Answering Christianity Research Center
MAIN BOARD (You must register to post) => GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS => Topic started by: A proud Muslim on June 09, 2017, 05:08:27 PM
-
Hello, It's been a long time since the last time i have visited this site, anyway i am having a problem and i needed some help, every time someone asks a religious question, many atheists answer immediately. So i can't find any good refutation to what they say. To be honest i still didn't study evolution. But until that i won't just keep looking at their brainwashing answers, someone needs to stand! So if anyone has studied evolution and biology, please provide me a refutation to this claim "According to evolution, and natural selection. We do not need Designer, plus that Intelligent design contradicts evolution and natural selection" I'm looking forward to seeing your answers. Oh another thing, i have been learning English since the last month, and i'm still learning. So could anyone tell me if there're any errors in what i wrote. and thanks
-
The idea of through natural selection there were occurances that led to existance and evolution of creatures through the genomes of their ancestors. Realies heavily on coincidence. For atheists believe that creation of universe happened to numerous events of natural selection and that eventually a planet came about that can hold life and more natural selection led to existance of germs then through them early creators like tripods and so on. Through out these billiona of years all of these are natural selections that led to existance of apes and through apes mankind.
This ideology is highly problematic. Why? Because the main core of this ideology is belief in billions of numbers of coincidences. How can it be coincidence when everything happened flawlessly. There were no errors in creations. Idea od natural selection requires many many errors until arriving at a workable design. However looking at Facts about universe and life, we can see with clear understanding that is not the case.
What is a coincidence:
co·in·ci·dence
kōˈinsədəns/Submit
noun
1.
a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
"it's no coincidence that this new burst of innovation has occurred in the free nations"
synonyms: accident, chance, serendipity, fortuity, providence, happenstance, fate; a fluk
So as it says remarkable concurrances of events without connection.
This we know for a Fact is the the case in birth of the universe and of life. We know for a fact there are many occurances that are harmonious like how life comes about that is at an approximaty to resources it needs to exists. For example this planet having grass water and other resources needing for life to exist and life existing in this planet is not a coincidences because a coincidence is a chance. It is no longer a chance when events happens in radical amounts and are harmonious to each other. Like how fusion of gas and dust creating stars and how asteroids colliding to a planet giving it natural resources to sustaine life. Cannot be coincidences.
Thus the idea of how natural selection the belief of how ecistance came out through numerous occurance of coincidences is absolutly false. Due to the fact they no longer can be called coincidences since coincidences happen by chance and all of existance cannot happen by chance due to all these facts.
-
It is also important to note that the golden mean ratio exists in everything. This is a perfect design it cannot happen from a coincidence for it on its own would equal to billions of coincid nces because there are numerous examples of golden mean on a human body alone. This requires an intellect not coincidence.
-
For basics:
http://amazingreligion.tumblr.com/post/74597355314/topics-related-to-evolution-neo-darwinism
-
The idea of through natural selection there were occurances that led to existance and evolution of creatures through the genomes of their ancestors. Realies heavily on coincidence. For atheists believe that creation of universe happened to numerous events of natural selection and that eventually a planet came about that can hold life and more natural selection led to existance of germs then through them early creators like tripods and so on. Through out these billiona of years all of these are natural selections that led to existance of apes and through apes mankind.
This ideology is highly problematic. Why? Because the main core of this ideology is belief in billions of numbers of coincidences. How can it be coincidence when everything happened flawlessly. There were no errors in creations. Idea od natural selection requires many many errors until arriving at a workable design. However looking at Facts about universe and life, we can see with clear understanding that is not the case.
What is a coincidence:
co·in·ci·dence
kōˈinsədəns/Submit
noun
1.
a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
"it's no coincidence that this new burst of innovation has occurred in the free nations"
synonyms: accident, chance, serendipity, fortuity, providence, happenstance, fate; a fluk
So as it says remarkable concurrances of events without connection.
This we know for a Fact is the the case in birth of the universe and of life. We know for a fact there are many occurances that are harmonious like how life comes about that is at an approximaty to resources it needs to exists. For example this planet having grass water and other resources needing for life to exist and life existing in this planet is not a coincidences because a coincidence is a chance. It is no longer a chance when events happens in radical amounts and are harmonious to each other. Like how fusion of gas and dust creating stars and how asteroids colliding to a planet giving it natural resources to sustaine life. Cannot be coincidences.
Thus the idea of how natural selection the belief of how ecistance came out through numerous occurance of coincidences is absolutly false. Due to the fact they no longer can be called coincidences since coincidences happen by chance and all of existance cannot happen by chance due to all these facts.
So you are saying that Evolution and natural selection are based on coincidence? But if that's the case, then how come that there are about 99% scientists who believe in Evolution? Also there's a something called "Theistic Evolution" I'm looking forward to seeing your answer.
-
I wish i could get an answer for these questions, they always annoy me. I wonder if i am supposed to wait so long to get an answer.
