Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

This thread is about the idotic statement by Charles Darwin, the statement that we have "evolved" from other species as he writes in his book "The orgin of species by natural selection". The theory dies in many different aspects such as logic, chemical biology and physics. I would recommend reading books such as Evolution Deceit, Evolution a theory in crisis and Darwins black box the bio chemical challenge to Evolution. It should be noted that this dogma which science has started to establish such as the disbelief in Allah(may he be exalted) is nothing but something new in history, great scientists were believers in their lord before this Darwin guy came along. Christians such as Da vinci, Newton and Galileo but also jews and muslims such as Khawarizmi and the famous Einstein who once said that science without religion is lame.
Now lets discuss the faults which this theory consists of, note that no evolutionist will ever be able to fight these statements.

Evolutionist claim that the first protein came by "it self" and then somehow formed the cell and then formed the first living being which came to "evolve" into other species. Did this Darwin guy know how advanced the cell is with his primitive microscope? A normal sized protein contains 288 amino acids which can be combined into 12 different types. These can be arranged into a numer 10 followed with 300 zeros[ A probability of 1*10'300 zeros] In mathematic terms 1*10 followed by 50 zeros is counted as 0 possibilty. I want to remind you that this is a rather modest protein molecule, some are giants consiting of thousands of amino acids. Now it faces another problem this protein must be left handen and not right handed sense the protein we find in living organisms are left handen, a 50% probability [1 times 10'150 zeros] Furthermore this protein must have the correct 3d structure called peptide bond, all this happend "by it self" as they claim. If we were to count all this together we would find a number of 1 times 10 followed by 950 zeros as a possibilty. Around the chance of you throwing a coin and getting tales 1miljon times in a row!

The story doesn´t end here, this was only one protein, a cell consists of hundreds of protein all of this appearently formed by chance. A couple of years after Darwins death a new molecule was found named DNA which supposedly could contain information equal to that of a library which is said to be in the nuclid of all 100 trillion cells in our body(they claim that this formed by chance) Believing in this is more stupid than believing that my dads car for instance was formed by chance or a video camera. Our eyes are alot more advanced than any camera yet people claim that our eyes were formed by chance and evolution while this camera was made by experts(even though it´s less advanced) and that it is made for a reason- namley taking pictures while we are without pupose???

And We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them without purpose!... [Q 38.27]


Secondly these evolutionists claim that the evolution came about because of mutatians even though -ladies and gentleman- not a single mutatation has EVER been documented to have given a positive outcome(think about that)
Gordon Talylor, an evolutionist says: In all the thousands of fly breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinc new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme"
Ranganathan said that an earthquake doesn´t help the city it destroys it.
Now lets say that all this fiction stuff happend and everthing just came about by chance and the first sea animals were created. Now the theory(which is already broken) is faced with another problem, the transition from sea to land. This can be refuted with some biological statements(which Darwin didn´t think about while he was guessing)
1. We land creatures use 40% of our energy to just cary around our weight while sea animals doesn´t need that, that means the animals must change their whole skellet system in a matter of minutes(sense a fish cannot live on land for more than a few minutes)
2. The temperature changes quickly on land while it changes very slowly in water, this means that the fish has to adapt a new heat retention system.
3. Gills must be changed into advanced lungs in a matter of minutes(just by "chance")
4. Kidneys must be created sense fish doesn´t need them because they are surrounded by water which they can easily clean themselves with.
5. A new system for repelling water must also "mutate".
A person with a sound mind will see that this is all impossible, imbossible and Impossible. Furthermore they claim that these reptiles which have been formed by chance must somehow develop wings, they say that wings came about while dinosaurs were chasing flies!!! This is not chocking sense Darwin and his theory is known to be stupid.

Darwin claimed for instance that aborgines and black negroes are as low as apes, gorillas and baboons in the way they have delevoped, europeans were far more ahead appearently. He also said that bears that tried to swim evolved to whales! Since the theory claims that all mamals came from one source it would mean that an elephant, a mouse and a bat would all have had to come from one source(you can easily see the connection between an elephant and a mouse, can´t you?) Now I ask you, do you really believe in this bogus theory, how can you deny Allah(may he be exalted) while he has created you, isn´t such an advanced creation bound to have a Creator with all knowledge?

