why the special level of interest?

You hint at something of your motivations when you allege that evolution gained consensus acceptance not through its merits, but through "politics." Expand. Why do you REALLY have a bee in your bonnet about this particular theory? What deeper, supposedly sinister things are you really bothered about?

You are right, in that knowledge is required to debate this. However, evolution is not a scientific fact. It was theory proposed by a man who had less knoweldge in evolution than i do (because DNA and other sciences were either not discovered or as advanced as now). It does not take a while to grasp the concept of the theory, and the refutations and proofs can easily be acquired. So far, having debated many evolutionists, none has really presented me with information that i need a ten year degree in order to approach.

You are attacking the arguer, rather than his arguments. Judge my by my arguments, and if yours are truly superior, the truth should be apparent.

My motivation is to acquire the truth.

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm not sure why you're so stubborn in hiding your motivations. I question your motivations because it's obvious there is something beyond "just the facts" that gives you passion about this particular topic. Either you for some reason think it conflicts with your religion, or you think it's part of some sinister conspiracy, or some combination of the two, or something like this. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. I don't see you getting passionate about any other scientific theories on this forum. If you were truthful, we would see such a larger pattern.

I don't really see why I would feel pressure to try to "refute" you. Thousands of professional scientists from half a dozen different fields over 50 years have devoted their careers to this concept of evolution and are in agreement on the general details of the theory. I don't see any value in an outsider like myself repeating or summarizing their mountains of work. Frankly, the burden is overwhelmingly on you to justify why any intelligent person should care what you think about the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you're so stubborn in hiding your motivations. I question your motivations because it's obvious there is something beyond "just the facts" that gives you passion about this particular topic. Either you for some reason think it conflicts with your religion, or you think it's part of some sinister conspiracy, or some combination of the two, or something like this. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. I don't see you getting passionate about any other scientific theories on this forum. If you were truthful, we would see such a larger pattern.

I don't really see why I would feel pressure to try to "refute" you. Thousands of professional scientists from half a dozen different fields over 50 years have devoted their careers to this concept of evolution and are in agreement on the general details of the theory. I don't see any value in an outsider like myself repeating or summarizing their mountains of work. Frankly, the burden is overwhelmingly on you to justify why any intelligent person should care what you think about the subject.

I think people should view the evidences , and then, decide for themselves.

The beauty of science is that we do not have to accept theories to be true. Many have been disproven. Science is fluid and ever changing.

Some agree, some disagree.

I for one, will continue with the same passion (more now) to know more about this subject, due to my passion for science and search for what is logical. So far, this theory seems illogical, and i have debated with many.

EDIT: my motivation is to aqquire the truth. For the purpose of keeping this thread on the evidences for and against evolution, i will not respond to arguments about myself, and will only respond to arguments for evolution.

My posts are written with no malice, or personal hatred or intent, and if i have ever come across this way, i apologize.

I'm not sure why you're so stubborn in hiding your motivations. I question your motivations because it's obvious there is something beyond "just the facts" that gives you passion about this particular topic. Either you for some reason think it conflicts with your religion, or you think it's part of some sinister conspiracy, or some combination of the two, or something like this. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. I don't see you getting passionate about any other scientific theories on this forum. If you were truthful, we would see such a larger pattern.

I don't really see why I would feel pressure to try to "refute" you. Thousands of professional scientists from half a dozen different fields over 50 years have devoted their careers to this concept of evolution and are in agreement on the general details of the theory. I don't see any value in an outsider like myself repeating or summarizing their mountains of work. Frankly, the burden is overwhelmingly on you to justify why any intelligent person should care what you think about the subject.

With regards to refuting me, there is no compulsion on you to. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the arguments for and against evolution. This theory is far from solid, and hence, is controversial and attracts much debate. This is the beauty of science.

Thousands of scientists are also against this theory. The numbers prove nothing. Rather, we should simply look at the arguments, evidences, and logic in light of scientific discoveries and knowledge.

You proposed that there were missing links, and a little earlier on the thread, a fellow evolutionists accepted there were no missing links in the essence o intermediatires that neither belong to either kingdoms. (though he held the belief that every fossil is an intermediate).

