Evolution or Intelligent design ?

StopS

Peace,

Yes, very true. When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions...

Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

StopS

So I too will contribute with a post...

This whole conflict between evolution and creation seems to stem from the Christian dogma that Earth is only a few thousand years old and the woman was created from the rib of a man etc, and there are Christians of today that believe this. I watched a debate on BBC, I think it was, where one side represented science, and the other side represented creation. On both sides where people who believed in God, both Christians and Muslims, but atheists were of course only on the science side, needless to say. So, even among Christians and Muslims there were proponents of evolution... with the addition that they also believe in God. Things are not so black and white like many think or want it to be.

Thank you, very nice and thoughtful summary.

Especially atheists want it to be a black-and-white division.... while in reality it is not. Actually, there are two different spectra. On one axis we have 'atheist'-vs-'believer on God', and on the other we have 'open mind'-vs-'closed mind'. A person with a closed mind won't use reason, and would stick to his/her position for no other reason than because this is the standpoint strongly identified with, and hence unconditionally supported, no matter what. So, some people will claim to be open-minded, but will still disregard scientific evidence that e.g. Earth is very old, and not just a few thousand years.

There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

If you believe in God, and if you claim to be open-minded to reality, then you cannot reject scientific evidence unless there are other scientific arguments for doing so.

Regarding the conflict between evolution and intelligent design... the conflict, or contradition, is imagined and artificial. Evolution must be accepted to the degree there is reliable evidence supporting it. Intelligent design can only be evaluated if we first define it clearly. If it falls into the category of un-provable through scientific tools, like the existance of God, then we should not pit it against something else in a competition just to see which one is correct. Childish.

I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

Those who believe in a Creator that is not created, a Creator unlike creation/universe, a Creator not bound by time or creation/universe, then those believers in God would accept that WHATEVER is found by scientific methods, is simply more information about our universe and how things are. If evolution is there, then it is real and part of the universe. If you then believe in God, you would also believe in evolution... unless you are not interested in reality and wishes to just stick to what tradition and folklore tells you.

The endless debate God-vs-'no God' is utterly useless, futile and silly. And it disguises itself as many other types of debates, and the proponents on either side disguise themselves as many different things. It is one thing to debate Earth-is-damn-old vs Earth-is-not-old-at-all... and we can be objective about this.... using reason and observation and inference.... but debating God vs 'no God' is purely an exercise of Ego.... since it cannot be scientifically solved and agreed upon. Both sides should realize this and stop trying to convince the other side. Futile!!!

If we believe in God, we may believe e.g. than God has put evolution in action as part of the way things work and develop. We may believe that God is not subject to time, which means that all God's action and interventions upon this world may be built-in and preprogrammed.... because God is something that is not bound by time, time being part of creation. If you suddenly wake up to realize something and decide, out of free will, to pray for something, God can answer this NOW, even by having had it preprogrammed from the beginning of time. Remember, God is "outside" time. Past, now, future is only something that we experience.... and experience we are forced into when living in this world. As always, all debates and conflicts that are related to religion and God, arise from our limiting and faulty IMAGES of God. That's what we debate.... our IMAGES.

So, to say that intelligent design and evolution are contradictory, simply means we have an image of God that cannot accomodate evolution. If evolution is found to be real, we have to accept it. But whatever we discover, will never contradict the existance of God. Of course, some images of God may be very unreasonable and silly, and hence they may contradict the reality we discover through scientific means.... but then the problem is our image of God, not the concept of God as such. I wonder why atheists always let only the silly religious practices and images of God represent the whole concept of belief in God. It's like judging all christians by what some witch-burners have done in the past.

Peace all

Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

supportpeacenotwar

Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

Salaam,

I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

Man_of_Faith

Salaam zulf, really good post there! Highly philosophical.

