• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can any creationist tell me ...

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Dawkins actually says in that video that you don't need to be an atheist to believe evolution is correct by the way.
Islam is calling "first dibs" on evolution now?:D Sure, even if there is some truth in that it proves diddly squat. Lots of scientists through the centuries were religious, you pretty much had to be back then if you valued your life. It doesn't add weight to their religious beliefs though.

Atheists are wrong to use evolution to bash theists on the head with, as I say it is not a defeater for belief in a deity. Likewise, literalists should perhaps be less vexed, they simply need to find compelling evidence for the story of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately they have so far been unable to do so, "creation science" or "intelligent design" proponents are not taken seriously by the scientific world, but if they find compelling evidence they will be alright. There is not some conspiracy against them, a silly claim I've heard some religious people make, surely if you believe god is pulling all the strings then you should believe god will provide science with the evidence of a seven day creation eventually? Have faith people! ;)

But don't you agree that a worldview that sees man as an intended creation by an intelligent designer is incompatible with Darwin's theory?

I don't know Muslim theology well enough to comment, but Christianity adds that we were made in the image of that creator and endowed with a soul, but that the beasts by implication were not, making us radically different from them rather than our cousins.

I find those ideas mutually exclusive, and I think that if most theists who claim to accept evolutionary theory examine their beliefs, they will find that either their god was not involved in the process, or that they have modified the theory to accommodate a god's input.

Darwin's theory not only needs no intelligent designer, there's no place for one in it that doesn't make it a supernaturalistic idea instead.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No god concept is required to account for the transformation of the first cell to the tree of life we find today and the remains of now extinct creatures. All we need is a means to generate heritable variation and a process that selects for the best adapted variation. Given those two, not only will biological evolution proceed in a godless universe, it can't be stopped.
Mind blowing complexity of the signature in the cell. 1 teaspoon of DNA contains more information than every book on the planet.

27wzype.png


A 4 digit bike lock would have 10,000 possible combinations. Only if you had enough time would you possible have any chance of getting it right by chance.

The dna protein lock has 10 BILLION possible combinations all resulting in gibberish, with one correct code resulting in ONE successful functional protein being created. The longer the molecule, the longer the lock.

1 short protein corresponding to 150 amino acids long, would require 10 to 195th power other amino acid arrangements of that length were actually functional, ie how many variations of unlocking the lock.

Evolutionary biologists stated there must be multiple ways of rearranging the letters and the code didn’t need to be precise at all as it wasn’t like a written language or anything needing to be too finicky. Proteins don’t care, which amino acid is where and thus there’s much more flexibility available. Same function performed by huge variations in protein changes and a huge number of available genes. However molecular biology in the 21st Century shows functioning proteins are EXTREMELY rare in the vast number of possible combinations.

Axe << Douglas Axe

In fact molecular biologist Douglas Axe did tests called sight directed mutagenesis’s and showed for each DNA sequence that produces a functioning protein of 150 amino acid in length, there are 10 to the 77th amino acid arrangements that will not fold into a stable 3d protein structure capable of performing that biological function. 1 correct sequence for 1077 incorrect sequences.

Akin to searching for just ONE combination on a lock with 10 digits on each of 77 10 digit locks. Keep in mind there are only 10 to 65 atoms in the entire Milky Way Galaxy. Could random undirected genetic mutations, search the space equivalent of the milky way to find even a single functioning protein!!?

That’s improbable beyond imagination, and if one was to entertain such a thing being possible, then the sheer number of animals and species shows it could never happen on such a large scale. 1 10 trillion trillion trillion possibility of just one functioning protein could come from such odds. In 3.5 Billion years of Earths existence such odds would result in no life being made possible as only 10 to 40 individual organisms have ever lived.

One animal would require many many new proteins. The math just doesn't support

The Cambrian explosion proves the time span required for slow evolution over the course of 100's of Millions of years is impossible.

These are your religious beliefs, and they are radically different from the scientific theory, which makes no mention of Allah or man being created from water.
They got very excited recently over the possible discovery of water on Mars. It is a essential component for life.

I believe that what you mean is that theistic evolution is not incompatible with Islam or the Qur'an. What you are calling evolution is not Darwinian. Darwin's theory is incompatible with directed evolution.
Darwin thought a living cell was a blob of protoplasm goo. Imagine if he knew about the structure of a cell and DNA coding. His mind would have been blown.