36.77. Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah[semen]. Yet behold he (stands forth) as an open opponent.

78. And he puts forth for Us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: "Who will give life to these bones after they are rotten and have become dust''

79. Say: "He will give life to them Who created them for the first time! And He is the All-Knower of every creation!''

How can you deny you Creator while he has provided provision for you and has created you, do you not see the heavens and the earth, that they are full of evidence to his existance?

Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding.[Quran 3.190]

Have you seen the termite, how it can build houses 300 times bigger than it self containing a ventilation system, canals, corridors, lava rooms, saftey exists, rooms for warm and cold weather and guess what, these small amazing animals are said to be BLIND! How can you claim that such a thing would come up by it self without a creator, the bat with its sonar system the fish with its navigation system were they could be dropped here in Sweden and find their way back to the place were they hatched somewhere in Canada.

The theory of evolution fails further because of findings of numerous fossils which show that some animals such as bees, turtles all have the exact same shape as their old fossils, all the vain attemps from evolutionists have been refuted and exposed such as Lucy which the claimed was an ape that could walk straight up while it was proved that it was nothing else but an ordinary ape with a bent stride. They have not found the broken link- a half ape halv man- and they will never find it. Give up this belief and believe in he who has sent to you messanger after messanger and is so merciful to you even though he doesen´t need you.

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe[Quran 21.30]

I could continue with harder evidence to denounce this but will stop here because of the lenght of the thread, Il end with a part of a Quran verse (Interpretation of the meaning):

And whosoever believes in Allah and performs righteous good deeds, He will admit him into Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. Allah has indeed granted for him an excellent provision.

 

fuck off you fucking idiot

evolution does not occur suddenly. evolution occurs over thousands of generations often. in addition, things did not happen 'by chance'. the environments that caused the cahnges in organisms happened by chance. your impressive numbers early on only show teh cahnce that a fully formed protein was created from chemicals randomly joining up. this is a perposterous assumption. protiens would not have jsut appeared. your stupid.

if you want to contribute more,
dont.

 

Hmm, Im not suprised to such a reply, aggressive and without any explaination. If you flip a coin for millions, billions or even trillions years in a row you will never, believe me, Never get it to hit 1 milj times in a row. Secondly the theory of evolution controdicts the law of Therodynamics(its second law, the law of entropy which says that when something is left alone it will sooner or later get more unorganized such as If you leave a car in the desert for a couple of years you will expect to find it decayd, broken and in bad condition- the theory of evolution clearly stand against it.

 

Hi, Firstly I think your name should be Abd'ül Rezzak. Although I dont know Arabic, the true arabic name should be like that. Abdirezzak makes no sense.

Secondly; I appreciate your energy to change the world and people’s minds and the effort you put in the things you “believe”. But you should organize that effort by firstly making yourself a way of conduct that is freed from all aims but to truly understand how things work. Not WHY things work, or WHO makes them work. Ask the right question and always make sure if that question is still vaild and if so, under which conditions?.

As an evolutionist having graduated from Prehistory department, I shall challange the matters you’ve listed.

Evolutionist claim that the first protein came by "it self" and then somehow formed the cell and then formed the first living being which came to "evolve" into other species.

I avoid the word “creation” for it requires a creator which also requires a creator; not just a stupid statement as “he did not bear nor was he born”.

How did cells come to exist?
Cells arent bits of souls. Cells are bio-chemical components that use the energy found in the universe (talking for our system, especially emitted by the sun). What does use mean? They absorb the energy and convert and store it in chemicals. Thats how betteries work.
Cells are composed of hydrocarbon atoms, preteins. Proteins are made up of small structures called the amino-acids. They contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and in some states phosphorus and sulfur elements.Every single living cell’s protoplasma, contains these chemicals. Be it an ant, or a kangaroo or an Australian.
So this part, explains your “SOMEHOW FORMED A CELL” statement. Another bitter news for religious authorities: Now cells can be created in Labs with these chemical components.

