ronald4lif:


I think it's a fair deal and the caption is apt too. Saturday it is then.

bqlekan:


This is getting interesting.. but I won't debate the formation of the earth, due to the fact that we won't be able to show how and why the universe came into existence.. even the Quran only told us how. The earth was formed..

“Do not the Unbelievers see
that the heavens and the earth
were joined together (as one
unit of Creation), before
We clove them asunder?”
[Al-Qu’ran 21:30]

Here is another one on the initial gaseous mass before creation of galaxy

“Moreover, He Comprehended
in His design the sky,
and it had been (as) smoke:
He said to it and to the earth:
‘Come ye together,
willingly or unwillingly.’
They said: ‘We do come (together),
in willing obedience.’”
[Al-Qur’an 41:11]


Again, this fact is a corollary to the ‘Big Bang’ and was not known to anyone before the prophetehood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him)1. What then, could have been the source of this knowledge?

The striking similarity between the Qur’anic verse and ‘The Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?

But I won't dwell on that..


I will stick with the emergence of life on earth. How it all started, How the first human came into existence.

Shall we?

It all started as a little debate. We had our differing views, so we felt it's only wise to create a thread where we can drop our opinions relating to our beliefs, evolution, religion, science, how planet earth/universe came about etc.

No roles, just anything that pit science against God.

Ronald4lyf, Bqlekan, Yourmain and my humble self are the characters who are already playing lead roles in this, we'll present our countenance or discountenance as the case may be citing our reasons.

This thread is created to serve a purpose and that is to enlighten and challenge some thoughts, so let's jettison the idea to initiate an e-war of some sort.

Thank You.

good one there griffon.. i'm debating the origin of life and evolution as a creationist

bqlekan:
good one there griffon.. i'm debating the origin of life and evolution as a creationist

Let's get started already. I'm sweating

Griffon:


Let's get started already. I'm sweating

wipe it off man

where is ronald?

get started

bqlekan:


wipe it off man

where is ronald?

get started

I might not be fully active tonite, i am working on a project with my PC.

I'll try to catch up with y'all. I guess this isn't just about tonite, this thread has come to stay IMO.

bqlekan:

wipe it off man
where is ronald?
get started

Griffon:

I might not be fully active tonite, i am working on a project with my PC.
I'll try to catch up with y'all. I guess this isn't just about tonite, this thread has come to stay IMO.

Apologies guys for my lateness, was out of something I had no control of. Reading through... and yes the debate stretches beyond tonight.

Question: No proposed mechanism for the formation of the solar system from a gradually collapsing nebula can account for the earth's vast quantities of water. Where did the earth's large volumes of water come from?

Ronald4lyf this is for you.

ronald4lif:




Apologies guys for my lateness, was out of something I had no control of. Reading through... and yes the debate stretches beyond tonight.

no problem, you are here now.. having serious network ish. softbrick my phone this afternoon, stucked with this MTN modem.. my replies might be a bit late.. pls bear with me.

ronald4lif:


Apologies guys for my lateness, was out of something I had no control of. Reading through... and yes the debate stretches beyond tonight.

No prob brother.

bqlekan:
good one there griffon.. i'm debating the origin of life and evolution as a creationist

Lol. So are you for or against evolution or creationist? And what are your reason(s)?

I'm for evolution and my reason is coming up in a subsequent comment.

ronald4lif:


Lol. So are you for or against evolution or creationist? And what are your reason(s)?

I'm for evolution and my reason is coming up in a subsequent comment.

i'm against evolution and abiogenesis.. here are my reasons
*life could not have started by chance
*Evolution failed to provide how life originated
*Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claims
* evolutional forgeries existed in the past (why forge if evolution is real)
*law of mathematical probability refutes the formation of DNA in the cell by chance
*Mutation could not have caused the evolution of new species
*Basic inconsistencies exist in theories of Evolution

this are just tips..

ronald4lif:


Lol. So are you for or against evolution or creationist? And what are your reason(s)?

I'm for evolution and my reason is coming up in a subsequent comment.

I don't understand people that do not believe in God. It is like saying something came from nothing. I have every reason to reject that ideology, the complexity of life is too overwhelming. Personally, I think we are all irrational. Each to his own beliefs: (

bqlekan:


i'm against evolution and abiogenesis.. here are my reasons
*life could not have started by chance
*Evolution failed to provide how life originated
*Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claims
* evolutional forgeries existed in the past (why forge if evolution is real)
*law of mathematical probability refutes the formation of DNA in the cell by chance
*Mutation could not have caused the evolution of new species
*Basic inconsistencies exist in theories of Evolution

this are just tips..

Alright. Fossils are just one part of the evidence of evolution. (Other types of evidence include DNA, common genes, proteins, structures, vestigial structures, atavisms, embryology, biogeography, etc.) but fossil evidence actually supports evolution in a number of ways.