I quoted a renound evolutionists accepting there were no intermediatiries.

The general population should debate. Science is not for the 0.001 percent behind closed doors (though i do read a lot of science).

if X ammount of the population with no scientific background accept the theory to be true, are they backward for not having phd's before having this belief?

This is simply food for thought. Peace

Hm.

Well,

I mostly learned from textbooks.

Neil shubin: your inner fish. Is decent. Other than that, I only really read geology books.

Maybe king pomba can offer some.

i have a little work to do, and will reply to your argument tomorrow. i have not forgotten about it=p

peace !

Edited by Logical Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
EDIT: my motivation is to aqquire the truth. For the purpose of keeping this thread on the evidences for and against evolution, i will not respond to arguments about myself, and will only respond to arguments for evolution.

If you can't be honest with the people here, I don't see why anyone would bother discussing with you.

It is transparently obvious that your blocks with evolution go beyond the question of evidence and are in fact prior to any consideration of evidence. As such, discussion of facts and figures will be a waste of time, because these deeper blocks will prevent you from properly processing new and existing information. You have some sort of reason why you feel you "have to reject evolution." If you would be honest with us and share these motivations, we could have the real discussion, tackle your problems at the true root. Since you aren't willing to do this, anything will be a waste of time.

Edited by kadhim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Well isn't that a convenient personal definition!

"Evolution is fake! You haven't found the missing links!"

"Well, define 'missing link.'"

"A missing link is an intermediary that hasn't been found."

LOL.

The definition I posted is absolutely correct.

A link is a fossil which links 2 other fossils together,1 prior to the link and 1 after the link,hence why the middle is called a "missing link",because the fossil which is in the middle which links the prior and post is missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The definition I posted is absolutely correct.

A link is a fossil which links 2 other fossils together,1 prior to the link and 1 after the link,hence why the middle is called a "missing link",because the fossil which is in the middle which links the prior and post is missing.

Well then it's a meaningless definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz, you seem to be mistaken, you seem to be responding to my post like it was addressed to you but the parts of the post that were addressed to 'logical islam', only the bottom part was addressed to you. I will answer some of the things you raised a little later though.

I will fix up this one thing though:

I know who you were talking to,I responded to you because you were attempting to push your points on him.

Please note in my post i never said it was natural selection. In fact, i refered to it as artificial selection, which im sure if you know anything about biology, is what i was talking about.

You probably just missed that bit. - "Again, its quite uncontroversial those things can happen. We've bred dogs ranging from tiny poodles up to huge afghan hounds. We used a mechanism much similar to what i showed you with the lemon tree. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years with livestock and crops. That is artificial selection or us forcing the hand of nature

Can you not read what I posted?

I said clearly this is an intelligent agent selecting and breeding,this has nothing to do with natural selection.

Artificial selection is completely different from natural selection.

Why are you even bringing it up?

You were refuted now you're trying to act as if "no no that isn't what I meant I meant artificial selection",

I know what you meant when you said it, that's why I said it(artificial selection) has nothing to do (natural selection).

It's a classical example used in biology education to show that traits can be shaped and selected for, its just in this case that it is us doing this selection rather than any kind of naturalistic selective pressure.

No one denies artificial selection,why are you even bringing it up? This is different from natural selection.

Now to the bit where i was actually talking to you.

Again, lets look at a passage from George Rey:

By contrast, literally understood, religious claims are oddly detail-resistant.

Details such as ?

Perhaps the most dramatic cases are the claims about creation. Whereas scientists regularly ask about the details of the “Big Bang” --there is an entire book, for example, about what happened in the first three minutes (see Weinberg 1977)-- it seems perfectly silly to inquire into similar details of just how God did it. Just how did his saying, “Let there be light,” actually bring about light?

This person is not posing any argument,he is simply complaining about not understanding an immaterial function.

How did He “say” anything at all (does He have a tongue)?

Who said a tongue is required for communication by an immaterial entity?

Or, if He merely “designed” the world or the species in it, how did He do this (are there blueprints of the individual particles/ animals)?