Did this Darwin guy know how advanced the cell is with his primitive microscope?

He did not observe the inner structure of the cells with his microscope, he just coined a theory oberserving living organisms’ differences under different environments. These are modern data.

A normal sized protein contains 288 amino acids which can be combined into 12 different types. These can be arranged into a numer 10 followed with 300 zeros[ A probability of 1*10'300 zeros] In mathematic terms 1*10 followed by 50 zeros is counted as 0 possibilty.

It’s true that in maths, after 50 zeros, an event’s occurance chance is considered as a 0 possibility. In that sense, it is impossible to get a basketball through the basket. But during a normal NBA match, it occurs at an average of 150 times. How do you explain that? How come a ball passes through that small hole considering the eternity of space? The reason you can not explain is because you think self-determined.

Excuse my analogy but in this case, you are the basketball and the hand that aims you to the basket is the religious doctrine that you refer. Just like the basketball, you are determined to reach a point. But scienctific thinking tries to avoid that determinism.




I want to remind you that this is a rather modest protein molecule, some are giants consiting of thousands of amino acids. Now it faces another problem this protein must be left handen and not right handed sense the protein we find in living organisms are left handen, a 50% probability [1 times 10'150 zeros] Furthermore this protein must have the correct 3d structure called peptide bond, all this happend "by it self" as they claim. If we were to count all this together we would find a number of 1 times 10 followed by 950 zeros as a possibilty. Around the chance of you throwing a coin and getting tales 1miljon times in a row!

I dont understand what you mean by saying a “cells are either right handed or left handed”. It does not make sense.
But as for flipping the coins, refer to the basketball example above.

Have you seen the termite, how it can build houses 300 times bigger than it self containing a ventilation system, canals, corridors, lava rooms, saftey exists, rooms for warm and cold weather and guess what, these small amazing animals are said to be BLIND! How can you claim that such a thing would come up by it self without a creator, the bat with its sonar system the fish with its navigation system were they could be dropped here in Sweden and find their way back to the place were they hatched somewhere in Canada.


You cant propose gods' miracles to the way things work, just because you can not explain them, yet. Japanese thought god was the Sun, because they werent able to explain how it rose every morning and shone. Male seahorses bear the offspring, what about that? “Odd” things happen in nature and science is a reasonable reliable tool for explaining them.

The theory of evolution fails further because of findings of numerous fossils which show that some animals such as bees, turtles all have the exact same shape as their old fossils, all the vain attemps from evolutionists have been refuted and exposed such as Lucy which the claimed was an ape that could walk straight up while it was proved that it was nothing else but an ordinary ape with a bent stride. They have not found the broken link- a half ape halv man- and they will never find it. Give up this belief and believe in he who has sent to you messanger after messanger and is so merciful to you even though he doesen´t need you.

Lucy isn’t an ape, it is an Australopithecus afarensis. Unlike believers, scientists are not trying to attempt to refute anything, they are just trying to explain how things work. And talking about bones: it aint that easy to dig millions of cubic meters of soil and find some bones dating back to 3 million years!
It’s like digging a well with a needle, and looking for a small dot in the excavated soil... So be patient. Archaeology is a relatively new science field.
In archaeology it is surprising how shelter architecture, hand tools and burial gifts “evolve” as the cranial space increases (brain develops). Tools made by homo erectus are way less complicated than the tools made by the Neanderthalensis man, who was a great hunter, and was capable of chipping excellent arrow heads; later to be bettered by the homo sapiens.

If you flip a coin for millions, billions or even trillions years in a row you will never, believe me, Never get it to hit 1 milj times in a row.

Mathematically, if it can happen 2 times in a row then it can happen 1 million times in a row as well. But there should be zillions of attempts.

Secondly the theory of evolution controdicts the law of Therodynamics(its second law, the law of entropy which says that when something is left alone it will sooner or later get more unorganized

How come you make use of scientific theories? What you say has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy is something different. Secondly evolution does not contradict with thermodynamics, since we all die (or get unorganized as you put it)

 

i dont care what darwin said ever....he denounced everything he ever said on his death bed and turned to God aparently....

roly.xxx

 

yeah, I bet you were there

 

But if you flip it infinitely, eventualy it will.

