A Conversation for Creationism - Fundamental(ist) Errors
U195408 Posted Dec 16, 2002
Come on H, you're getting off target. You ignored my entry to pick on someone else. In fact, you're not even arguing anymore, just making fun of people. That's weak.
Rik Bailey Posted Dec 16, 2002
I agree. H from a scientist I would expect you to be more sensible. Using abuse instead of facts is rather unscientific.
Hoovooloo Posted Dec 17, 2002
OK... firstly, old fossils. What about turtle fossils, indeed? What about them? You're talking about a creature which adapted, tens or even hundreds of millions of years ago to live in a certain environment. In that time, the environment hasn't changed much. So the creature in it hasn't changed much. This is as you would expect.
The POINT - which you seem to have missed - is that evolution could be DISPROVED, absolutely and fundamentally annihilated, by even ONE single fossil of a RECENTLY DEVELOPED species (e.g. rabbits, humans, dolphins) in, say, a rock stratum dating back 200 million years. The presence in such strata of fossils of species we KNOW were around then is irrelevant. This is not a complex concept.
And the further point is that it is this susceptibility to disproof which distinguishes genuine scientific theory (e.g. evolution) from childish fantasy (e.g. Creation). Anything you throw at Creationism can be effectively countered by the simple answer "well, it's just like that because God made it that way". That renders the whole thing useless and irrelevant, and disqualifies it from any possibility of being considered "science".
"Nothing short of God coming down and saying I'm god to you will make you even consider his existance. "
Not true. There are all sorts of things I'd be prepared to accept as proof of the *possible* existence of a god. Miracles, for instance, are commonly suggested as proof. Well, great. If there's such a thing as a god, and he does actually routinely intervene in the universe, i.e. breaks physical laws to achieve his ends, then let's see it. He's god, he can do whatever he wants. No evidence of such activity is ever presented - or if it is, it's always presented in such a way as to make damn sure there's no way of checking it out. This is very reminiscent of the activity of spoon-benders who psychokinetic powers desert them in labs or in front of audiences of trained magicians...
"In the Quran it says there are those who are blind regardless of all evidence. I think you fit in that discription."
Not at all - unless the Quran is using a rather different definition of the word "evidence" than the one I use. And think it is - I think it's talking about the same sort of "evidence" that there is for the powers of Uri Geller. "Blind" in this case is synonymous to me with "not gullible", so I'm happy with it.
"Whats wrong H doe's it scare you that not every thing can be explained"
Absolutely not. I EXPECT the universe to be bizarre and inexplicable. There's absolutely no reason at all to expect life to make sense. The people who obviously *are* scared are people like you - people who look at the bizarre, inexplicable universe, can't cope with it, and invent some spurious "reason" behind it all and call it "God". That's real evidence of fear - you can't cope with life as it is without the crutch of religion. But don't feel bad - you're not alone in your inadequacy. Most people need something to believe in to make their lives tolerable. The fact that it's not real is not important - it's that belief which sustains.
"and you may be put in question of your actions"
I may be put in question of my actions by PEOPLE. That would concern me more. Too many people do what they think God wants, and too few consider its effect on other people. We should consider each other first and foremost, and the impact we have on each other and our environment. But there's little chance of that, I fear, when people are more concerned with what some imaginary being in the sky thinks of them than their fellow men.
"You say its a fantasy but have you read all the religous scriptures have you read the Quran."
No. Hands up, I haven't.
"Have you seen any thing that is scientificly wrong in it."
No, I haven't. But then, it seems I don't need to bother. YOU have read it, and YOU tell me you think evolution is false. You base that on your reading of the Quran, it seems. Therefore I don't need to bother reading it, because if there's ANY way of reading it which suggests that evolution is false, then it (or at the very least part of it) is a worthless fantasy. And when it comes to fantasy, I'll stick to Terry Pratchett, thanks. At least the guy doesn't have delusions of reality.
"Does it not contain info on things that could not have been known back then."
From your descriptions it contains vague descriptions of things which with some generous interpretation can, WITH HINDSIGHT, be said to conform slightly to what has been rigourously proven since by science. But one can, with hindsight and generous interpretation, see that Nostradamus predicted World War II, and similar. That doesn't make the "predictions" any actual USE.
"Well you would not know your ignorance will not let you pick up a Quran and read it."
Actually, what stops me from picking up a Quran and reading it is the behaviour of people who have, and who tell me about it. Those who read it, take what they need to live a good life and get on with things, I have no problem with at all, I hasten to add. Those who read it and feel the need then to try and fit the rest of the world to it, THEY I have a problem with.
"Saying religion is a fantasy is stupid for a scientist to say. Where is the proof in what you say?"
You don't understand how this works, do you? I don't NEED to prove it's a fantasy - you need to prove that it ISN'T. It is logically impossible for me to prove your beliefs false. Therefore, I don't have to. The burden of proof rests with you. Prove your beliefs true, if you can. If you could, there'd be no Christians, or Jews, or anything else, anywhere. If you could prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that your beliefs were true, there'd be no point being any other religion. The fact that, after nearly 1500 years, there are still some non-Muslims about suggests that you are unable to prove your beliefs. That is your problem, not mine.
"all I'm saying is how can you say there is no god unless you can find holes in the religous texts."
