i totally have lost all signs of evolution

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thanks for your attempts
The reality of space migration
There is a hadith on the Messenger Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, saying
Viruses and bacteria come from space
The hadith says
Gabriel Angel brought me a fever and plague
Spread the fever in Mecca and madina then he send the plague to the Levant
The plague cannot enter Mecca and madina and may this can prove scientifically

from this hadith give me idea that
It is not for everything to evolution from one source in the universe
the creator is one, but the others came differents ways

I know that the behavior of viruses or bacteria develops to become more resistant to antibiotics or may be tampered with in a virus in biological wars

I know chestnut is an effective treatment for the secret disease of Prophet Moses.

Like a person, he began to know the laws of crime and began to master the law-breaking processes

How do I prepare this evolution in behavior is evidence that God created everyone from the same source (with the failed theory of evolution)


Religion in Islam is not the same as religion in Christianity or Judaism
The Qur'an has many scientific facts
Scientific words precede time
And also the hadiths of the Prophet

The lack of ability to obtain the answer does not mean that it is correct
Just this is what I wanted to say in the beginning
Thank you with respect
There are many prophet hadiths that talk about scientific facts in the subject of biology before their time
its hard to search and find
but can give us something to idea

You are mistaken -- there is no science in the Qur'an. I don't object to your religious beliefs, but I do object to you calling them "scientific," when they are nothing of the kind. And are, in fact, dead wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

In general, you are not representative of the official agencies that determine the backgrounds of others.

Your post reflect what I posted. I you wish that your background reflects something else, please have that reflect your posts.

There is no evidence yet to prove that you are more scientifically superior than me in the field of knowledge in the field of creation.

I have made no effort to prove anything. My posts reflect the objective verifiable evidence for the nature of our physical existence based on the current knowledge.

If you wish to present counter evidence based on science, please do.

I believe inside my heart that God is great and he has not been creat the creation by the theory of evolution (from my complete and sincere faith).

You base your view on what you believe. I base my view on the objective verifiable evidence of thousand of research and discoveries over the past several hundred years.

But I don’t mind reading incomplete and weak scientific research like Darwin
Since I am superior in heart, I do not mind

You're the one claiming to be superior based on no evidence not me. Darwin is only one thousands of scientists that have made discoveries, and published research over the past several hundred years.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong again. A lot of Christians support the theory. They also support the bible as well.


Charles Darwin's words does not determine whether or not the theory of evolution is right or wrong. His opinions is not the authority of the theory. It's the evidence that determines whether it's right or wrong. Once science find evidence showing that the theory of evolution is wrong, then the theory will no longer be a use as a scientific model.

Since you misquoted Darwin, I'll post what he said.

"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 confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory."
- Charles Darwin

I realize this thread is not about evolution (in a way), but you mentioned Darwin and evidence of the theory of evolution, so I'll say that the scientific opinion of whatever is called evidence is rather regularly changing as to the perception of what the evidence is said to mean.

For instance, as I was reviewing the information or "evidence" of what evolutionists say about humans closest common ancester, I came across this comment by a scientist:
"There appears to be a decrease in overall body size within our lineage, rather than size simply staying the same or getting bigger with time, which goes against how we generally think about evolution," Grabowski said." (Taken from New study suggests that last common ancestor of humans and apes was smaller than thought)
So -- as far as fitting the evidence in with the theory, it is clear that scientists review the evidence as changing perception (ideas) as to its relevance to the application of the theory. So, while Charles Darwin formed a theory of progression of life as he understood it, based on what he observed, the evidence and scientific opinions as to how it relates to the theory changes. Therefore, and in any case, according to science, it really and simply cannot be proved.

So far I see no (verifiable) evidence that the theory of evolution and natural selection as far as progression or continuation of life forms is true, although I can see that if a person believes in the theory, it can easily be made to say that a fossil or similar discovery or thought fits in with that theory. I used to believe it. I used to believe almost anything scientists said because they were the scientists and would know what they were talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your post reflect what I posted. I you wish that your background reflects something else, please have that reflect your posts.



I have made no effort to prove anything. My posts reflect the objective verifiable evidence for the nature of our physical existence based on the current knowledge.

If you wish to present counter evidence based on science, please do.




You base your view on what you believe. I base my view on the objective verifiable evidence of thousand of research and discoveries over the past several hundred years.



You're the one claiming to be superior based on no evidence not me. Darwin is only one thousands of scientists that have made discoveries, and published research over the past several hundred years.