 

Religious people making things up, who'd of thought!

 

and such writings.

A rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry solves this puzzle. Evolutionists DO claim that the first protein and first cells came by "themselves."

If you date back to primitive times when the Earth was still forming, there were odd and unusual compounds in the air and soil (and the air was certainly not breathable by humans at this point!). Due to this, there were also high levels of electricity that shattered through the atmosphere.

Scientists have been able to recreate this theoretical existance of what they believe Earth was like while it was forming. Gaining these ingredients, some researchers at a university in California (some details I cannot remember) put them into a test chamber and ran tests.

All of these tests failed to produce amino acids and any kind of cells.

However, when the scientists ran a spark of electricity through the chamber, certain ingredients bonded together. Another spark resulted in further combinations, until the original ingredients began to resemble today's amino acids.

Furthermore, a layer of cell wall also began to form.

With further testing ...

*SCIENTISTS WERE ABLE TO CREATE PROTOCELLS*

This is fact, you can search for it on google and get results.

These protocells had limited reproductive and response capabilities, but they DID reproduce and they DID contain proteins and enzymes.

You argue that there are so many proteins and so much detail to our cells that how could they have been formed? It started with things as small as protocells (or so evolutionists claim), and over millions (?) of years, different types of protocells evolved, until one became a full-fledged cell rivaling that of an amoeba. And from those cells came other protozoans and menozoans (I think that's the other word at least).

Furthermore, if scientists can run, say, 20 sparks through an atomosphere, and end up with several protocells, containing your little amino acids and enzymes, then think a little harder before you make up probabilities. There were much more than 20 sparks in this suggested atmosphere.

Again, I don't claim to know everything about the universe, but to me, your defense seems absurd, as you aren't refuting what evolutionists ACTUALLY claim. Instead, you are refuting what you THINK they claim. You are merely pointing out simple statistics, like this one:

Now think. If electricity abounded, and the chemicals were there, don't you think that if even only one shot of electricity wracked the environment every second, that so many chances could have been had in those millions of years while our Earth was forming? Let's see ...

One spark per second ...
60 sparks per minute ...
3600 sparks per hour ...
86400 sparks per day ...
31,536,000 sparks per year ...

That's over 31 million sparks per year.
Multiply that by a million years (when in reality there were several million) ...

31,546,000,000,000 ...

That is, 31 TRILLION sparks.

Now, assuming every other spark resulted in some form of combination ...

Compare even 1 trillion sparks to your odds of getting tails 1 million times in a row. 1 trillion divided by 1 million is 1 million.

Do you see where I am going? The chances for protocells and single-celled organisms to exist is QUITE substantial, and your "large numbered" figures are nothing but babble.

Now let's think here. You need to get tails 1 million times in a row. How many combinations can you possibly get, flipping a coin 1 million times in a row?

1 million squared (as you can only get either heads or tails)
1 million x 1 million.

Which equals 1 trillion.

Which is at least 15 times less than what scientists theorize evolution ACTUALLY had.

So, according to "your probabilities," then getting tails 1 million times in a row SHOULD have happened at least 15 times.

Perhaps you should go back to Calculus I?

Did you ever stop to think that because mutations happen on such a small scale, an inconsistancy in an organism as complex as humans would never result in a dramatically favourable change?

But, you are only talking -- "ladies and gentlemen" (laughs) -- about DOCUMENTED mutations. Mutations have only been documented for the past 100 years, if not less!

Back when the Earth was being formed, organisms were NOT as complex as we are today. Mutations were much larger-scale back then than they are now. And certainly, if trillions of protocells came about, do the odds suggest that even only ONE of them (let alone millions) could not have been a favourable change? What about combinations? Could multiple mutations have happened in sequence to produce a more complex organism? I argue that they easily could have been.

Hey. How about, I give you a real life example of evolution from a water-based creature to a land-based creature.

The frog.