-
Where's brother Osama? He used to reply immediately to any question...
-
Where's brother Osama? He used to reply immediately to any question...
Brother Osama is heading to the White House to throw a rotten tomato at Donald Trump.
-
"Theistic evolution" is the concept that belief in theism and evolution do not necessarily have to contradict each other. It involves the arguments that religious scripture does not deny the theory of evolution (or at least some interpretations of it).
Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Regarding evolution in case you haven't come across these explanations (which incidentally are arguments related to a limited extent to theistic evolution):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPuoGVlCjZ0
http://www.academia.edu/9806605/The_Appearance_of_Adam_from_the_Quranic_Perspective_-_Creation_or_Evolution
http://19.org/books/islamic-theory-of-evolution-shanavas/
-
So you are saying that Evolution and natural selection are based on coincidence? But if that's the case, then how come that there are about 99% scientists who believe in Evolution? Also there's a something called "Theistic Evolution" I'm looking forward to seeing your answer.
Assalam alaikum
You can revise this topic on scientific evolution vs neo-darwinism.
http://quranscientificerror.blogspot.com/2013/08/re-quran-scientific-errors-on-evolution.html
I suppose you mean by evolution; evolution theory or neo-darwinism;
The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion.
Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat, a logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority. The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true”. In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like neodarwinism), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition.
Allah knows best
-
Sorry, but all these answers do not answer my question, my question is:
Since that Evolution and Natural selection both are based on coincidence, then how come there's a something called "Theistic Evolution" Does that mean Theistic Evolution rejects a part of Evolution and accepts a part? Also we are in the 21st century, and Scientists have found many evidence supporting Evolution, even theists Scientists accepted Evolution. I'm pretty confused, please help me. Oh also another thing, please do not post links, post only arguments. I'm looking forward to seeing your answers.
-
Sorry, but all these answers do not answer my question, my question is:
Since that Evolution and Natural selection both are based on coincidence, then how come there's a something called "Theistic Evolution" Does that mean Theistic Evolution rejects a part of Evolution and accepts a part? Also we are in the 21st century, and Scientists have found many evidence supporting Evolution, even theists Scientists accepted Evolution. I'm pretty confused, please help me. Oh also another thing, please do not post links, post only arguments. I'm looking forward to seeing your answers.
The scientific evolution:
'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'.
This is well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Neo-Darwinism ( commonly called 'Evolution theory')
In order to find a solution to the failed darwin theory, the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or , Neo-Darwinism, was suggested at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.
Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are mostly harmful.
"Evolution" according to neo-darwinian scenario:
'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.
This is laughable Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Fallacy of equivocation:
Atheists & Darwinists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).
This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.
Evolution theory says that a single cell evolved, by 4 mechanisms, to all other creations. They didn't tell us how this supposed single cell created itself in the first place ;)
-
Lacking of information does not disprove Evolution, evolution don't tell us about how life began on earth, From what i understood from your post is that you don't accept evolution, well you should be saying these to the 99% scientists (including theists scientists) who accept evolution. Plus that if you were able to disprove evolution, then noble prize is waiting for you, i am sure that if you go to any science forum, people will answer your question immediately.
-
Assalam alaikum
Of course, we accept "scientific evolution" Did you ever read my post :D
Neo-darwinism is rejected because there is no evidence for it. Actually, they use examples of "scientific" evolution to prove "Neo-darwinism", revise my previous post.
-
Assalam alaikum
Of course, we accept "scientific evolution" Did you ever read my post :D
Neo-darwinism is rejected because there is no evidence for it. Actually, they use examples of "scientific" evolution to prove "Neo-darwinism", revise my previous post.
Ahhh, my bad, sorry, at the moment i'm trying to speak English fluently, so forgive me if i did not understand what you mean, Would you mind telling how do they use examples of "scientific" evolution to prove "Neo-darwinism" in simple English? Also can you refute the claim "Evolution and natural selection disprove Intelligent design, and suggests that we do not need a Creator" and again sorry for being annoying, i am just trying to learn, also what do you think of my English? How good is it? Please be honest, and thanks.
-
How does an evolution or natural selection disprove a designed? It Infact proves a designer because for this to happen is one out of a million,so mathematically,a creator needs to be there for a natural selection or a Evolution.
-
How does an evolution or natural selection disprove a designed? It Infact proves a designer because for this to happen is one out of a million,so mathematically,a creator needs to be there for a natural selection or a Evolution.
Well, you should say this to Atheists, what you say isn't actually a real evidence, give me some examples about how evolution and natural selection proves that we needs a Creator, otherwise i'll wait for other members to answer. I do believe in God, but the problem is that Atheists always claim that Evolution contradicts Intelligent design and suggests that we do not need a Creator. I'm looking forward to your answer.
-
How does an evolution or natural selection disprove a designed? It Infact proves a designer because for this to happen is one out of a million,so mathematically,a creator needs to be there for a natural selection or a Evolution.