Zulf

There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

Right. One should not equate 'atheist' with 'scientist' as they are two totally different things. A person can be both, or one, or neither of these. At the same time as we cannot generalize about atheists, it is likely that SOME do want a division, and SOME are not interested in aknowledgement of facts... but this goes for any "group", (even though it is often silly to talk about 'group&#039.

I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

Right. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

To be honest, I don't know squat about the proponents of ID, even though I have assumed they believe that the universe has been designed by a god. There are so many names, labels and denominations these days...

Kind regards

StopS

Salaam,

I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

"When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

But whatever, let me clarify something

science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

supportpeacenotwar

Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

"When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

But whatever, let me clarify something

science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

Salaam,

My original point was about the way debates or discussions between two sides play out. i.e. they can just end up going round in circles. That was the point that I was responding to in terms of what JewishDude said. I'm referring more to what is constructive in terms of debate and approaches of the people in that debate. Nothing really poignant just a general comment.

In terms of the rest of your posts, 'claim' is just a popular term that is used. It's part of the outsider lingo whether accurate or not. You see it all the time in news articles and so on.

I also never said that science would go around in circles. So I don't know where you got that from. I said a debate between two opposing sides would go round in circles. Not because of the arguments of one side either but because of both sides. I have been in my fair share of discussion that goes nowhere outside of this area as well, so it's not just this topic either.

This is exactly what happened when you responded last time to a post of mine. Maybe I have not explained myself in a way that makes sense to you - I apologise - but I am referring to particular types of discussion not the area as a whole. In fact, I'm not interested in bringing science and religion together as a united whole. Both groups can do their own thing so to speak. My post was more an observation and general thought on the situation.

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

For those of you who do not know much about Intelligent Design (ID), please click here to read about it first.

I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence. Basically, when we come across something that we can not explain, what we do is study that phenomena/subject/whatever. That is science. What the proponents of ID does is that they declare that thing to be "so complex that only an agency of intelligence can cause that".

Here is a situation I made up to demonstrate how detrimental such ideas can be for us

You and I are ancient Greeks. We see lighting. I ask you what that is and you say that you don't know. Then I tell you that "omg !! powerful things coming from clouds..from heaven... it is so super complex... there must be an intelligent agency, Zeus.... Zeus must be the one that is throwing these at as". You play the scientist and tell me that "look buddy, we have no idea whats causing that to happen, let us study and see what that is before we jump to conclusions based on our lack of knowledge and ignorance".

That is exactly why I am against proponents of ID. They have nothing to add to our knowledge and retards our progress.

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

StopS

Salaam,

My original point was about the way debates or discussions between two sides play out. i.e. they can just end up going round in circles. That was the point that I was responding to in terms of what JewishDude said. I'm referring more to what is constructive in terms of debate and approaches of the people in that debate. Nothing really poignant just a general comment.

In terms of the rest of your posts, 'claim' is just a popular term that is used. It's part of the outsider lingo whether accurate or not. You see it all the time in news articles and so on.

I also never said that science would go around in circles. So I don't know where you got that from. I said a debate between two opposing sides would go round in circles. Not because of the arguments of one side either but because of both sides. I have been in my fair share of discussion that goes nowhere outside of this area as well, so it's not just this topic either.

This is exactly what happened when you responded last time to a post of mine. Maybe I have not explained myself in a way that makes sense to you - I apologise - but I am referring to particular types of discussion not the area as a whole. In fact, I'm not interested in bringing science and religion together as a united whole. Both groups can do their own thing so to speak. My post was more an observation and general thought on the situation.

I apologise for my misunderstanding what you said. Thank you for the clarification.

StopS

Shalom Aleikhem,

For those of you who do not know much about Intelligent Design (ID), please click here to read about it first.

I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence. Basically, when we come across something that we can not explain, what we do is study that phenomena/subject/whatever. That is science. What the proponents of ID does is that they declare that thing to be "so complex that only an agency of intelligence can cause that".