If it is "so impossible" for things to grow from a water-based creature to a land-based one, then how do you explain tadpoles turning into frogs in *ONE MEAGER LIFETIME*?

Now, if a frog, a complex, multi-million-celled organism, can do it in one lifetime,
Why don't we give single-celled organisms MILLIONS OF YEARS to do this, and see how they fare?

Furthermore, we know that single-celled organisms just don't exist on land even today. So, let's give them the chance to become more complex organisms with DNA structures before they end up coming out of the water ...

Face it. Evolution from water to land happens every day. EVERY DAY. Tadpoles cannot survive on land, but frogs sure can! And tadpoles are actually rather simple organisms when you study their biological bodies ...

I could care less what you have to say about probabilities. EVOLUTION FROM WATER TO LAND EXISTS TODAY, and there is NO WAY you could possibly refute the frog's life cycle!

Specifically,

I must sincerely apologize in advance for what I am about to call you.

You are an ignorant, dogmatic moron.

Ever watch the Discovery Channel? WE *HAVE* FOUND IT. It's called a neanderthal, and it has a pseudo-bent stride that resembles that of a cross between both a human and an ape. Their skull's shape looks to be a cross between both a human and an ape, and the DNA structures are nearly a perfect compromise between humans and apes. In fact, we also have evidence that suggests that neanderthals existed at about the same time as the most primitive humans existed, and that neanderthals eventually became extinct because of brutally cold weather, while humans managed to adapt and survive.

Have you ever heard of gravity?

Gravity opposes entropy.

In fact, how can you explain why NO molecules from this Earth leave the atomosphere (save when our astronauts pee into space), even though TECHNICALLY beause of entropy they should?

One word: Gravity.

You can entropy this and entropy that, and you can leave your friends behind becuase they don't entropy and if they don't entropy then they aren't your friends,

But you will never be able to, with the laws of entropy, explain why our planet does NOT expand into googles of molecules that fly away into space in a chaotic fashion using the second law of thermodynamics. The evidence is right beneath your feet.

Gravity.

 

Oh, and I just wanted to point out.

I am a theist.

I believe in a deity.

Just as Darwin did.

And no, I am not kidding, I am being 100% serious.

I believe in a deity called Gaia, and I am a type of panentheist.

(panENtheist, not pantheist. note the extra "en")

Is is so suprising that a person who can believe in a God can also believe in evolution?

 

a'ight calm down....just whats written in books and recordings ...sry for making an input on a free speech site

 

calm doen...they were scientists who didnt believe either......
i'll try and find proof, i read it in many places a while back..see if i can dig it up!!
roly.xxx

 

What you have written here is nothing that explains how the cell came into being, on the contrary what you did was explaining what a cell is composed of which is not needed to be repeated, a small question, how do you expect to find a cell to come into being only using elements such as heat and electricity plus a few things like carbon dioxid and nitrogen? A famous experiment was done by a researcher called Stanley Miller in the 50´s where he used ammonia, methan, hydrogen, and water vapour and he later put this things in a jar, he boiled it all together and further added electricity which was suppose to be the atmosphere which the earth consisted of for a long time ago. What happen was that a few inorganic amino acids were found in the bottom of the jar and evolutionist all over the world called it a succes and praised it, but there were a few "mistakes" in this experiment. Miller used a thing called a cold trap which isolated these amino acids as soon as they were formed(otherwise the "lightning" would have destroyed it) he further used a fake enviroment, what he should of used was nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Furthermore if anthing formed by it self as you put it, wouldn´t it then be destroyed by all the oxygen which the scientists claim existed in that time, if there were no oxygen then there would be no ozon layer which means that these amino acids would have no element protecting it from radation thus being destroyed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."

Life creates life!

He is the Living (One): There is no god but He: Call upon Him, giving Him sincere devotion. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds!

The famous English astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle says:
If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.

 

I notice that you made no replies to my posts and apparently did not even read my post.

Up to the chellange?