Hello again, shunydragon. You said that your posts reflect the verifiable evidence for the nature of our physical existence based on the current knowledge. Can you be a bit more explicit about that? What do you mean by "verifiable evidence," and what do you mean about "nature of our physical existence"? Please be so kind as to explain, thank you so much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not satisfied with an idea of the theory of evolution
Because no old book proves that there were creatures evolved

There also aren't any old books discussing the nature or existance of black holes.
What of it?

Not even in the stories of ancestors that there is a being that evolved from an object

1. the theory of evolution doesn't say that "beings" evolve from "objects"
2. our oldest stories are at best a few thousand years old, while homo sapiens evolved more then 150.000 years ago, gradually over a long period of time (many times longer then a single human lifetime). So why would you expect any story to attest to this?

Besides, there are no traces of failed attempts to create

Why would there be?

All I watch is the continuous extinction of creatures

And development.

I am the heavens photographer who draws on the water board (painting), and every day I was draw a creatures in it and then i can breath on some things, and it becomes a separate object to this earth

No clue what that is supposed to mean.

And every day I draw in the heavens on this painting and over the years I gathered many creatures
Do you know who I am? ( He is God)

Sounds like poetic symbolism without any roots in observable reality.

Speech refers to God, just I want to clarify the idea of creation

Which will inevitably end up in you trying to explain a mystery (in your mind) by appealing to an even bigger mystery.

Painters draw daily many designs that may be different or may be close to each other

Paintings are nothing like biological creatures that reproduce with variation and which are in a constant struggle for survival and in competition with peers over limited resources.
No comparison. Not even apples an oranges, but rather organic apples and plastic oranges.

It is easier than evolution

It's not, because it requires the assumption of supernatural undemonstrable and unsupportable entities. ie: it requires the invoking of magic.

While evolution is a natural process that inevitably occurs when you have biological organism that reproduce with variation and are in competition over natural resources. Evolution doesn't require the assumption of any undemonstrable entities or sub-processes. Every single aspect of the evolutionary process is empirically testable, demonstrable and observable.

, years, and that God is a slow and unreasonable creator

Denying evolution and favouring creationism is exactly what leads to an unreasonable creator, since that requires believing that this god went out of his way to make all of existance LOOK as if life evolved and he had nothing to do with the development of specific species.

It would inevitably lead to the conclusion that your god is extremely deceptive.
If you insist on including a creator god, the only reasonable way to do it, is to say that he designed life in such a way that it inevitably evolves into all the diversity that we observe today. That evolution was his instrument / tool. That the evolutionary process is how he creates species.

Off course, there is no evidence of that whatsoever, but at least such a view is consistent with empirical reality. As in: it doesn't contradict the evidence we find and observe. Creationism does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Likewise, the earth in its inception was created as a complement to living, and what happens is only extinction processes, not congenital renewal

Find me a mammal in pre-cambrian strata.
Find me a homo sapiens buried with a T-rex.


The fossil record clearly shows a progression.
Mammals weren't around in the pre-cambrian, because mammals hadn't evolved yet.
Homo sapiens weren't around in the jurassic, because homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet.

 

[Audie]

I used to believe almost anything scientists said because they were the scientists and would know what they were talking about.

And now you know more than any scientist in the world.
That is some progress!

 

[Audie]

Find me a mammal in pre-cambrian strata.
Find me a homo sapiens buried with a T-rex.


The fossil record clearly shows a progression.
Mammals weren't around in the pre-cambrian, because mammals hadn't evolved yet.
Homo sapiens weren't around in the jurassic, because homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet.

I would love to see an informed and thoughtful response
to that, but have no dream that you will get anything resembling
that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hello again, shunydragon. You said that your posts reflect the verifiable evidence for the nature of our physical existence based on the current knowledge. Can you be a bit more explicit about that? What do you mean by "verifiable evidence," and what do you mean about "nature of our physical existence"? Please be so kind as to explain, thank you so much.

These terms are related and should not be hard to understand, because it simply is related to the methods of science.. The nature of our physical existence is simply that which is physical and can be predictably measured and verified be repeated measurements in different times and places. Like when we measure the attributes of rocks, air and water, and it is the same 200 hundred or one hundred years ago, ten years ago and today.

 

[YoursTrue]

These terms are related and should not be hard to understand, because it simply is related to the methods of science.. The nature of our physical existence is simply that which is physical and can be predictably measured and verified be repeated measurements in different times and places. Like when we measure the attributes of rocks, air and water, and it is the same 200 hundred or one hundred years ago, ten years ago and today.

These terms are related and should not be hard to understand, because it simply is related to the methods of science.. The nature of our physical existence is simply that which is physical and can be predictably measured and verified be repeated measurements in different times and places. Like when we measure the attributes of rocks, air and water, and it is the same 200 hundred or one hundred years ago, ten years ago and today.