Here is a situation I made up to demonstrate how detrimental such ideas can be for us

You and I are ancient Greeks. We see lighting. I ask you what that is and you say that you don't know. Then I tell you that "omg !! powerful things coming from clouds..from heaven... it is so super complex... there must be an intelligent agency, Zeus.... Zeus must be the one that is throwing these at as". You play the scientist and tell me that "look buddy, we have no idea whats causing that to happen, let us study and see what that is before we jump to conclusions based on our lack of knowledge and ignorance".

That is exactly why I am against proponents of ID. They have nothing to add to our knowledge and retards our progress.

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

Very nice summary in your last sentence there.

Noon_waalqalami

Peace,

In biology the female body is default. Only if something happens will the male be formed out of the female default body.
"He created the first being" Was the "first being" male or female? Was the mate male or female?

According to Qur'an female was first then from her the spouse (i.e. her mate naturally was male).

41 O you the humankind fear/be mindful yeh lord yours the one created you from nafsin/soul (f/s) one (f/s) and created min'h/from her/it zawjah/spouse hers/its and dispersed from them two men much of and women and fear yeh the god the one you asking with it and the wombs (i.e. blood relations) indeed the god he is over you watchful

I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence.

I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

How DNA Copies Itself
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VefaI0LrgE

StopS

Peace,

According to Qur'an female was first then from her the spouse (i.e. her mate naturally was male).

41 O you the humankind fear/be mindful yeh lord yours the one created you from nafsin/soul (f/s) one (f/s) and created min'h/from her/it zawjah/spouse hers/its and dispersed from them two men much of and women and fear yeh the god the one you asking with it and the wombs (i.e. blood relations) indeed the god he is over you watchful

So we are all biological clones of each other?
Why does the gender of a word, the feminine singular indefinite noun, determine the gender of the object? There is no gender allocation that I can see.
Why is the "mate" automatically male, when here it is a "feminine singular possessive pronoun"? Shouldn't the noun be feminine as well?
How does the soul which is "created" by some unknown, unexplained mechanism and process, automatically mean that a physical person is attached to it? Is the soul preserved separately when the human body dies? If yes, why shouldn't a soul be created separately and the creation of Adam is never mentioned?
Why should there be female and male souls? Do souls reproduce via sexual soul-organ-genitalia to produce more souls?

I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

I would not ask question regarding scientific topics on a religious forum. You must be an expert in evolutionary biology to be able to assess that the widely accepted Theory of Evolution is "bizarre and clueless", but I doubt that anyone here can discuss this with you at that level. Why don't you head over to a science forum and discuss your findings with them and dazzle them with your insight?

Noon_waalqalami

So we are all biological clones of each other?

It appears; same 4 bit chemical program structure with copy, delete, error correcting, etc..

Why does the gender of a word, the feminine singular indefinite noun, determine the gender of the object? There is no gender allocation that I can see.
Why is the "mate" automatically male, when here it is a "feminine singular possessive pronoun"? Shouldn't the noun be feminine as well?
How does the soul which is "created" by some unknown, unexplained mechanism and process, automatically mean that a physical person is attached to it? Is the soul preserved separately when the human body dies? If yes, why shouldn't a soul be created separately and the creation of Adam is never mentioned?
Why should there be female and male souls? Do souls reproduce via sexual soul-organ-genitalia to produce more souls?

In Arabic words ending with always female.

Which it clearly states female then spouse hers and dispersed?
41 from them two men much of and women

When it says?
spouse hers -- again always female; as in example ..,

581 hence heard the god speech the one (f/s) disputes with you in/concerning spouse hers and complains to the god and the god hears conversing you two indeed the god hearer seer

I would not ask question regarding scientific topics on a religious forum. You must be an expert in evolutionary biology to be able to assess that the widely accepted Theory of Evolution is "bizarre and clueless", but I doubt that anyone here can discuss this with you at that level. Why don't you head over to a science forum and discuss your findings with them and dazzle them with your insight?