 

hey there was a cool book i read about the gaia theory which was pretty interesting. It was about how instead of life evolving to its environment, it changes the environment to suit its evolution. Look up the Gaia theory and a model used called Daisyworld to explane it better. It has some points that make sense but like all science cant explane all. The title of the thread made me write this cause it said "Darwin Lied". Even though the Gaia theory doesnt say Darwin lied it does suggest that his Evolution theory wasnt 100% correct.

"Whatever way it happened im glad evolution gave me 5 fingers......that gives me a middle one." [Billy Bob 31.64]

 

as opposed to a god appearing from nowhere and creating everything out of nothing?

well it has been documented, a prehistoric creature slowly changing from reptile to bird. ever heard of a lungfish? they evolved to have stronger bones in their fins in which they could actually stand and walk on for when their lakes dried up. the strong ones survived and the weaker ones died out and now i believe theyve gotten to the point of these fins acting and very functional legs. and most scientists (who believe in evolution anyway) will say that monkeys evolved to men, thus a monkey had started walking, discussing and involving society issues... so really, all 3 of youre examples have actually happened.

 

Acually I only had time to answer one post and I had to go to school. I will try inshallah(Allah willing) to tr to answer you now, keep in mind that I don´t have much time I have both quran school and some school work waiting for me.

What these scientists used was water, methanol or wood alcohol, ammonia, and carbon monoxide, the question is did all these things exist at that time? If I were to be asked that question I would answer Allah knows best but most scientiests would not accept that for instance ammonia existed at that time, isn´t that cheating- using a fake enviroment just as Miller did? Secondly as I said before, the oxygen would of destroyed it anyway so whats the point, with struggling to prove your view correct?
You are trying to convince me that these protocells would after millions of years build the more complex structure we see today, that is like saying that small pieces of sand came together by elements causing them to do that(using for instance wind) , the sand pieces further got on top each other and builded big skyscapers after a couple of million years- this is what you are saying and it sounds completly wrong how ever you try to put it, it doesn´t matter if you wait 2 seconds or trillions of years - you will not get to see a big house being created by sand without anyone directing it.

Assuming not knowing. There is a big difference, these numbers which you invent are totally fake and I hope you understand that, you are only guessing that appearently everytime it sparks it results in a new combination even though it may mean the same combination for millions and millions of tries. And lets not forget the DNA molecyle which can contain tons of data in thousands and thousands of different combinations, interesting to say that even DNA and RNA came by it self.
Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.

This means that DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins(John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264)

Could you please tell us a little about this so called positive mutations? You know I have this little thing which I admire, I like to see birds fly around and I would love to be able to fly my self but if I would try and try and really focus all my energy in jumping all the time trying to form wings or jumping out of the balcony[ouch], and I do this all the time and all mankind would do this all time, never would I/we be able to form them even though we have tried millions of times. Why would monkeys want to become human anyway, we are much more weaker than alot of them, we do not posses the skill to swing around trees like they do nor do we run as fast as they can do without becoming very tired a great deal. So why become a human, I mean it is not like they want to create computers or something of the kind?

You are 100% correct when you say that frogs which are brought up in water later starts living in land, ou are forgetting one vital thing though. The frog is created with this ability, it is not like it happens by way of mutation every time a frog grows up, rather this is how the animal function. The creatures wich we are taking about which you claim lived under the sea is an animal that usually does not walk on land but it once just "happend" to do so - just like a normal fish(meaning it had to change blood/skellet system and form lungs and kidneys by way of mutation).

I want to quote a few words from Abu Hanifa(may Allah have mercy on him) a famous muslim scholar when he was asked about Allahs(may he be exalted) existance:

The same question was asked, by an atheist, of Imam Abu Hanifa and he replied, "Forget it! At the moment, I am busy thinking about this ship. People tell me there is a big ship, it contains different goods on board. There is no one to steer it, no one maintaining it. Yet, this ship keeps going back and forth; it even traverses big waves on the oceans; it stops at the locations that it is supposed to stop at; it continues in the direction that it is supposed to head. This ship has no
captain and no one planning its trips."

The atheist who posed the question interrupted and exclaimed, "What kind of strange and silly thought is this? How can any intelligent person think that some thing like this can occur?"

