Wld any of u guys do me a favor?
-
Khi- Yes i do. In germany i read many science magazines where they show these fossils which have been disproved again n again n also vestigial organs like appendix n tail bone n archeopterix is still called a dino-bird transissional form in science text books. These have been clearly disproven. So can we trust such "scientists" when they did not bother 2 remove such material from the text books n media? NO! GOD Bless!
Go to Berlin Museum of Natural History. See the Archaeopteryx there. And show me a living bird with teeth and long bony tail.
-
Khi- Yes i do. In germany i read many science magazines where they show these fossils which have been disproved again n again n also vestigial organs like appendix n tail bone n archeopterix is still called a dino-bird transissional form in science text books. These have been clearly disproven. So can we trust such "scientists" when they did not bother 2 remove such material from the text books n media? NO! GOD Bless!
Go to Berlin Museum of Natural History. See the Archaeopteryx there. And show me a living bird with teeth and long bony tail.
Khi- Salam. So now u dsagree with Dr. Mathew Rainbow, a very famous biologist n evolutionist, who says tht archeopterix is a FULL 100%. Besides losing something is not evolution but devolution. "Well folks we r slowly losing things. Thts how we got it all". lol Plz bro get the facts straight. It is true that there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth."
The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.33 These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them. 34
Studies by anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom, a leading authority on the subject who claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, and others have seen between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.35 For example, A.D. Walker has analysed the ear region of Archaeopteryx and found that it is very similar to that of modern birds. 36
In his book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks that Archaeopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs?the alleged ancestors of Archaeopteryx?are actually younger than Archaeopteryx "Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later." 37
All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed birds." Linking this creature to theropod dinosaurs is completely invalid. In an article headed "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," the American biologist Richard L. Deem writes the following about Archaeopteryx and the bird-dinosaur evolution claim
The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV... There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, through its own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx. 38
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution. GOD Bless! -
FYI, I am not one of those scientists that believe that birds are dinosaurs. I agree with Larry Martin, Alan Feduccia, etc. which say that birds descend from another reptile group, but still closely related to dinosaurs. So the objections to 'dino-bird' theory you copy-pasted is irrelevant to me.
Have you considered that the mere existence of Archaeopteryx causes problems to the separate creation theory?
Tell me Khizar, why do God created a bird with a reptile-like head, teeth, and a long bony tail, the a group of birds with teeth, before God created 'proper' birds with beaks and everything else? Why do God create animals and plants in taxonomic hierarchies? Why do God create bird that cannot fly like penguins and ostriches that has traits of flying birds like feathers and wings? Is God trying to trick people into thinking that evolution has happened?
Why would God create something separately in the past just to have them extinct later?
And, the most serious, WHY THE HELL are you defending Christian apologetics? The 'we are losing things' and 'devolution' mindset is derived from the Xtians' doctrine of the Fall, where everything is sopposed to be decaying since Adam committed the original sin. Which we know is not true according to the Qur'an. Or have you become a Christian after watching so much Dr. Dino?
-
FYI, I am not one of those scientists that believe that birds are dinosaurs. I agree with Larry Martin, Alan Feduccia, etc. which say that birds descend from another reptile group, but still closely related to dinosaurs. So the objections to 'dino-bird' theory you copy-pasted is irrelevant to me.
Khi- So u agree tht Archeopterix was a 100% bird, a perching bird right?
Have you considered that the mere existence of Archaeopteryx causes problems to the separate creation theory?
Khi- How come? I dont see how arx cause any pobs 2 creation.
Tell me Khizar, why do God created a bird with a reptile-like head, teeth, and a long bony tail, the a group of birds with teeth, before God created 'proper' birds with beaks and everything else? Why do God create animals and plants in taxonomic hierarchies? Why do God create bird that cannot fly like penguins and ostriches that has traits of flying birds like feathers and wings? Is God trying to trick people into thinking that evolution has happened?
Khi- The wings on birds which cannot fly have their own distinct purposes. Pinguins use them 2 swim n ostriches 2 run faster. They have some other purposes too. Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that, there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs...
Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible."39
In the same report, Dr. Feduccia also made important comments on the invalidity?and the shallowness?of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory
"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."
"If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences," Feduccia said. "Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."40Why would God create something separately in the past just to have them extinct later?
Khi- It is part of GOD's plan. Cld be coz they r no longer needed in our present environment while they were be4. This is no argument 4 evolution.