Again he is complaining about an immaterial process,the how is simple. God via his essence/attributes created us.

Was it just the quarks, the DNA, or the whole body? Or just some general directives that were executed by some angelic contractors? At what specific point does He --could He possibly-- intervene in the natural course of events without causing utter havoc? Does anyone really think there is some set of truths answering these questions? Perhaps; but it is striking how there is nothing like the systematic research on them, in anything like the way that there is massive, on-going systematic research into the indefinitely subtle details of biology, physics and cosmology.

So according to him,we should do scientific research on god's essence and figure out the mechanics of how his essence/attributes produces matter?

Weak arguments.

As Kitcher (1982:ch 5) points out, even so-called Creation Science” is concerned only with resisting evolutionary biology, not with seriously investigating any of the massive details that would be required for the Creation story actually to be confirmed.

If evolution is refutable and it goes against logic/reason,then we will refute it.

If you don't like it,then refute our arguments instead of complaining about the model of the debate.

You seem to be an self-professed expert in showing what you believe is wrong with evolution. Fine. What's your alternative theory though. How did we get here if it was not through evolution.

I don't call myself an expert,nor did I ever,infact it was my opponents who regularly called themselves "scientists" if you look up in the previous posts.

Yet these "scientists" cannot even defend their own religion which they claim they are experts in.

The alternative to evolution is that Allah created you.

God did it and he simply magicked us up?

You sound like a close minded medieval materialist.

Everything that isn't material is "magic". Its simple philosophy,immaterial objects may and probably do exist.

Where are the details? That is hardly an explanation at all.

Details of what? What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the mechanics behind god's essence/attributes?

Or are you talking about the history of our cosmology?

The first the human mind is incapable of knowing,the second we know what happened and we have a history.

Lets turn the tables shall we, if you think evolution is so wrong, tell me how you think it happened. Note, you didn't answer my question, i asked if you could explain in detail how God created us and you just posted a bunch of "fluff" that had nothing to do with the question. You danced your way around my original question and didn't say anything like a response. You still haven't answered what i'm asking, tell me in detail, your alternative theory to evolution, tell me how God did it ?

íóÇ ÃóíõøåóÇ ÇáäóøÇÓõ Åöä ßõäÊõãú Ýöí ÑóíúÈò ãöøäó ÇáúÈóÚúËö ÝóÅöäóøÇ ÎóáóÞúäóÇßõã ãöøä ÊõÑóÇÈò Ëõãóø ãöä äõøØúÝóÉò Ëõãóø ãöäú ÚóáóÞóÉò Ëõãóø ãöä ãõøÖúÛóÉò ãõøÎóáóøÞóÉò æóÛóíúÑö ãõÎóáóøÞóÉò áöøäõÈóíöøäó áóßõãú ۚ æóäõÞöÑõø Ýöí ÇáúÃóÑúÍóÇãö ãóÇ äóÔóÇÁõ Åöáóìٰ ÃóÌóáò ãõøÓóãðøì Ëõãóø äõÎúÑöÌõßõãú ØöÝúáðÇ Ëõãóø áöÊóÈúáõÛõæÇ ÃóÔõÏóøßõãú ۖæóãöäßõã ãóøä íõÊóæóÝóøìٰ æóãöäßõã ãóøä íõÑóÏõø Åöáóìٰ ÃóÑúÐóáö ÇáúÚõãõÑö áößóíúáóÇ íóÚúáóãó ãöä ÈóÚúÏö Úöáúãò ÔóíúÆðÇ ۚ æóÊóÑóì ÇáúÃóÑúÖó åóÇãöÏóÉð ÝóÅöÐóÇ ÃóäÒóáúäóÇ ÚóáóíúåóÇ ÇáúãóÇÁó ÇåúÊóÒóøÊú æóÑóÈóÊú æóÃóäÈóÊóÊú ãöä ßõáöø ÒóæúÌò ÈóåöíÌò

Surah al hajj 5,7-9.