Once again, that is not to say that Darwin's idea is complete and that there is no intelligent designer nudging the process, just that we don't have evidence for one and at present, have no need or reason to add that idea to a theory that seems to work well without it.
Yes of course, both sides of the fence have valid points to put forward, but the Math is on the side of the theist every time.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I can understand how convincing it must have seemed in the Victorian age among certain academic/intellectual groups, along with classical physics, static universe, phrenology, canals on Mars and Piltdown man. But real science has come a long way since then!



Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution (a purely natural process without God) is about 19% in the U.S. according to Gallup, and much lower elsewhere, so apparently it's arguments are not all that convincing.

Intelligent design/ creation science/ skeptics in general have made a lot of progress in science the method, but in science: the fashionable academic consensus- as above that's another matter entirely, and historically the two have often been diametrically opposed
Well over 50% of Americans believe that Evolution is accurate according to Gallup. The theory of evolution does not discount the existence of God in any way. The Pope has even stated that evolution is accurate. Evolution is strictly limited to speciation. It does not even speak to the origin of life itself.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
the Math is on the side of the theist every time.

Polymath has debunked these arguments recently:

There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.

The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.

Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.

Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.

Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.

Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.

And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen
.​

Any rebuttal from you? Can you find a fallacy in this argument?
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well over 50% of Americans believe that Evolution is accurate according to Gallup. The theory of evolution does not discount the existence of God in any way. The Pope has even stated that evolution is accurate. Evolution is strictly limited to speciation. It does not even speak to the origin of life itself.
That's why there is a direct link between the theory of evolution and atheism. Most believing children leave college as unbelievers or agnostics. Probably more Agnostic than outright Atheists because as studies under Communism showed, most people raised without beliefs still had a innate predisposition towards a Creator.

A recent study by 57 researchers involving 40 studies in 20 Countries reveals,

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife
May 16, 2011
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-humans-predisposed-gods-afterlife.html
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Polymath has debunked these arguments recently:

There are issues with those calculated odd just from a mathematical perspective. They almost always assume that a certain sequence of events has to happen *in a specific order* and that every step in this sequence is independent (in the sense of probability) from the other events. That is how they manage to multiply a large collection of numbers together to get odds that low.

The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.

Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.

Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.

Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.

Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.

And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen
.​

Any rebuttal from you? Can you find a fallacy in this argument?
Link to paper?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
That's why there is a direct link between the theory of evolution and atheism. Most believing children leave college as unbelievers or agnostics. Probably more Agnostic than outright Atheists because as studies under Communism showed, most people raised without beliefs still had a innate predisposition towards a Creator.

A recent study by 57 researchers involving 40 studies in 20 Countries reveals,

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife
May 16, 2011
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-humans-predisposed-gods-afterlife.html
What evidence do you have to support your claim that there is a direct link between the theory of evolution and atheism? Evolution does not speak to the origin of life or the existence of God.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What evidence do you have to support your claim that there is a direct link between the theory of evolution and atheism? Evolution does not speak to the origin of life or the existence of God.

Why are so many young people falling away from the faith?

"Two studies conducted by both the Barna Group and USA Today found that nearly 75 percent of Christian young people fall away from the faith and leave the church after high school. One of the key reasons they do so is intellectual skepticism. But how many of these youth were actually taught the Bible in their homes or in church?"

"Statistics show that children today spend an average of 30 hours per week in school where they are often taught ideas that are diametrically opposed to biblical truths, e.g., evolution, the acceptance of homosexuality, etc. Then they come home to another 30 hours per week spent in front of a television set bombarded by commercials and sitcoms, playing video games, or connecting on social media. This is in contrast to the time spent weekly in the church classroom: 45 minutes. Given the amount of exposure to worldly influences versus Bible training, it’s understandable why young people leave the home without a Christian worldview and why many are falling away from the faith. Not only are most youth not being well-grounded in the faith, but they’re also not being taught to intelligently examine the views of skeptics who will inevitably challenge their faith. Most of these students are not prepared to enter the college classroom where more than half of all college professors view Christians with hostility and take every opportunity to belittle them and their faith."
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why are so many young people falling away from the faith?

"Two studies conducted by both the Barna Group and USA Today found that nearly 75 percent of Christian young people fall away from the faith and leave the church after high school. One of the key reasons they do so is intellectual skepticism. But how many of these youth were actually taught the Bible in their homes or in church?"