Imam Abu Hanifa said, "I feel sorry about your state! You cannot imagine one ship running without some one looking after its affairs. Yet you think that for this whole world, which runs exactly and precisely, there is no one who looks after it, and no one owns it."


Neanderthals looks like a human anyway, some like the one founded in Jerusalem was supposed to have been 1.8meters and Allah know best. Who cares if you find a cranium of a man or a race that resembles a monkey in some structures, people who have a skull looking a little like those of monkeys are living yet to this date, are they also Neanderthals and stupid half apes?

Allah has created every moving creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily, Allah is able to do all things [Noor 24.45]

 

*Ahem* Well, aren't you the one now telling us what was and what wasn't in the environment? As you know, scientists can only theorize, and we do so because we hope to understand our past and the past of where we live. Now, you claim here that the oxygen would have destroyed the cells and protocells, when most scientists agree that life started in the sea, which was filled with water. For the very small concentration of oxygen that exists in water (and much less at the deeper levels of the sea) compared with the oxygen content of the air at this time, I don't see how oxygen would destroy protocell matter? If oxygen, even at higher concentrations, is capable of destroying protocells and cells, why am I not degrading at an alarming rate right now?

And regardless of if it was a fake environment or not, the fake environment contained what scientists thought existed at that point, and they did NOT know that the amino acids, proteins, and protocells would form. They just stuck it all together and hoped something would work. And *it did.*

Besides, if it was a fake environment designed to emulate the environment at that time, wouldn't it already contain the oxygen that scientists believe exists? Otherwise, it wouldn't BE a fake environment designed to emulate the world back then, and the experiment would be null and void (but it's not). The experiment should emulate the environment; scientists would refute the experiment rather than praise it, if it didn't contain the right levels of elements.

Ever heard of a mountain? Thanks for proving my point.

Mountains are created by the same process, small pieces of sand come together by the elements causing them to do that (using, for instance, WIND). What is so hard to understand about that?

And mountains ALSO have caves in them; I would consider a cave to be a primitive form of residence (as you suggest a house or a large skyscraper). But, we are not talking about houses and skyscrapers appearing out of nowhere, we know that things like that didn't happen. Instead, caves and small knolls formed, and animals lived in them.

You believe in Allah, right? Are you not assuming and not knowing there? Now, you can't prove he exists, as people of every religion have been trying to do that forever, and have always failed. Thus, you must be assuming that Allah exists, and that the Koran is correct; you can't "know" it is true just because you believe in it. If it can be known (as fact), then it has to have been proven to you, which means it is inherently provable, and can be proven to other people (who aren't dogmatists and immediately disregard the proof).

And how can you say my numbers are fake? I did the math *right in front of you*. People win the lottery all the time, and they only have their own lifetimes to win it. If you played a 7-digit lottery (chances of winning about 1 in 1 million, just like your coin flip) every day over the course of a TRILLION years, your chances of winning at least once are unbelievably high.

And scientists DO guess that the sparks happened once every second. But come to think of it, sparks happened a LOT more than that. Every day over the world TODAY, powerful strikes of lightning happen every second or so. And scientists theorize because of the elements back in the time period we are referring to, that there was a lot more conductivity and a whole lot more lightning.

And the DNA molecule? Protocells don't contain DNA or RNA. So where are you coming from? Certainly, an extremely simple DNA strand (containing, say, just 8 or 12 molecules or something) could have been introduced inside of a protocell by chance, and the protocell could have reacted to incorporate that into the protocell, and that DNA strand could have also been replicated and passed on to another protocell offspring (as the rest of the cell tends to do as well), and in the future, more molecules could be tacked onto the end of that DNA strand, and so on and so forth.

And as interesting as it is to say that DNA and RNA came "by itself," it's even more interesting to say that a God and this universe also came "by themselves."

I'm sorry, did I not just point out that the experiment above PROVED that proteins and nucleic acids, even if in smaller and more simple forms, DID arise spontaneously in the same place at the same time? You missed the point.

And if it IS extremely improbable, that improbability existed over the duration of MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of years. And if it's so improbable, then how were scientists able to recreate that improbability and still create protocells to begin with, and in a short amount of time?