And, the most serious, WHY THE HELL are you defending Christian apologetics? The 'we are losing things' and 'devolution' mindset is derived from the Xtians' doctrine of the Fall, where everything is sopposed to be decaying since Adam committed the original sin. Which we know is not true according to the Qur'an. Or have you become a Christian after watching so much Dr. Dino?
Khi- But it is true. I only need 2 go out n look at things. Everything is decaying with time n not the reverse. Evolution is a disgrace 2 GOD. If it is true it wld mean tht GOD, GOD forbid, is a wasteful god by allowing things 2 develop by random chance mutations n natural selection. This is totally against the Quran which says GOD created us with HIS HANDS
He said, "O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating before what I created with MY HANDS? Are you too arrogant? Have you rebelled?"
GOD created everything perfect at the beginning. He can get it right 1st time. 2 claim the opposite is absurd n totally wrong.PS Bro it wld be nice if u cld give me a call on the phone or add me 2 yahoo or skype so tht we can talk.
GOD Bless!
-
Khi- So u agree tht Archeopterix was a 100% bird, a perching bird right?
Not 100% bird. Archaeopteryx is a bird. But it has many reptilian features a reptile head, teeth, small breastbone, long bony tail. And it exists after reptiles appear and before modern birds appear. Exactly what you'd expect from a transitional example.
Besides, there are no such thing as a '100% bird'. Life does not consist of separate, discrete entities. What is '100% insect' or '100% grass' by the way?
Khi- How come? I dont see how arx cause any pobs 2 creation.
Creation in the global sense, no. But separate creation, yes.
Tell me Khizar, why do God created a bird with a reptile-like head, teeth, and a long bony tail, the a group of birds with teeth, before God created 'proper' birds with beaks and everything else? Why do God create animals and plants in taxonomic hierarchies? Why do God create bird that cannot fly like penguins and ostriches that has traits of flying birds like feathers and wings? Is God trying to trick people into thinking that evolution has happened?
Khi- The wings on birds which cannot fly have their own distinct purposes. Pinguins use them 2 swim n ostriches 2 run faster. They have some other purposes too.
But they are still wings... structures built for flying. Why weren't the penguin designed with fins like fish? Why weren't the ostrich designed without wings, like the cheetah or the horse, both adapted for running?
The fact that they have wings modified for other uses point to common descent of ostriches and penguins to all other birds.
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that, there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs.
I told you, I have a similar opinion with Feduccia I don't think birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs ('raptors'). Feduccia do not deny that birds are descended from a group of reptiles. Quoting him
...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....
From 'Feathered Reptiles'
And, the most serious, WHY THE HELL are you defending Christian apologetics? The 'we are losing things' and 'devolution' mindset is derived from the Xtians' doctrine of the Fall, where everything is sopposed to be decaying since Adam committed the original sin. Which we know is not true according to the Qur'an. Or have you become a Christian after watching so much Dr. Dino?
Khi- But it is true. I only need 2 go out n look at things. Everything is decaying with time n not the reverse. Evolution is a disgrace 2 GOD. If it is true it wld mean tht GOD, GOD forbid, is a wasteful god by allowing things 2 develop by random chance mutations n natural selection. This is totally against the Quran which says GOD created us with HIS HANDS
He said, "O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating before what I created with MY HANDS? Are you too arrogant? Have you rebelled?"
GOD created everything perfect at the beginning. He can get it right 1st time. 2 claim the opposite is absurd n totally wrong.Everything is decaying? Are you not growing from a single cell into a human being? Are life not getting more diverse?
Saying that God created humans with God's hands does not contradict evolution.
PS Bro it wld be nice if u cld give me a call on the phone or add me 2 yahoo or skype so tht we can talk.
Sorry, but I prefer here. People can see us talk here.
-
Not 100% bird. Archaeopteryx is a bird. But it has many reptilian features a reptile head, teeth, small breastbone, long bony tail. And it exists after reptiles appear and before modern birds appear. Exactly what you'd expect from a transitional example.
Khi- Salam. I already told u tht losing things is an example pf devolution not evolution so how can u use this in support of evolution.
Besides, there are no such thing as a '100% bird'. Life does not consist of separate, discrete entities. What is '100% insect' or '100% grass' by the way?
Khi- By 100% bird i meant tht it's original ancestor was a bird. GOD created tht kind distincltly, not out of dinos. Get my pt now?
Creation in the global sense, no. But separate creation, yes.