022.005 O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes, then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die, and some are sent back to the feeblest old age, so that they know nothing after having known (much), and (further), thou seest the earth barren and lifeless, but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells, and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs).

022.008 Yet there is among men such a one as disputes about God, without Knowledge, without Guidance, and without a Book of Enlightenment,-

022.009 (Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of God: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).

I don't want any kind of fluff or misdirection, its a simple question and thats all i want a response to, the underlined bit, shouldn't be too hard for someone of your intellect should it?

no fluff or misdirection intended,you want to know the how? I posted the Qur'an the book of the Muslims so you can see what we believe as to the how.

Just briefly skimming through i haven't seen you present any comprehensive alternative theory that could seriously replace evolution after you're so intent on bringing it down besides simply saying that God did it. That's three words and its most definitely not any kind of respectable scientific body of theory.

If you think you can refute my arguments,then try.

:)

The thread i linked a few pages back is a great, great way to start. Belial and I tackled a lot of the common questions and misconceptions people seem to have about it, its a good place to start i think. So, i'd really encourage him (her/them?) to read that. Otherwsie, any standard highschool textbook (which they already seem to have) would do a decent job. I haven't found anything thats more casual that does a better job than a textbook and its a bit hard to avoid anything that does make it feel like work. I recall you had some decent youtube videos (like a series from the same guy) floating around.

All I see from the atheists side is "you're unfair",complaining and whining,no offense.

We are talking about evolution,now they are trying to talk about religion.

This is an evolution thread,not a religious thread.

If you can't stay on the topic then don't debate,you keep running away and jumping to other topics.

Well then it's a meaningless definition.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The definition I posted is 100 percent what a missing link is.

What is a link?

A link is that which connects 2 things,a prior entity or and an entity after the link.

Dictionary.com anything serving to connect one part or thing with another;a bond or tie: The locket was a link with the past.

What is missing?

When this entity/concept is absent.

Hence a missing link follows.

Anything else?

To the atheists/naturalists debating me,this is an evolution thread not a religious thread,if you can't stay on topic then do not partake in the discussion.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
You don't know what you're talking about.

The definition I posted is 100 percent what a missing link is.

What is a link?

A link is that which connects 2 things,a prior entity or and an entity after the link.

It's a rhetorical stunt. Basically, the idea is to set up some criteria that is a priori unreachable as a way to divert attention to the evidence that "hasn't yet been found" away from the 50, 100 years of evidence that HAS been found. It's a taking advantage of the fact that a continuous line has an infinite number of points. Suppose you have a point A and a point B. "Well, look at that," says the trickster. "There's a gap between A and B." Suppose later someone finds a point between A and B, call it AB. The trickster, far from deterred, is actually delighted, because now he has 2 new "gaps" to point to, demanding they be filled, one between A and AB, and one between AB and B. Repeat ad infinitum. These are the sorts of tricks one pulls when he has made up his mind in advance of the evidence for ideological reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Creationists, or those with the belief that due to the lack of scientific evidence for evolution, say that if evolution were to be the slow progression of a species, then out of the 250 million fossils, there is not a single 'missing link'.

It can not be coincidence that every single intermediary fossil has been destroyed.

if A went to b c d e f g to go to H, H is not an intermediary, nor is A, as they are seperate totally....where has b c d e f g gone, which show the transformation

I am ignoring the implausibility of mutations, being the cause of progression.

Missing link is not a term made up by creationists. Darwin himself predicted many missing links would be found in innumerable quantities in the earths crust.

See, thats where the confusion is coming from right there.

There is no such thing as a...half H half I. It is simply H and then I. There is no in between.

What you are looking for, is an animal that does not, and never has, existed.

Also, with all due respect, young earth creationists are...commonly ignorant of...science.

Missing links was a term produced before 250,000,000 proved there were none. Charles Darwin stated that if his theory were to be correct, there would be an intermediary amount of fossils i.e half forms in the earths crust. There is not even one.

Here is what appears to be the case. So, you seem to believe that...well, have you heard of crocoducks? You see to be under the impression that through evolution, animals will become half one animal and half another.