Fossils give evidence of evolution in a number of ways. And not only does it support evolution by the changing structures over time, it can also disprove a creationist theory which states everything was created at the same time. If that was true, then we would see every type of animal's fossil in every layer and every time period in the record, we would have human fossils found in the same layers as dinosaurs and any other ridiculous combination.

We only ever see animals that lived during the time that layer was formed and we don't see a more evolved creature in a layer earlier than the earliest fossil of it's ancestor

1. The depths of layers in the soil give us an indication of the *relative age* of the different fossils ("this fossil is older than that one".

2. The dating of rocks found in the same layers as the fossils gives us an indication of the *absolute age* ("this fossil is about 50 million years old, and that one is about 55 million years old".

3. The geographic *location* of the fossil is important to establish possible geneology.

4. The types of other fossils we find in the same layers tells us about the environment in which they were living ... was it a coral reef, or a tropical forest, or an icy tundra with deciduous bushes.

5. The relative *structures* of a sequence of fossils, found in the same geographic area, same environment, and sequential layers of soil gives us evidence of a *progression* of species from ancestors to descendants. The more fossils we find, the more we can fill out the family tree.

On mutation - Evolution is just a phrase used to describe when a organism gets a adaptation through genetic mutation that is beneficial to the organisms survival and procreation. In a sense it does bring about new species but that is not the point of evolution. Evolution just describes the favoring of specific traits in an environment that allow a species to procreate.

Evolution works through the organisms with the best modifications surviving, and passing on these modifications.

Modifications in organisms arise through genetic mutations, with slight changes in the genes of the organism. Hence, the organism will survive and pass on its slightly different genes to the next generation.

Over time, as many mutations happen and are passed on, the DNA will become more and more different. Eventually, the modified animals will have such different DNA that their DNA will be incompatible with the original ancestor, hence a new species.

How do you think life originated then before I can answer this with an informed suggestion.

Fossils evidence didn't dismiss evolution like you assert.

daretodiffer:


I don't understand people that do not believe in God. It is like saying something came from nothing. I have every reason to reject that ideology, the complexity of life is too overwhelming. Personally, I think we are all irrational. Each to his own beliefs: (

No one is saying nothing came from nothing, miss. We are only seeking for natural evidence than relying on theories and beliefs with no or little evidence. And would you rather human don't seek for knowledge and fall on the unknown? If yes, then we may all have still be holding the believe that earth quake, tsunami, different health issues and other natural disasters are creation of God when they are natural disasters. What do you reckon humans do?

Bqlekan, I'd address any further comment of yours later on as I'm heading home and would be on the steering. Just to let you know ahead of a late reply. One thing is certain, this debate is an exhaustible one and no one truly have 100% facts as to the mysteries surrounding the world.

ronald4lif:


No one is saying nothing came from nothing, miss. We are only seeking for natural evidence than relying on theories and beliefs with no or little evidence. And would you rather human don't seek for knowledge and fall on the unknown? If yes, then we may all have still be holding the believe that earth quake, tsunami, different health issues and other natural disasters are creation of God when they are natural disasters. What do you reckon humans do?

I believe my own theories. Its scientific facts have been proven over and over again. In fact, it was the reason, science was brought back to life after the Greek era.


Wake me up when you find the truth, the last time I checked these evolution stuffs are still theories and I haven't heard any theory of how matter and a single tiny point came to being. I also don't think there are contradictions in the three Abrahamic religions on big bang theory and evolution


Whether we like it or not, religion is the reason we are here today.

ok ronald4lyf, i dont agree with your argument on fossils and mutations. let me make them clear and see how evolution they refute your claims

let us take the cambrian fossils as an example. this is the oldest fossil ever found, dating over half a billion years. yet the animals found in this fossil are in complex forms.The cambrian fossil demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today. How did the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden? and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged?

there has been no evidence of an intermediate fossil found.. atleast if organisms evolved slowly, we should have a transitional form. reptile/ape, bear/whale. no such fossil has been found. even Darwin wrote this in his book 'Origin of species' permit me to quote him

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me"


on mutation.. mutation(minor changes in their genes, and the fittest survives) minor changes is not sufficient enough for change in species. Mutation is a destructive mechanism which causes organisms to be diseased or dead. an example is cancer cells. evolutionist actually carried out mutation experiments on fruit flies. they all ended up diseased, deformed or dead.