Khi- How come? Is Arx the 1st bird which appeared on earth?
But they are still wings... structures built for flying. Why weren't the penguin designed with fins like fish? Why weren't the ostrich designed without wings, like the cheetah or the horse, both adapted for running?
Khi- Do u know wht u r implying by these qs? U r implying tht GOD Almighty made an imperfect creation. See now y im against this theory. It downplays the knowledge power n wisdom of our Creator. All these creatures have their role 2 play in the environment.
The fact that they have wings modified for other uses point to common descent of ostriches and penguins to all other birds.
Khi- The DNA code allowed 4 such modidification. Thts y it was possbile. GOD had already calculated this be4time so tht different BIRDS adjust 2 different environments. This is not evolution.
I told you, I have a similar opinion with Feduccia I don't think birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs ('raptors'). Feduccia do not deny that birds are descended from a group of reptiles. Quoting him
...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....
Khi- There r two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches simlar 2 Arx. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics.
Everything is decaying? Are you not growing from a single cell into a human being? Are life not getting more diverse?
Khi- NO! As i said the complex code is already there in the cell. I believe ur still living in Darwin's time where ppl thght the cell was just a simple structure but it is NOT. It contains ALL THE DETAILS HOW U R GOING 2 BE. I told u this in the beginning n still u did not get it.
Saying that God created humans with God's hands does not contradict evolution.
Khi- It does. It clearly shows tht GOD created humans distinctly, separtetly n perfectly.
Sorry, but I prefer here. People can see us talk here.
Khi- How abt making a paltalk conference? GOD Bless!
-
Evolution is a disgrace 2 GOD. If it is true it wld mean tht GOD, GOD forbid, is a wasteful god by allowing things 2 develop by random chance mutations n natural selection. This is totally against the Quran which says GOD created us with HIS HANDS
He said, "O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating before what I created with MY HANDS? Are you too arrogant? Have you rebelled?"
GOD created everything perfect at the beginning. He can get it right 1st time. 2 claim the opposite is absurd n totally wrong.Re-reading your post, I assume this is a reason for you to disagree with evolution
"If evolution is true, then God is a wasteful god by allowing things to develop by random chance mutations and natural selection."
I can sympathize with you here. I agree that evolution can be said a wasteful and cruel process. Peter & Rosemary Grant who studies finches in the Galapagos once documented an instance of natural selection On a period of drought, many finches were killed. Only a small fraction (I think it is 25% or lower) survived, and these were the ones with the biggest beaks. Afterwards the average finch beak is larger (descendants of the survivors). So many birds dead just to produce a slight amount of change. But it is a documented fact.
Yet the evidence is numerous. Organisms do have inheritable variation. Organisms do produce more offspring than can be supported by the environment. Natural selection do happen, and it does alter the traits of organisms it affected. Life can be classified in a hierachical fashion--groups within groups. Organisms show evidence of common descent in their bodies. The fossil record shows change through time, and transitional forms. Tell me, if God does not want people to think that evolution happened, then why do God left so many evidence of evolution?
It does sometimes give me problems. But I assume that evolution, as a law of nature, is not God it is not perfect. Humans, animals, plants, the universe are not perfect. Only God is perfect.
Invoking evolution does not mean God cannot be involved. If I used an axe to chop down a tree, I can say that that I chopped down a tree or the axe chopped down a tree. Same with God and evolution. Evolution is the axe.
-
Re-reading your post, I assume this is a reason for you to disagree with evolution
"If evolution is true, then God is a wasteful god by allowing things to develop by random chance mutations and natural selection."
Khi- Exactly this is one of the main reasons if not the main reason itself y i reject evolution.
I can sympathize with you here. I agree that evolution can be said a wasteful and cruel process. Peter & Rosemary Grant who studies finches in the Galapagos once documented an instance of natural selection On a period of drought, many finches were killed. Only a small fraction (I think it is 25% or lower) survived, and these were the ones with the biggest beaks. Afterwards the average finch beak is larger (descendants of the survivors). So many birds dead just to produce a slight amount of change. But it is a documented fact.
Khi- They were killed due 2 environmental conditions not coz of poor design. Tht is totally diffferent
Yet the evidence is numerous. Organisms do have inheritable variation. Organisms do produce more offspring than can be supported by the environment. Natural selection do happen, and it does alter the traits of organisms it affected. Life can be classified in a hierachical fashion--groups within groups. Organisms show evidence of common descent in their bodies. The fossil record shows change through time, and transitional forms. Tell me, if God does not want people to think that evolution happened, then why do God left so many evidence of evolution?