Crocoduck1.jpg

Reptiles evolved to become birds, but that doesnt mean there are half reptile half birds, in the sense that you would find some sort of deformed crocoduck.

You would find something more like this...

variants_large_4383.jpg

It is fully developed, however, it cannot be said if it is a bird or a reptile. It is both in one fully developed animal. It is not a half H half I, it is H and I in one. It is a full letter in between.

Its like the penguin discussion. You dont see a penguin as a half animal because it is "fully formed", even though it has "half wings".

This is how all animals exist. There is no such thing as a lion with a reptile head. Or a bird, with a T rex skull. Thats not how it works.

The "missing links" you are seeking, are...they are...how to say this.

If you believe that such animals are said to exist in evolutionary theory, then..that is a mistaken opinion. And that is not what evolutionary theory is. Thats like a strawman theory.

Exactly. As people of science and clear thinking, it is only reasonable to ask for proofs.

Thousands upon thousands (could be significantly higher) have been predicted, none found.

Surely is shows an inherent error in the theory being used to predict?

And this is far from true.

As a matter of fact, most fossils found, are purely based on predictions, based on the fossil succession. Ive done it myself actually.

Ill give an example.

So lets say. We can go back to the bird thing. If I wanted to find a half bird, half reptile. I would presumably look in between rocks of an age, that is in between the age of birds (100mya) and the age of reptiles (300 mya). These are rough numbers btw. So this "transitonal", should, theoretically be in the...200 mya rocks.

And if birds did evolve from reptiles, that is where I would find the "transitionals".

And this is exactly how it works. And this is exactly how we find fossils. We dont just randomly go digging in random areas around the world. We determine where the fossils are likely to be, then we go and we get them already knowing that they are buried there.

It is a testament to the reality of the fossil succession.

It's a rhetorical stunt. Basically, the idea is to set up some criteria that is a priori unreachable as a way to divert attention to the evidence that "hasn't yet been found" away from the 50, 100 years of evidence that HAS been found. It's a taking advantage of the fact that a continuous line has an infinite number of points. Suppose you have a point A and a point B. "Well, look at that," says the trickster. "There's a gap between A and B." Suppose later someone finds a point between A and B, call it AB. The trickster, far from deterred, is actually delighted, because now he has 2 new "gaps" to point to, demanding they be filled, one between A and AB, and one between AB and B. Repeat ad infinitum. These are the sorts of tricks one pulls when he has made up his mind in advance of the evidence for ideological reasons.

And this is exactly true. It is a combination between what I have just said, and this statement here.

And this is why no real missing links exist. Either every single undug fossil can be considered a missing link. Or none of them are.

And so, scientists dont go around talking about missing links, because such a thing to us...it doesnt exist. I can use the word on this forum for this discussion, but thats where it ends. If you go to geology or paleo conventions, nobody of the thousands of geologists there, are talking about "missing links", because to us, it is a misunderstanding of the theory to believe that there are such things.

And, of the thousands of geologists I have met, and researched with, and been schooled with, and work with. I have never met a single one, who would disagree with me now.

And there are many things that are unsaid in these forums. I could speak almost indefinitely about how I am certain of these things. But its hard to know, what to say and when, and how. I am not a professor. So, ask questions, and I will provide.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like this logical. You said...

"however, if you take an actual bird that flies. I.E an eagle, and try imagining an ancestor of the eagle, which Almost could fly like the eagle, but did not? Could an eagle survive with almost formed wings? The eagle relies on it's flight to survive, as do other birds."

And there it is, there is no such thing as an eagle that had almost formed wings. There is no such thing as a half A (eagle with wings) half C (eagle without wings), because C (eagle without wings), doesnt exist. An eagle without wings, is like a crocodile without a reptilian body (a crocoduck). There is no such thing. Before it has its full wings, before it can fly. It is not an eagle. It is not an "A". It is a "B", it is its own entity. A fully formed animal, independent of its future progeny. Simultaneously it is a full animal in between reptiles and birds, which would be, what you call, a "missing link". Or what we call, a transitional. Or what we could simply call, a fossil of an animal of the past.

Edited by Belial
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...