How does physical evidence relate to the theory of evolution, or God's existence? One can say certain things, but it doesn't have to mean it's true. So can you explain a little as to how the physical evidence relates to evolution?

 

[Howard Is]

"blow into someone's face, ear, or mouth or into a paper bag"

Potty mouth !

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It boggles the mind how anyone in this day can still deny evolution. Creationist arguments have been beaten to a bloody pulp, but yet they linger on along with clear signs and indications of scientific illiteracy. It does seem more must be done to get religious mythos removed from science.

 

[YoursTrue]

I very apologize because my response was not good
I know that you do not believe in it, but I will write you an experience that may help

let start

Why when an astronaut travels, he can only travel with authority and complete equipment
I mean, why is it not graded as the theory of evolution?
Why did he come out with enormous equipment and techniques to continue to survive
This reflects that when the earth became viable, it was not found in the theory of evolution as it was when a person exited to space by providing an integrated infrastructure and then life

I think this is an effective science experiment to measure the wrong theory of evolution

My belief is also very strong
Things were born, like a painter on a watercolor, and each drawing is different

We know that most creatures are present in the water

Hello. I can understand your illustration about the astronaut (I think, not exactly sure), but I'm interested in your last sentence about most creatures are present in the water. Of course, man cannot live without water. But what do you mean that most creatures are present in the water? Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

It boggles the mind how anyone in this day can still deny evolution. Creationist arguments have been beaten to a bloody pulp, but yet they linger on along with clear signs and indications of scientific illiteracy. It does seem more must be done to get religious mythos removed from science.

While I don't believe that evolution is the reason humans are alive, I wll agree that religion has caused great harm and suffering to mankind. And I am a believer in God and the Bible as God's expression to mankind. There are indications in the Bible that show that God is going to remove every cause and obstacle to accomplish what is needed for mankind's continued existence in peace, and that includes the removal of false religion. This is found especially in the book of Revelation, a book I notice many who claim to be Christian are afraid of reading.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While I don't believe that evolution is the reason humans are alive

And yet all evidence strongly indicates all life evolved to its current form via evolution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am not satisfied with an idea of the theory of evolution
Because no old book proves that there were creatures evolved
Not even in the stories of ancestors that there is a being that evolved from an object
Besides, there are no traces of failed attempts to create
All I watch is the continuous extinction of creatures

I am the heavens photographer who draws on the water board (painting), and every day I was draw a creatures in it and then i can breath on some things, and it becomes a separate object to this earth
And every day I draw in the heavens on this painting and over the years I gathered many creatures
Do you know who I am? ( He is God)
Speech refers to God, just I want to clarify the idea of creation

Painters draw daily many designs that may be different or may be close to each other
It is easier than evolution, years, and that God is a slow and unreasonable creator

I suppose you haven't come across painting Cladistics perhaps?

 

[shunyadragon]

How does physical evidence relate to the theory of evolution, or God's existence? One can say certain things, but it doesn't have to mean it's true. So can you explain a little as to how the physical evidence relates to evolution?

First, I am uncertain where you are going with this. What is 'true' in terms of science only refers to the individual physical facts, and not concerning the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The objective verifiable evidence is the foundation of all sciences, without exception. Evolution and abiogenesis are sciences based on the scientific methods just like all the basic sciences.

 

[Audie]

While I don't believe that evolution is the reason humans are alive, I wll agree that religion has caused great harm and suffering to mankind. .

Hmm, I don’t believe it is either.
It’s real obvious that it is part of the reason.
That much was pretty easy.
There are far deeper mysteries,
don’t you think so?

 

[YoursTrue]

First, I am uncertain where you are going with this. What is 'true' in terms of science only refers to the individual physical facts, and not concerning the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The objective verifiable evidence is the foundation of all sciences, without exception. Evolution and abiogenesis are sciences based on the scientific methods just like all the basic sciences.

Yet again, despite the fossil and mineral evidence as working into the theory, scientists have not as yet found the 'missing' link between humans and whatever they think they descended from as well as anything beyond guessing how life got started.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet all evidence strongly indicates all life evolved to its current form via evolution.

I have looked at some of the evidence reported on, and taken from a different perspective than what I formerly had (believing what they told me), I no longer see what is called evidence as fitting into the theory of virtual mechanical evolution as if that is what caused the division between plants and animal life, also what caused apes to 'evolve' into humans, or dinosaurs become birds. I see similarities in structures, but I no longer see that as evolution. If I saw evidence of evolution, I would believe it. But I don't. What I mean by that is that I'd personally have to see it in action somehow. But I don't because...there is none.