Khi- As i said no fossils can cnt 4 evidence of evolution. I leave u 2 think abt this deeply. I see the "evidence" 4 evolution only by propganda in the media. There is no real evidence n Dr. Kent has put a 250,000 US Dollar reward on anyone who can show one. If u r so sure u have the evidence go n collect ur prize. Wht r u waiting 4?
It does sometimes give me problems. But I assume that evolution, as a law of nature, is not God it is not perfect. Humans, animals, plants, the universe are not perfect. Only God is perfect.
Khi- So ur saying tht GOD did not design the universe in harmony n tht His creatures were not created perfectly 4 their environment. Ofcourse perfect here is used in the relative sense. If evolution was true nobody wld worship such a god. There r even some evolutionists who claim tht the creator did a terrible thing with His Design if He did it n mentions those "vestigial" organs which have been proven false. GOD gave us perfect features i.e. all we need. It now depends on how we use them.
Invoking evolution does not mean God cannot be involved. If I used an axe to chop down a tree, I can say that that I chopped down a tree or the axe chopped down a tree. Same with God and evolution. Evolution is the axe.
Khi- Dont u get it? I know GOD cld have done it by evolution but HE DID NOT n He wld NOT coz of reasons already mentioned. U just cannot concilliate evolution, except micro evolution, better termed as variation within kinds , with scripture or belief in GOD. It is BEING hypocritical. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Salam. I already told u tht losing things is an example pf devolution not evolution so how can u use this in support of evolution.
Evolution can go either way. Besides, the thing is, Archaeopteryx looks like reptiles. If things were created separately, why would it have reptilian features?
Khi- By 100% bird i meant tht it's original ancestor was a bird. GOD created tht kind distincltly, not out of dinos. Get my pt now?
Are all birds one kind then? Okay, then all mammals are one kind too. That includes humans.
Khi- How come? Is Arx the 1st bird which appeared on earth?
What I mean is, Archaeopteryx is not created separately from other organisms. The whole world is created in one act of creation which is still continuing today.
But they are still wings... structures built for flying. Why weren't the penguin designed with fins like fish? Why weren't the ostrich designed without wings, like the cheetah or the horse, both adapted for running?
Khi- Do u know wht u r implying by these qs? U r implying tht GOD Almighty made an imperfect creation. See now y im against this theory. It downplays the knowledge power n wisdom of our Creator. All these creatures have their role 2 play in the environment.
Who said that creatures are perfect?
The cassowary and emu, also flightless birds, have a truly vestigial wing it is reduced to stumps. Now why would a designer designed that, if not for evidence of common descent? Why are there flightless birds after all?
The fact that they have wings modified for other uses point to common descent of ostriches and penguins to all other birds.
Khi- The DNA code allowed 4 such modidification. Thts y it was possbile. GOD had already calculated this be4time so tht different BIRDS adjust 2 different environments. This is not evolution.
uhh... that is evolution. Adaptation to environments.
Khi- There r two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches simlar 2 Arx. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics.
The turaco and the hoatzin chick has a beak, a short tailbone, and no teeth. Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long tailbone. Those three are reptilian features.
Khi- NO! As i said the complex code is already there in the cell. I believe ur still living in Darwin's time where ppl thght the cell was just a simple structure but it is NOT. It contains ALL THE DETAILS HOW U R GOING 2 BE. I told u this in the beginning n still u did not get it.
So you are now back to following Michael Behe, who thinks all life descended from a single 'supercell' which evolves to everything?
Besides, aren't you guilty of ascribing imperfect creation yourself? You say that God created perfect things that crumbles with time. That's not 'perfect'.
Saying that God created humans with God's hands does not contradict evolution.
Khi- It does. It clearly shows tht GOD created humans distinctly, separtetly n perfectly.
The text only said 'khalaqtu bi yadayya'. Created by God's hands. Nothing said about separate creation. 'Khalaq' for me implies a process which incorporates natural causes, as it was used in the context of cosmology and embryology. 2920 says that we should try to observe creation. Therefore I do not have a problem with evolution.
-
Yet the evidence is numerous. Organisms do have inheritable variation. Organisms do produce more offspring than can be supported by the environment. Natural selection do happen, and it does alter the traits of organisms it affected. Life can be classified in a hierachical fashion--groups within groups. Organisms show evidence of common descent in their bodies. The fossil record shows change through time, and transitional forms. Tell me, if God does not want people to think that evolution happened, then why do God left so many evidence of evolution?