Well, you should say this to Atheists, what you say isn't actually a real evidence, give me some examples about how evolution and natural selection proves that we needs a Creator, otherwise i'll wait for other members to answer. I do believe in God, but the problem is that Atheists always claim that Evolution contradicts Intelligent design and suggests that we do not need a Creator. I'm looking forward to your answer.
Assalam alaikum
Atheists claim:
1- A miracle happened (cell created itself..abiogenesis)...they don't believe in miracles ;)
2- This cell divided it self (we will bypass this too).
3- That divisions keep creating all creation over millions of years.
4- The "scientific" experiment should be "observable".
5 - No one observed their claim.
6- The claim is merely speculation based on similar DNA and anatomy.
7- This similarity is easily explained to us because our maker/Creator is the same ONE mighty God.
-
Assalam alaikum
Atheists claim:
1- A miracle happened (cell created itself..abiogenesis)...they don't believe in miracles ;)
2- This cell divided it self (we will bypass this too).
3- That divisions keep creating all creation over millions of years.
4- The "scientific" experiment should be "observable".
5 - No one observed their claim.
6- The claim is merely speculation based on similar DNA and anatomy.
7- This similarity is easily explained to us because our maker/Creator is the same ONE mighty God.
Well,
1-Abiogenesis isn't proven, it's just a hypothesis, this hypothesis says that living things came from non-living things, which is ridiculous to believe, also i agree that many atheists believe in that thing
2-Umm....Can you give me an example? Did the first cell divide itself by accident? or how did it?
3-Well, what's wrong with that? Could you please make it more clear?
4-Well?
5-Not clear, i want an example
6-Not clear, i want an example
7-Not clear too, please give me an examples like how this living organism wouldn't be able to by accident, something like these examples
8-May i ask you a question? How much did you study evolution? How good are you in understanding it?
9-After responding to my questions, Could you please show how scientific evolution proves God
Sorry again for being annoying, i am just trying to learn, another thing, my dream is to become a prominent Muslim scholar and a famous scientist :), that's why i keep asking these consecutive questions.
-
The truth is that everything was created = Life/Ruh was given from Allah to them. He created cells and every great creatures.
(https://s20.postimg.org/umg6oaj0d/synthesise_life.jpg)
Allah said in surat alkahf, i didn't make them witness the creation of earth, heavens or even themselves, so making theories and speculations about HOW they are created will not change the fact that He created them. They tried to convince their follower that life was originated by coincidence, but that's funny too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bvFfMLp3gs
The Fallacious Argument:
Evolutionists base the evolutionary tree of life (or, ‘phylogenies’) on the similarities found in animals. In other words, if two animals are similar, it is assumed they are closely related in the evolutionary scale. But for evolutionists to turn around and claim these same similarities ‘prove’ evolution is fallacious.
This line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here’s why. Evolutionists claim: "If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true."
This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in organisms, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the
conclusion "therefore, evolution is true" with "therefore, evolution is probably true". But this is also fallacious. We could say: "If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese." Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty generalization.
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.
You can read "Harun Yahya" books. They may be translated to your language. Not 100% accurate, but will help you to understand the irrationality of atheists and their arguments. Whenever you have a question, please ask.
-
The truth is that everything was created = Life/Ruh was given from Allah to them. He created cells and every great creatures.
(https://s20.postimg.org/umg6oaj0d/synthesise_life.jpg)
Allah said in surat alkahf, i didn't make them witness the creation of earth, heavens or even themselves, so making theories and speculations about HOW they are created will not change the fact that He created them. They tried to convince their follower that life was originated by coincidence, but that's funny too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bvFfMLp3gs
The Fallacious Argument:
Evolutionists base the evolutionary tree of life (or, ‘phylogenies’) on the similarities found in animals. In other words, if two animals are similar, it is assumed they are closely related in the evolutionary scale. But for evolutionists to turn around and claim these same similarities ‘prove’ evolution is fallacious.
This line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here’s why. Evolutionists claim: "If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true."
This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in organisms, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the
conclusion "therefore, evolution is true" with "therefore, evolution is probably true". But this is also fallacious. We could say: "If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese." Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty generalization.
It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.
You can read "Harun Yahya" books. They may be translated to your language. Not 100% accurate, but will help you to understand the irrationality of atheists and their arguments. Whenever you have a question, please ask.
Well, thanks for your efforts, i hear what you are saying, but i don't think that you gave me a clear answer. You're saying that the claim that "we evolved from a common ancestor. Well, as far as i know scientific evolution also says that, plus that similarities between living organism is not an evidence for God, also evolution has so much evidence, what you have mentioned isn't the only evidence for evolution, you gave me many answers, having said that, they are not clear. Anyway i'll just read Harun yahya's books. I think that they will give a pure clear answer, so actually you do not need to respond back. And in conclusion thanks for giving me your time!