And yes, all living organisms were intelligently designed. the complexity of DNA, Embryology, proves it.

bqlekan:


i'm against evolution and abiogenesis.. here are my reasons
*life could not have started by chance

That's an opinion.

bqlekan:

*Evolution failed to provide how life originated

True. The final piece of the jigsaw puzzle is still eluding scientists. Until a satisfactory model is discovered, your point stands.

bqlekan:

*Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claims

You'll need to bring forth some evidence for this claim. The archaeopteryx is good fossil evidence of a transitional specie.

bqlekan:

* evolutional forgeries existed in the past (why forge if evolution is real)

I don't think that forgeries by dubious scientists disprove the entire theory.

bqlekan:

*law of mathematical probability refutes the formation of DNA in the cell by chance

With a large enough sample space (the universe), improbable events can happen repeatedly.

bqlekan:

*Mutation could not have caused the evolution of new species

There have been experiments that have led to speciation in the lab: (check out William R. Rice's and George W. Salt's fruit fly experiment).

bqlekan:

*Basic inconsistencies exist in theories of Evolution

You should shed more light on this point.

bqlekan:

this are just tips..

Evolution is the best scientific model we currently in regards to life. If you have any better models, feel free to discuss them.

ronald4lif:
Bqlekan, I'd address any further comment of yours later on as I'm heading home and would be on the steering. Just to let you know ahead of a late reply. One thing is certain, this debate is an exhaustible one and no one truly have 100% facts as to the mysteries surrounding the world.

lol, dont be so sure..

maybe we should start from the scratch.. Abiogenesis..

and yes, m having network ish here too.. reason for the late replies

daretodiffer:


I believe my own theories. Its scientific facts have been proven over and over again. In fact, it was the reason, science was brought back to life after the Greek era.

Wake me up when you find the truth, the last time I checked these evolution stuffs are still theories and I haven't heard any theory of how matter and a single tiny point came to being. I also don't think there are contradictions in the three Abrahamic religions on big bang theory and evolution

Whether we like it or not, religion is the reason we are here today.

You must be Yourmain 'cos you write like her.

The emboldened can only be true if you can provide substantial evidence.

The Christians' account of creation doesn't agree with what the Muslims have to offer yet they are both religious groups.

There are too many contradictory claims within the religious groups' camp for us to ignore the importance of supporting our claims with evidence.

Griffon:


You must be Yourmain 'cos you write like her.

The emboldened can only be true if you can provide substantial evidence.

The Christians' account of creation doesn't agree with what the Muslims have to offer yet they are both religious groups.

There are too many contradictory claims within the religious groups' camp for us to ignore the importance of supporting our claims with evidence.

No I'm nothing like her. Nor do I agree that religion makes us who we are today. I'm agnostic for a reason. I believe in God though. The existence of a higher power is very obvious. And its something that we cannot ignore.

Griffon:


You must be Yourmain 'cos you write like her.

The emboldened can only be true if you can provide substantial evidence.

The Christians' account of creation doesn't agree with what the Muslims have to offer yet they are both religious groups.

There are too many contradictory claims within the religious groups' camp for us to ignore the importance of supporting our claims with evidence.

Are you new? Yourmai.n is way nicer than I am


By religion, I was referring to all religions and their influence on science l



I was talking about the existence of a supreme being

CoolUsername:
.

That's an opinion.

no.. let me explain,
The cell of a living being is more complex than all of the technological products produced by man. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together. yet this same cell was said to have been formed by chance.

The DNA contained in the nucleus of the cell is an incredible data bank. It houses every information about the specie. Eyes colour, skin colour, long nose etc.
Avery interesting dilemma emerges at this point: the DNA can only replicate with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can only be realized by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock.

True. The final piece of the jigsaw puzzle is still eluding scientists. Until a satisfactory model is discovered, your point stands.

This points to the existence of a conscious creation, an intelligent designer.

You'll need to bring forth some evidence for this claim. The archaeopteryx is good fossil evidence of a transitional specie.

Evolutionists thought this bird to be a reptile (dinosaur) and it evolved to birds however there are many evidences refuting the claim that archaeopteryx was a transitional fossil..

1) The recently discovered (1992) seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable

2) The structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well.

3) Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. Reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.

there are still more evidences.. pls just go read more on it

I don't think that forgeries by dubious scientists disprove the entire theory.

It does, this is a great challenge to a model that was based on assumptions. It does a lot of harm to its credibility.

With a large enough sample space (the universe), improbable events can happen repeatedly.

the probability of forming a DNA by chance from Amino acid is 10^-950
tell me this is possible again

There have been experiments that have led to speciation in the lab: (check out William R. Rice's and George W. Salt's fruit fly experiment).

Mutation is a destructive mechanism. this fruit flies were later deformed, diseased and died.. random mutation of gene will only cause harm to the specie.

You should shed more light on this point.

oh, what more light, it is crystal clear, running from natural selection, to forgeries, to mutation, and when fossil didnt help evolution, you guys introduced puntuated equilibrium (Even you know this is bullshit). when everyrhing didnt work, you decided evolution needs 2 billion years...