Khi- As i said no fossils can cnt 4 evidence of evolution. I leave u 2 think abt this deeply. I see the "evidence" 4 evolution only by propganda in the media. There is no real evidence n Dr. Kent has put a 250,000 US Dollar reward on anyone who can show one. If u r so sure u have the evidence go n collect ur prize. Wht r u waiting 4?
You obviously has not and do not want to study the evidence, because you have already decided that you are right, nothing can prove you wrong. I have shown an example where someone offered evidence to Dr. Dino to claim the prize, yet Dr. Dino didn't even bother to study it. With role models like him, I assume you won't be bothered to study too.
Khi- So ur saying tht GOD did not design the universe in harmony n tht His creatures were not created perfectly 4 their environment. Ofcourse perfect here is used in the relative sense. If evolution was true nobody wld worship such a god. There r even some evolutionists who claim tht the creator did a terrible thing with His Design if He did it n mentions those "vestigial" organs which have been proven false. GOD gave us perfect features i.e. all we need. It now depends on how we use them.
The thing is, the environment changes. Consider those poor finches in my example. They're dead because of a change in the environment. No adaptation is perfect because conditions constantly change. The earth has gone through many catastrophes meteor crashes, ice ages, global warming.
Khi- Dont u get it? I know GOD cld have done it by evolution but HE DID NOT n He wld NOT coz of reasons already mentioned. U just cannot concilliate evolution, except micro evolution, better termed as variation within kinds , with scripture or belief in GOD. It is BEING hypocritical. GOD Bless!
'God could have done it by evolution but God did not'.
Yet God left evidence for evolution. Oh, I forgot. You will not look at the evidence. It is all evilutionist propaganda.
Go on with your mentors Dr. Dino & Harun Yahya. Spread the word. Don't even try to look at the evidence.
-
Evolution can go either way. Besides, the thing is, Archaeopteryx looks like reptiles. If things were created separately, why would it have reptilian features?
Khi- Evolution means complex from simpler not simpler from complex which happens due 2 the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Are all birds one kind then? Okay, then all mammals are one kind too. That includes humans.
Khi- No all birds r not one kind. We have hunting birds which is a different kind n others. But they r definitely not reptiles n never were. Birds r superior 2 reptiles. If birds became reptiles due 2 mutations tht wld still be acceptable but not vice versa. The Quran also says tht GOD turned some humans who were disobedient into apes. Thts the reason i believe their genomes r similar.
What I mean is, Archaeopteryx is not created separately from other organisms. The whole world is created in one act of creation which is still continuing today.
Khi- Tht wld imply tht GOD cannot do it right 1st time. According 2 u He needs time n practice. Duh!
Who said that creatures are perfect?
The cassowary and emu, also flightless birds, have a truly vestigial wing it is reduced to stumps. Now why would a designer designed that, if not for evidence of common descent? Why are there flightless birds after all?
Khi- Now ur shoiwing a case of reverse evolution or devolution. I agree with tht. This is coz of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is getting worse not better. Ur very own egs show tht n u call tht evolution. Hence humans didnt come from apes but exactly the opposite.
uhh... that is evolution. Adaptation to environments.
Khi- Yes thts micro "evolution" as u term it better termed as variation n i agree with tht so does Kent. So whts ur pt? U somehow make a leap in logoc n imply micro shows macro n ths wht wer against.
The turaco and the hoatzin chick has a beak, a short tailbone, and no teeth. Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long tailbone. Those three are reptilian features.
Khiu- Arx has a sternum too which proofs it's a bird not a reptile. Besides dont forget tht fossils dont cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
So you are now back to following Michael Behe, who thinks all life descended from a single 'supercell' which evolves to everything?
Khi- Tht is possible although im not sure abt tht yet. However the codes then 4 all the features of different kinds is already present in tht cell then. Thts not evolution.
Besides, aren't you guilty of ascribing imperfect creation yourself? You say that God created perfect things that crumbles with time. That's not 'perfect'.
Khi- Thts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We r not in paradise bro. We r on earth a temporary place n everything is coming 2 an end here.
The text only said 'khalaqtu bi yadayya'. Created by God's hands. Nothing said about separate creation. 'Khalaq' for me implies a process which incorporates natural causes, as it was used in the context of cosmology and embryology. 2920 says that we should try to observe creation. Therefore I do not have a problem with evolution.