*ahem* NOW you are just stating falsehoods. "proteins cannot form without DNA." This statement is just absurd. Proteins have NOTHING to do with DNA existing. Proteins BUILD DNA. You forgot this important aspect. It is scientific fact that proteins are involved in the building, modifying, and replicating process of DNA. And proteins and amino acids DID exist at this time, even if in very simple versions. They could easily have created DNA from within the protocell itself.

You are missing the point of "mutation" altogether. Who said monkies WANTED to become humans, mutations happen regardless of what is wanted.

If you jump out of a window and try to form wings, that's what you want, not necessarily what is going to happen. You're a huge, complex organism. The chance for such a large mutation to happen is 0, becuase the mutation would have to include so many molecules, placed perfectly, moving into your body.

However, back when protocells existed, large mutations did NOT require such vast amount of molecules; instead, they only required a small number of them, as protocells are virtually infinitely smaller than human beings. It requires a much smaller amount of material placed in the right position.

Futhermore, wings are a LARGE mutation. We are talking about gradual SMALL mutations; the kind that might change ONE molecule in a DNA structure. The chance of wings forming? Null. The chance of a single molecule changing because of a small freak accident? Very high.

And this is my point entirely (although I gave a bad example). Frogs have the genetics to mutate. Within their genetics contain all of the information that involves changing from a sea-based organism to a land-based organism. If frogs have those genetics, why couldn't smaller organisms with only a few cells not have those kinds of genetics?

And most scientists believe that fish evolved to be much closer to what they are today before organisms made the change to land-based organisms. And perhaps you have never heard of the lungfish? It's a fish that has primitive constructions of legs. The progressive chain is there, for the fish to have primitive legs. Suppose that other fish had these legs in the past, and the legs developed until they could walk on land. And say, they couldn't breathe when on land, so they went back into the water, and periodically wandered back onto the land every now and again. And say they begain to develop lungs due the their exposure to the oxygen, or rather, say their gills began to change INTO lungs (which wouldn't be that hard).

Thanks for proving my point!

First off, I believe that it is possible (albeit unlikely) that a ship such as that could indeed do that. It's quite unlikely, but with currents and weather conditions, still possible.

I also believe that it is possible (albeit unlikely) that a universe such as this (as big and vast as it is), could indeed give life to some kind of organism. It's quite unlikely, but with elements and physics, still possible.

I won't refute that life, as scientists believe it happened through evolution, is very unlikely to occur. But the simple fact is, life DID occur, and we are merely trying to explain WHY it occurred.

Some people believe we were just created by some kind of higher deity, such as Allah.

Others are trying their hardest to figure out whether we are just an off-chance probability or not.

And can you blame them for doing so to begin with?

Yes, people who have skulls LOOKING a LITTLE bit like those of monkies still live. But neanderthals' skulls bear an uncanny number of similarities between both apes' AND humans' skulls. Certainly some neanderthals had skulls that resembled ape's skulls more than they resembled humans, and vice versa. And that's what we call the process of evolution.

Just because a neanderthal has a skull that slightly resembles a human's doesn't mean it is a human. Likewise, just because a human has a skull that slightly resembles a neanderthal's skull doesn't mean that person is a neanderthal.

 

cabdirazzaq,
Darwin formulated a theory. This theory was formulated through study, thought and lots of hard work.
Maybe you disagree with this theory but to call him a liar when quite clearly he believed that his theory was viable says more about you than it does about him.
Disagree but don't disrespect or question the mans integrity because you disagree.

 

Absolutely. These are just theories. That's like me calling you a liar for theorizing that Allah created all things (for which there is less evidence than darwins theory) when you honestly believe yourself to be conveying the truth.

Beyond that, it isn't called "The FACT of Evolution" it is considered a theory. It will probably never be a fact considering no humans were around at the time to observe the phenomena. Same for creationist theory.

You are absolutely intitled to believe whatever you choose. As is anyone. I, personally, find it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory over a religious one. You would have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

Who is to say that Allah didn't create the capability for life, all the ingredients, and let existance form from there? Just another theory, however.