Evolution is the best scientific model we currently in regards to life. If you have any better models, feel free to discuss them

i'm a creationist and we are all products of Intelligent designs

bqlekan:
ok ronald4lyf, i dont agree with your argument on fossils and mutations. let me make them clear and see how evolution they refute your claims

let us take the cambrian fossils as an example. this is the oldest fossil ever found, dating over half a billion years. yet the animals found in this fossil are in complex forms.The cambrian fossil demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today. How did the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden? and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged?

there has been no evidence of an intermediate fossil found.. atleast if organisms evolved slowly, we should have a transitional form. reptile/ape, bear/whale. no such fossil has been found. even Darwin wrote this in his book 'Origin of species' permit me to quote him

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me"


on mutation.. mutation(minor changes in their genes, and the fittest survives) minor changes is not sufficient enough for change in species. Mutation is a destructive mechanism which causes organisms to be diseased or dead. an example is cancer cells. evolutionist actually carried out mutation experiments on fruit flies. they all ended up diseased, deformed or dead.


And yes, all living organisms were intelligently designed. the complexity of DNA, Embryology, proves it.

Cambrian aren't the world oldest fossils. Some scientists have said the world oldest fossils are barbra streisand but others have refuted it and said the oldest known fossils are stromatolites, thought to consist of the remains of ancient bacteria. So for what we know, oldest known fossil of stromatolites is almost five times older than the oldest known fossil of a multicellular organism, which dates back to about 600 million years ago.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one theory in crisis really, in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics in recent years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Renowned molecular biologist Michael Denton once said, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Mutations that effect an organism is dependent on the importance of where the mutation occurs. Importance is fundamental. It does not matter if the size of the mutation is big or small (a single nucleotide substitution can have a profound effect - Sickle cell anemia is a good example). And a mutation does not have to be a deletion, as it can be additions (as in transposon ), or even substitutions. Genetic mutation can't make one species evolve into another species entirely. And scientists don't claim that a "single" mutation can make one species evolve into another specie entirely.

They believe however that speciation involves the following; evolution is about the "accumulation" of "many" mutations. Mutations alone don't cause evolution; natural selection is required as well; and finally evolution alone doesn't cause speciation; there needs to be genetic isolation between two populations.

An example of a mutant specie is rhagoletis pomonella, which is the North American hawthorn maggot fly, which has since about 1640 produced a variant that feeds on apple trees and breeds at a different time. This was first noticed in the early 18th century. Attempts to cross breed the apple variant with the original hawthorn feeding stock fail about 95% of the time, so the two subspecies have almost entirely separated genetically and are likely to form different species within a few hundred years.

bqlekan:


lol, dont be so sure..

maybe we should start from the scratch.. Abiogenesis..

and yes, m having network ish here too.. reason for the late replies

You don't think abiogenesis is real and that non-living matter can form into a living organism?

daretodiffer:


I believe my own theories. Its scientific facts have been proven over and over again. In fact, it was the reason, science was brought back to life after the Greek era.


Wake me up when you find the truth, the last time I checked these evolution stuffs are still theories and I haven't heard any theory of how matter and a single tiny point came to being. I also don't think there are contradictions in the three Abrahamic religions on big bang theory and evolution


Whether we like it or not, religion is the reason we are here today.

Religion isn't the reason I'm here today until there are substantial evidence to even proof there's a supernatural being. Man predates religion and so to assert that we are here coz of man made invention is laughable.

Evolution isn't just a theory but an observation with scientific backed evidence.

Sorry guys Allah is not God, was not God and above all can never be God.

God cannot lie

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie,


Allah is the greatest deceiver

Surah 3:54
and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the greatest of deceivers

So one decieves one cannot Lie they are different

The term khayru al-makireen is repeated in verse 8:30, again in the context of those who tried to assassinate one of God’s prophets, in this case Muhammad pbuh himself. The leaders of Mecca planned to assassinate him, “scheming” against him by deciding to do the ugly deed altogether as one so that nobody could assign blame to any one single tribe. This would prevent any possible retaliation. They also planned on killing Muhammad pbuh using the cover of darkness.

The Quran says that God “schemed” against these killers, and fooled the killers by making them think Muhammad pbuh was in his bed when in fact it was his younger cousin Ali. When the killers found out it was just Ali, they didn’t kill him since he was just an adolescent. In the meantime, Muhammad pbuh slipped away and fled to another city with his life.

So once again, God’s “scheming” involved fooling killers so that they could not murder.

In Bible we see same thing


Jeremiah 4:10 Then I said, “O Sovereign LORD, the people have been deceived by what you said, for you promised peace for Jerusalem. But the sword is held at their throats!”

Another Bible example


God deceived so that a “besieging army” could carry out its war of conquest. Similarly, God will delude people in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 so that Jesus can kill and destroy them

Hockeyoilers and Chiedu7, I'll appreciate it if you two will stop derailing the thread.

We have a subject, stick to it if you both wish to be part of the conversation.