Khi- When GOD says tht He created us with His OWN HANDS this clearly implies He created us with perfect features n not through random chance mutation. The prob with u is u cant get out of ur materialist thght. Ur stuck with tht. Until u get our of tht i think u wont see the light. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Evolution means complex from simpler not simpler from complex which happens due 2 the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And this is why people keep saying 'You don't understand anything about evolution'. Evolution is change in whatever direction.
The second law has nothing to do with evolution.
Khi- No all birds r not one kind. We have hunting birds which is a different kind n others. But they r definitely not reptiles n never were. Birds r superior 2 reptiles. If birds became reptiles due 2 mutations tht wld still be acceptable but not vice versa. The Quran also says tht GOD turned some humans who were disobedient into apes. Thts the reason i believe their genomes r similar.
Are 'hunting birds' one kind? They consist of two whole orders you know. Falconiformes (hawks, eagles) and Strigiformes (owls). So that means 'kind'=order? Okay. Here's another 'kind'. The mammalian order Primates. So humans, monkeys, apes are one kind. Good enough.
Khi- Tht wld imply tht GOD cannot do it right 1st time. According 2 u He needs time n practice. Duh!
Whatever. The fact is Archaeopteryx once existed.
Khi- Now ur shoiwing a case of reverse evolution or devolution. I agree with tht. This is coz of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is getting worse not better. Ur very own egs show tht n u call tht evolution. Hence humans didnt come from apes but exactly the opposite.
So you assume flightless birds descend from flying birds? Okay. That's quite a lot of evolution, you know.
Oh, and I am getting more certain that you are becoming an Xtian. All those talk about decay and everything getting worse... because of what? Original Sin? The Fall from grace?
Khi- Yes thts micro "evolution" as u term it better termed as variation n i agree with tht so does Kent. So whts ur pt? U somehow make a leap in logoc n imply micro shows macro n ths wht wer against.
It is only a difference in scale. Run microevolution for a million years, even a hundred thousand years, and you get macroevolution.
Khiu- Arx has a sternum too which proofs it's a bird not a reptile. Besides dont forget tht fossils dont cnt as evidence 4 evolution.
Oh, it's the 'I will ignore the evidence' excuse again. Go ahead, ignore at your own will. You already decided that you are right, so why bother with evidence... The train ticket to go to Berlin to see the Archaeopteryx foddil isn't worth buying.
The sternum in modern birds are huge. Archaeopteryx's sternum is small.
Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long bony tail.
Archaeopteryx lived before there were modern birds.
But no, Khizar said, I dont bother 2 c the evidence becoz I am right.
Khi- Tht is possible although im not sure abt tht yet. However the codes then 4 all the features of different kinds is already present in tht cell then. Thts not evolution.
Read Behe. Even with the code already present, it will still gave rise to plants, animals, fungi, etc... anything you consider macroevolution.
The text only said 'khalaqtu bi yadayya'. Created by God's hands. Nothing said about separate creation. 'Khalaq' for me implies a process which incorporates natural causes, as it was used in the context of cosmology and embryology. 2920 says that we should try to observe creation. Therefore I do not have a problem with evolution.
Khi- When GOD says tht He created us with His OWN HANDS this clearly implies He created us with perfect features n not through random chance mutation. The prob with u is u cant get out of ur materialist thght. Ur stuck with tht. Until u get our of tht i think u wont see the light. GOD Bless!
Nowhere in the verse I see that humans are created perfect, so your opinion is just as good as mine.
Anyway, I'm just an illusion here, I don't exist you know. I'm a trick played by your brainwaves.
-
And this is why people keep saying 'You don't understand anything about evolution'. Evolution is change in whatever direction.
The second law has nothing to do with evolution.
Khi- Ok im talking abt progressive evolution then. Ofcourse things can devolve n this is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything degrades with time.
Are 'hunting birds' one kind? They consist of two whole orders you know. Falconiformes (hawks, eagles) and Strigiformes (owls). So that means 'kind'=order? Okay. Here's another 'kind'. The mammalian order Primates. So humans, monkeys, apes are one kind. Good enough.
Khi- Apes n monkeys dont have a speech center in their brain like humans. However they r related in a way. The Quran says evil humans were transformed into apes so here we have it. Again devolution not progression n i totally agree with tht.
Whatever. The fact is Archaeopteryx once existed.
Khi- Duh!