"Statistics show that children today spend an average of 30 hours per week in school where they are often taught ideas that are diametrically opposed to biblical truths, e.g., evolution, the acceptance of homosexuality, etc. Then they come home to another 30 hours per week spent in front of a television set bombarded by commercials and sitcoms, playing video games, or connecting on social media. This is in contrast to the time spent weekly in the church classroom: 45 minutes. Given the amount of exposure to worldly influences versus Bible training, it’s understandable why young people leave the home without a Christian worldview and why many are falling away from the faith. Not only are most youth not being well-grounded in the faith, but they’re also not being taught to intelligently examine the views of skeptics who will inevitably challenge their faith. Most of these students are not prepared to enter the college classroom where more than half of all college professors view Christians with hostility and take every opportunity to belittle them and their faith."

You didn't link that to the teaching of evolution.

Christianity in America doesn't need any help destructing apart from the media reporting its excesses and failures. Science and anti-theism push things along, but aren't necessary.
 

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
Yes and he also says most people ignorantly equate evolution with atheism, so as far as he's concerned all he has to do is prove Evolution, which has masses of evidence to destroy religion, which is his goal, though he likely said it in jest.
Yes, it was tongue in cheek, Dawkins is an intelligent man, he knows he is not going to bring down religion overnight!

It is 2017, science has demonstrated itself to be the single most useful and enlightening "tool" at our disposal for centuries now. However, despite the massive advances it has given us, despite the increase in human longevity, the increase in knowledge about ourselves and our environment, sadly there is still a suspicion of it in religious circles. You can sense that from some of the posts on this thread. Dawkins is rightly concerned about that sort of ignorance, he is more concerned with countering ignorance and superstition than "destroying religion", though it has to be said that religion often cultivates ignorance and superstition. He is an atheist, like me he believes religious people are deluded, he only wants to help his fellow primates! Give the man a break!

I know you think Islam is above superstition and ignorance, a "complete" religion, it covers politics, social care, science, finance, law and of course the truth about "God" right? I am not unaware of Islamic claims, I just happen to disagree with them!
The book written 400 years before Darwin is available online: https://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ibn_khaldun-al_muqaddimah.pdf <<<Pages 137/138 being relevant to Evolution..
Sure, but I've already pointed out that the further back in time you go, the more likely the scientists are going to be religious. It proves nothing about the truth or otherwise of religion. You can be a scientist with religious beliefs; Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims are scientists. So what?


You they are not 7 literal days right?

Qur'an 22:47 compares time of Earth with time in Paradise/Hell (1 day vs 1000 years); while Qur'an 70.4 compares time on Earth with time in wormholes (1 day vs 50,000 years).

Qur'an 7:54 And your Lord, Allah, who created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and then settled on the Throne...

Those six days are on the Throne; so the frame of reference for creation is the Throne, not Earth.

We know the Qur'an tells us the age of the Universe is Billions of years:


I have complete faith in the Creator, the ALL knowing.
You never miss an opportunity to proselytise do you? Christians who see the creation story as metaphorical also use the '1 day = 1000 years' idea as well. I must look up the quote about "wormholes" in the Qur'an, sounds very futuristic! ;)
 

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
But don't you agree that a worldview that sees man as an intended creation by an intelligent designer is incompatible with Darwin's theory?
Well no, evolution is only about the "mechanism" of change in life. You could argue, many do argue, that evolution is nothing more than the working out of "God's" plan? A thin argument? Yes, I'd say so, but thin arguments have never stopped religion before now! We cannot, however, rule it out as a possibility can we? So evolution is not a defeater of religion, it shouldn't be viewed as such.
I don't know Muslim theology well enough to comment, but Christianity adds that we were made in the image of that creator and endowed with a soul, but that the beasts by implication were not, making us radically different from them rather than our cousins.

I find those ideas mutually exclusive, and I think that if most theists who claim to accept evolutionary theory examine their beliefs, they will find that either their god was not involved in the process, or that they have modified the theory to accommodate a god's input.

Darwin's theory not only needs no intelligent designer, there's no place for one in it that doesn't make it a supernaturalistic idea instead.
I wouldn't disagree, I am an atheist after all, I came to those conclusions long ago! However, give me a theist who accepts that the evidence for evolution is strong and hard to deny over one who asks me "You know evolution is just a theory right?". The theist who accepts the theory of evolution at least demonstrates an education and a willingness to recognise the value of science. In a world where shades of grey rule, not black and white, I'll take that!;)
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The problem is that, usually, there is more than one 'solution' to a given problem. So, it is very unlikely that the first life on Earth was based on proteins in the way that modern life is. SO, the question of the first protein is the wrong question. I will continue to talk about proteins in this, but in reality the issue is more likely to be questions about RNA sequences, not amino acid sequences.
Stop here and explain how the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: "The flaw is in the logic -- that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth."