This is a thread on a forum and did you not ask which came first according to Qur'an?
Perhaps give details how 92 natural elements combined into 4 bit chemical program?

i.e. rocks left rubbing for billions of years and one day awake asking many questions.

StopS

It appears; same 4 bit chemical program structure with copy, delete, error correcting, etc..

In Arabic words ending with always female.

So there is no answer to my questions. Just repeating something, does not explain it.

Noon_waalqalami

So there is no answer to my questions. Just repeating something, does not explain it.

I did answer and gave examples; initially female. If male would be as in?

2190 so responded we to him and gave we to him Yaya/John and cured we for him spouse his

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

How DNA Copies Itself
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VefaI0LrgE

Of course you have the right to find any idea bizarre and clueless. However, I do not understand why you believe evolution is so obviously flawed but at the same time you are not publishing your Nobel prize winning paper on the subject. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "adaptive code spring". Nevertheless, I can not help but point out that you are making it sound like an argument from ignorance. Just as I have pointed out before, with the example of Zeus and lighting, you are doing the same. "I can't possibly explain or have the knowledge to explain where something came form, therefore I will conclude that it must be Zeus/X/God/whatever." No, even if nobody in the universe can possibly explain how a phenomenon takes places, you do not get to therefore conclude that whatever you say is right. When the fan of Zeus sees that none can explain lighting, it is then up to him to demonstrate that it is Zeus who is throwing the lighting, the burden of proof is not on others.

Perhaps give details how 92 natural elements combined into 4 bit chemical program?

i.e. rocks left rubbing for billions of years and one day awake asking many questions.

That is a gross misrepresentation of Evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. The origin of life is a study that is not so much established like Evolution. It is known as Abiogenesis. Funny how what you say there reminds me of my earlier post on the subject

I regret to inform you that from my experience, what I have seen is that overwhelming majority of those who reject Evolution has no clue about it. They do not even know the basic fundamentals. Their idea is something like " A tornado going through a junkyard resulting in a fully functional F22 Raptor". If that was true representation of Evolution, would you accept it ?

And you are trying your best to misrepresent evolution in a similar fashion. Anyways, I will be eagerly waiting with the scientific community for your Nobel Prize winning paper on the subject that will overturn most of what we have learnt in the field of Biology in the last 100 years.

Peace
--------------- Student of Allah

GODsubmitter

Another interesting video where there is a lot of explanation about THE USE of mathematics in science, life and general reasoning. (Not numerology, mind you! - for people who do not know the difference between numerology and mathematics please go and learn)

Evolution or Creation The Final Argument by Dr. Rashad Khalifa
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILaHTACjV1k

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50.
The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.
Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

But, I suppose a lot of people do not study Dr. R. Khalifa's work, nor watch those informative videos...

Peace

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Another interesting video where there is a lot of explanation about THE USE of mathematics in science, life and general reasoning. (Not numerology, mind you! - for people who do not know the difference between numerology and mathematics please go and learn)

Evolution or Creation The Final Argument by Dr. Rashad Khalifa
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILaHTACjV1k

I have seen this video in the past. It is not about numerology. In this video Dr. Rashad Khalifa attempts at debunking evolution using statistical improbability. He fails miserably because he had no idea what he was talking about. Probably he should have read the Qur'an where it told him

1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and heart, all these you are responsible for.

If he did read that, its sad how it didn't stop him from spewing ignorant garbage about the theory of evolution.

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not.

Mathematicians and people in general estimated and worked out probabilities of events before the computer age too. I didn't get why he had to start the sentence that way. His sentence makes it seem like computers gave us certain mathematical laws which taught us to calculate probabilities of events. "Computer Age" has nothing to do with it. Other than trying to add some kind of credibility to what he was saying, I don't see why he should have started with that.

If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50.