So you assume flightless birds descend from flying birds? Okay. That's quite a lot of evolution, you know.
Khi- Id call thuis reverse evolution or devolution n i totally agree with tht. Im refuting progressive evolution here where simple beings became more complex. Thts the whole argument.
Oh, and I am getting more certain that you are becoming an Xtian. All those talk about decay and everything getting worse... because of what? Original Sin? The Fall from grace?
Khi- Yes i believe we all have sinned INDIVIDUALLY(not only Adam n Eve like Xtians claim) n thts y we fell from high heaven 2 this world which is decaying day by day.
Two Deaths and Two Lives for the Disbelievers*How can you disbelieve in GOD when you were dead and He gave you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life, then to Him you ultimately return?
*228 The righteous do not really die; they go straight to Heaven. When their interim on this earth comes to an end, the angels of death simply invite them to go to the same Paradise where Adam and Eve once lived (2154, 3169, 824, 2258, 1632, 3620-27, 4456, 8927-30). Thus, while the righteous experience only the first death following OUR original sin, the unrighteous go through two deaths (4011). At the time of death, the disbelievers know their miserable fate (850, 4727), then they suffer a continuous nightmare that lasts until Hell is created (4046, 8923, Appendix 17, RK).It is only a difference in scale. Run microevolution for a million years, even a hundred thousand years, and you get macroevolution.
Khi- N this is exactly where uve left science n entered Religion. Therefore macro evolution is entirely religious. There is no evidence tht this happens whtsoever. There r limits set in the gene code u know which cannot be tresspassed.
Oh, it's the 'I will ignore the evidence' excuse again. Go ahead, ignore at your own will. You already decided that you are right, so why bother with evidence... The train ticket to go to Berlin to see the Archaeopteryx foddil isn't worth buying.
Khi- Ofcourse not. Fossils dont cnt as evidence. Ive already told u y. I leave u 2 think abt tht.
The sternum in modern birds are huge. Archaeopteryx's sternum is small.
Archaeopteryx has no beak, a mouthful of teeth, and a long bony tail.
Archaeopteryx lived before there were modern birds.
But no, Khizar said, I dont bother 2 c the evidence becoz I am right.
Khi- I already told u y fossils cannot possibly count as evidence. All u need 2 is after finding a bunch of bones in the dirt rearrange them acording 2 ur preconceived ideas n VOILA u can show anything u want.
Read Behe. Even with the code already present, it will still gave rise to plants, animals, fungi, etc... anything you consider macroevolution.
Khi- I actually dont support this view.
Nowhere in the verse I see that humans are created perfect, so your opinion is just as good as mine.
Khi- Read this verse then
We created man in the best design.Anyway, I'm just an illusion here, I don't exist you know. I'm a trick played by your brainwaves.
Khi- No u r there 4 me coz GOD wants it so. GOD is controlling this matrix. It runs by His command n this is actually the meaning of continous creation n not evolution. It has 2 be refreshed at every instant. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Ok im talking abt progressive evolution then. Ofcourse things can devolve n this is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything degrades with time.
The Second Law does not inhibit evolution just like it does not inhibit your growth from a simple single cell to a complex Khizar.
Khi- Apes n monkeys dont have a speech center in their brain like humans. However they r related in a way. The Quran says evil humans were transformed into apes so here we have it. Again devolution not progression n i totally agree with tht.
But apes and monkeys can communicate with each other! Anyway, you still stick to the Xtian decay theory...
So you assume flightless birds descend from flying birds? Okay. That's quite a lot of evolution, you know.
Khi- Id call thuis reverse evolution or devolution n i totally agree with tht. Im refuting progressive evolution here where simple beings became more complex. Thts the whole argument.
Are flightless birds more simple than flying birds? How would you define simple and complex?
Also, I don't know what to call the evolution from a flying bird into an ostrich or kiwi other than macroevolution.
Khi- Yes i believe we all have sinned INDIVIDUALLY(not only Adam n Eve like Xtians claim) n thts y we fell from high heaven 2 this world which is decaying day by day.
Two Deaths and Two Lives for the Disbelievers*How can you disbelieve in GOD when you were dead and He gave you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life, then to Him you ultimately return?