Richard Van Noorden, "RNA world easier to make," Nature news (May 13, 2009),

RNA world easier to make : Nature News


Second it is typically the case that a fairly large variety of different sequences of amino acids will do the same job as the one selected by those making the calculation. This is obvious simply because different species *today* using slightly different proteins for the exact same job. The usual calculations done completely ignore this aspect.

Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins.

Third, these calculations target a *specific* protein and don't deal with the fact that many proteins with completely different roles would still be useful in the early stages. So, if 100 proteins were required, *any* of them would be good to make any step of the way. This 'which order' aspect is neglected in the calculations.

Third, the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information.

Also, and we know this from observations, it is common for the new additions to a sequence to be promoted or discouraged by the previous pieces. This violates the independence required to make the calculation at all.

Next, the calculations for the extremely low odds of a cell ignore the fact that different stages will serve as springboards for later stages, thereby again destroying the assumption of independence required for the calculation.

And, finally, it is *common* in statistical mechanics to deal with situations with probabilities much, much less that 1 in 10^70. For example, the probability that all the molecules in this room will be in exactly the half of the room they are now in is 1 in 10^(10^26) at most. And this clearly *did* happen

RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length.17 However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides. To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 -- below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe. Shapiro puts the problem this way:

The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.

Fourth -- and most fundamentally -- the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA / protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information. This poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.​

Any rebuttal from you? Can you find a fallacy in this argument?

To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk at the same time.

In living cells, information-carrying molecules (e.g. DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery which reads that information and converts it into proteins are like the DVD player. Just like the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.

This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription / translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Biologist Frank Salisbury explained this problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.

God bless God fearing Scientists working in the field of genetics. The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution | Center for Science and Culture

Another Scientist writes, " the probability calculation that a specific ribozyme might assemble by chance. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.

With the absence of a supernatural explanation for these problems, I look forward to more pie in the sky theories put forward by non believers.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Intelligent design/ creation science/ skeptics in general have made a lot of progress in science the method, but in science: the fashionable academic consensus- as above that's another matter entirely, and historically the two have often been diametrically opposed
Hi. Can you direct me to material that discusses the progress made by intelligent design and creation science in science the method? It would be much appreciated.
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi. Can you direct me to material that discusses the progress made by intelligent design and creation science in science the method? It would be much appreciated.
That is not possible because the methods used by Science can not be applied to GOD. He is outside the realm of Time and Space, and not subject to lab experiments. Depending on your reasons for asking, you have to use your own reasoning to discover evidence for God if you are interested.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
That is not possible because the methods used by Science can not be applied to GOD. He is outside the realm of Time and Space, and not subject to lab experiments. Depending on your reasons for asking, you have to use your own reasoning to discover evidence for God if you are interested.
I agree.

The post I quoted contains a claim and if there is any material supporting that claim I'd like to see it. That's all.

Oh, and nice to meet you.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
talk about inferring what you want from relatively nothing, that's what evolutionists do. then they proclaim reason in their fairy tale theory. then they act like you need them for grounding in reality. well the church of evolution is junk science, bad puzzle fitters.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Why are so many young people falling away from the faith?

"Two studies conducted by both the Barna Group and USA Today found that nearly 75 percent of Christian young people fall away from the faith and leave the church after high school. One of the key reasons they do so is intellectual skepticism. But how many of these youth were actually taught the Bible in their homes or in church?"

"Statistics show that children today spend an average of 30 hours per week in school where they are often taught ideas that are diametrically opposed to biblical truths, e.g., evolution, the acceptance of homosexuality, etc. Then they come home to another 30 hours per week spent in front of a television set bombarded by commercials and sitcoms, playing video games, or connecting on social media. This is in contrast to the time spent weekly in the church classroom: 45 minutes. Given the amount of exposure to worldly influences versus Bible training, it’s understandable why young people leave the home without a Christian worldview and why many are falling away from the faith. Not only are most youth not being well-grounded in the faith, but they’re also not being taught to intelligently examine the views of skeptics who will inevitably challenge their faith. Most of these students are not prepared to enter the college classroom where more than half of all college professors view Christians with hostility and take every opportunity to belittle them and their faith."
Nothing here suggests that there is a direct link between the theory of evolution and atheism. And, there is no evidence presented here. It is merely a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Can you provide any actual evidence?
 
Top