He is talking about improbability of "desired" events. Anyone who knows anything about calculating probabilities would know that it isn't wise to calculate the probability of an event after it has already happened to add credibility to the significance of the event. For example, let us follow his example of cubes. Take 1000 cubes and throw them in the air. After they land, see the combinations and note them down. For example, one of them is 1 another is 6 another one is 3 so on and on. Now calculate the probability of this happening. You will find that the probability of all the 1000 cubes landing to give you those values is so low that you may consider it to be ZERO. Let's say, a figure like

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000076

We will see that the probability of that event can be assumed to be ZERO. But, will you then conclude that that event didn't happen? Are you that naive? Of course it happened. It is just that you are calculating the odds of something happening after it has already happened. Therefore, even knowing basics of this is enough to stop someone from spewing garbage like Dr. Rashad Khalifa did there.

The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.

This is where Dr. Rashad Khalifa demonstrates that he has no idea even about the biological processes he is talking about. The formation or evolution of DNA has nothing to do with a haphazard random collision of random modules. Click here to read about some common models of DNA Evolution. I don't see anyone talking about a tornado of random particles or molecules causing the evolution of DNA. This guy just demonstrated his ignorance of the topic he is discussing.

Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

The genetic match between human and other apes is not a belief or mere statement by "some evolutionists". It is demonstrably and evidently true. We are talking about GENETICS here, not faith. It is not an assumption. We have DNA evidence of this. If you don't accept genetic evidence, what more could scientists offer you as proof? A claim that it was a divine message some angel whispered to them? The rest of what Rashad says there is garbage based on what I said earlier about the misuse of "probability". He is assuming that evolution "desired" that random collisions of random thing result into a human being or a chimp. That idea has no place in the world of biological evolution and only exists in his mind and the minds of those who are clueless on the matter of evolution. He doesn't even seem to understand that no modern monkey changed into human. Common ancestry is not about that. Common ancestry is having an ancestor in common, not being the ancestor yourself.

But, I suppose a lot of people do not study Dr. R. Khalifa's work, nor watch those informative videos...

Among all his videos, I think this one is the worst when it comes to spewing garbage. In other videos he talks about things I can not possibly falsify. But in this one, he made the mistake of addressing a topic that we know things about and can actually tell when he is bullsh*tting.

I just don't understand one thing. When it comes to studying Islam, would you study it using materials from anti-Islamic sources? Does that make any sense? What we do is we study the scriptures. When we run into trouble, we consult experts in the field and listen to what they have to say. We use our reasoning to make sense of whatever they say and then accept or reject something. Why then when it comes to evolution, all of a sudden people become so dishonest. You think all the top scientific institutions and the academic arena has conspired against you? Virtually all scientific establishments in the last 150 years in the field of biology recruited dishonest people who are faking studies and winning Nobel prizes just to lie to you about evolution?

Honesty demands that you either shut up when you don't know anything about the topic or assess it fairly. Googling out anti-evolutionist materials from creationist sources is not honest by any definition. There is a reason why the scientific establishments have no problem with evolution. All the evidence we have gathered thus far points to evolution.

By the way, if you can disprove evolution, you will get a Nobel prize. Why do you think these creationists never get a Nobel prize for debunking evolution? Because making sh*t up about evolution and misusing probability to make evolution seem less likely doesn't count as a refutation of an established scientific theory.

Peace

Peace be unto you too.

------------------------ Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

I read your post and I am a little confused.

Did RK say he did not believe in evolution? I thought he was talking about evolution between species. Ie one of the species evolving over time and becoming another?
Evolution of each species developing and becoming different as time passed is a different thing.There is scientific evidence for this.
However
What solid evidence exists that proves beyond doubt that some species became other species?

For example a dog becoming a sheep?..etc..

Science through DNA study are claiming now that ths is an impossibility.according to the DNA make up of each species.

Peace to you.

GODsubmitter

But as I said, people don't study seriously Dr. Khalifa's work, nor watch the video with open mind...
Many are busy just strengthening their own opinions, or prejudices perhaps...
No offense intended...

Peace