*228 The righteous do not really die; they go straight to Heaven. When their interim on this earth comes to an end, the angels of death simply invite them to go to the same Paradise where Adam and Eve once lived (2154, 3169, 824, 2258, 1632, 3620-27, 4456, 8927-30). Thus, while the righteous experience only the first death following OUR original sin, the unrighteous go through two deaths (4011). At the time of death, the disbelievers know their miserable fate (850, 4727), then they suffer a continuous nightmare that lasts until Hell is created (4046, 8923, Appendix 17, RK).Read and checked all verses. None support your belief of decay.
It is only a difference in scale. Run microevolution for a million years, even a hundred thousand years, and you get macroevolution.
Khi- N this is exactly where uve left science n entered Religion. Therefore macro evolution is entirely religious. There is no evidence tht this happens whtsoever. There r limits set in the gene code u know which cannot be tresspassed.
Extrapolation in science is not religion. Geologists, physicists, astronomers do that. Besides, I don't need faith to accept evolution. I just need to look at the evidence. Oh wait. You don't even want to look at the evidence because you are already sure that you cannot be wrong.
'limits in set the gene code u know'? No, I don't know. Back this up. Cite a scientific study so I can read abot it.
Khi- Ofcourse not. Fossils dont cnt as evidence. Ive already told u y. I leave u 2 think abt tht.
Khi- I already told u y fossils cannot possibly count as evidence. All u need 2 is after finding a bunch of bones in the dirt rearrange them acording 2 ur preconceived ideas n VOILA u can show anything u want.
Khizar said, 'I wont bother 2 c the evidence, no way, I am sure I am right'
Nowhere in the verse I see that humans are created perfect, so your opinion is just as good as mine.
Khi- Read this verse then
We created man in the best design.First, that verse doesn't cover all other creatures.
Second, 'ahsani taqwim' does not necessarily mean perfect.
Look at these.428 Yuriidu Allahu an yukhaffifa 'ankum wa khuliqa al-insanu da'iifan
Literal God wants that He reduces/lightens from you, and the human was created weak3054 Allahu alladzii khalaqakum min da'fin tsumma ja'ala min ba'di da'fin quwwatan tsumma ja'ala min ba'di quwwatin da'fan wa shaybatan yakhluqu ma yasyaa~-u wa huwa al-'aliimu al-qadiiru
Literal God (is) who created you from weakness then He created/put from after weakness power/strength, then He created/put from after power/strength weakness, and white or gray (old aged), He creates what He wills/wants, and He is the knowledgeable, the capable/able3711 Faistaftihim ahum asyaddu khalqan am man khalaqna inna khalaqnahum min thiinin lazibin
Literal So ask/take their opinion, are they a stronger creation, or who We created? That We created them from very sticky mud/clay . -
Who cares if evolution is true or not? Why make so many threads proving its true or false? It does not change anyones belief in God. I can understand you making one thread or something, but you keep bringing up the same topic over and over again. You're creating animosity between other believers on here for no reason.
Peace.
-
Peace
Im sorry i cant help myself brothers and sisters lol
http//www.hardichr.dk/billeder%20sjove/struds%2001.jpg
regards
Noah -
To Andya,
Salam,
'Ahsani Taqweem' means 'best DESIGN'. I know tht man has been created week. We rnt steel hard machines but can easily get damaged so tht we know our own limits. However this does not change the fact of our BEST DESIGN. The rest ive already told u my opinion. If u wanna consider fossils as evidence, fine, go ahead. Ive already told u tht fossils cannot possibly cnt as evidence, NOT tht i ignore the evidence. U twisted my words 2 make it seem i said something which i dont. GOD Bless! -
Who cares if evolution is true or not? Why make so many threads proving its true or false? It does not change anyones belief in God. I can understand you making one thread or something, but you keep bringing up the same topic over and over again. You're creating animosity between other believers on here for no reason.
Peace.
Good post Riz!
-
To Andya,
Salam,
'Ahsani Taqweem' means 'best DESIGN'. I know tht man has been created week. We rnt steel hard machines but can easily get damaged so tht we know our own limits. However this does not change the fact of our BEST DESIGN. The rest ive already told u my opinion. If u wanna consider fossils as evidence, fine, go ahead. Ive already told u tht fossils cannot possibly cnt as evidence, NOT tht i ignore the evidence. U twisted my words 2 make it seem i said something which i dont. GOD Bless!You ignore the other verses.
Fossils are accepted as scientific evidence. They are real. We know the existence of dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, mammoths, and Neanderthals from fossils. Yet you refuse to study them. Therefore I say you want to ignore the evidence. If you don't want to be viewed as ignoring the evidence, then why do you shy away from learning?