How is the consistency of a book proof of the existence of anything other than the book? You can write anything you like! It doesn't, on its own, prove anything.
"The Quran says that in it is a sign for those of intelligence."
To paraphrase Many Rice-Davies - it would say that, wouldn't it? I mean, if the Quran said "in this book is a sign for those who are really dumb", it wouldn't be a great advert for it, would it? At the end of the day, a religion wants followers, and any religion that tells it's followers that they're stupid isn't going to last long, for obvious reasons. Far better to tell them they're clever, even if they're not.
"It challanges science to challange it and every one who has so far have found it does not contradict science one bit."
Fine. Then explain this: you've read it, you believe it, you think evolution, a scientific theory of enormous explanatory power, is false. If the Quran does not contradict science, why do you think evolution is false?
Hoovooloo Posted Dec 17, 2002
Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply. This will be short, since I actually agree with much of what you say. However:
"since evolution *DOES NOT* make *hard* predictions, it is not a *GOOD* scientific theory."
You'll have to define "hard" prediction. An evolutionary prediction could be something like "if the average temperature of the environment drops by ten degrees, the organisms which survive in that environment will adapt to the temperature change." The difficulty is in predicting precisely HOW they will adapt... given that the population variation may encompass individuals with thicker fur, or layers of insulating fat, or faster/slower metabolic rates. The difficulty arises also because of the element of chance - you might have a potential ancestor of a population of really well adapted foxes, say, who is killed by a freak accident. The intrusion of probability does not make the prediction any less "hard", though - does it?
Rik Bailey Posted Dec 17, 2002
I believe Evolution is false for my own reasons. It says god created every thing in the Quran but it does not say how.
You sit there and critise me and I find it funny really. I do not know what you are trying to prove with your little anti creationist attitude that means you have to treat us all like s**t.
I have said the Quran has been examined by scientists all over the world who have all come up with the conclussion that what is said in it goe's beyond simple predictive coincidence.
Of course if you are a better scientist than people such as dr. Arthur J. Alison, Jacques Yves Cousteau and Professor Tajaten Tajasen then please point out a mistake in the Quran.
There are more scientists than that actually but I don't think I can write all there names down on here.
How do you explain that the Quran says about the early stages of the embryo in the womb which actually converted quite a few scientists, what about the fact it has about a barrier that seperates the oceans and it says how rain is formed and about the big bang and the forming of galaxies?
Fact is you are just judging me on the fact that I have faith and to you that equalls foolish. I have not said every one should be a Muslim as that will not happen as Allah has said that not every one will turn to religion. As I have pointed out before!
Trust me I'm not trying to convert you what I am trying to do is that you are judgeing with no evidence. I am saying the Quran has scientific data in it unthinkable of its time and your just like what ever. Is that scientific. All I am trying to do is to get you to read the Quran and see for your self what is written in itif for no other reason that you will have a better understanding of Muslims and there faith. Your judging me with out trial thats how it seems. Read the Quran you might find it interesting and educational.
Many people ask Muslims why are you so stubburn on your faith and other things well the answer to that is in the Quran. Its not some thing I can tell you because its something different for every one.
Its well worth reading as at least you can then say you have read the translation of the best piece of Arabic literature that exists.
Hoovooloo Posted Dec 17, 2002
Oh dear, you're coming over very defensive, Muzaak...
"You sit there and critise me and I find it funny really. I do not know what you are trying to prove with your little anti creationist attitude that means you have to treat us all like s**t."
I'm not treating you like that, Mb, treating you like that would involve either
(a) ignoring you OR
(b) blindly insulting you for your beliefs.
I've done neither. If you call what I've been doing treating you like s**t, you've had a very comfortable, sheltered existence.
"I have said the Quran has been examined by scientists all over the world who have all come up with the conclussion that what is said in it goe's beyond simple predictive coincidence."
Funny, this is the first time I've ever heard that the Quran has any value as a scientific text. How can I find out more about this? Don't, please, say "read the Quran". I want to read an analysis of it by one of these reputable scientists of which you speak.
"Of course if you are a better scientist than people such as dr. Arthur J. Alison, Jacques Yves Cousteau and Professor Tajaten Tajasen then please point out a mistake in the Quran."
OK, one more time, since you didn't seem to understand it the last time I said it...
I'm not disputing the consistency of the Quran.
I'm saying that its consistency PROVES NOTHING.
"How do you explain that the Quran says about the early stages of the embryo in the womb"
OK, tell me EXACTLY what it says. Word for word. Please.
"what about the fact it has about a barrier that seperates the oceans"
"and it says how rain is formed and about the big bang and the forming of galaxies? "
Again, tell me the EXACT wording of these scientific predictions. I'm interested...
"Fact is you are just judging me on the fact that I have faith and to you that equalls foolish."
No, it doesn't. UNCRITICAL, unthinking faith equals foolish. Faith on its own does not imply foolishness. Rejection of reality is foolish.
"I am saying the Quran has scientific data in it unthinkable of its time and your just like what ever."
I don't believe it's usefully predictive, otherwise people would USE it. Prove me wrong, please. Tell me something we HAVEN'T discovered yet, which is predicted in the Quran...?
"Your judging me with out trial thats how it seems."
Not at all. The trial is "do you deny evolution?". Your answer is "yes". My verdict is inescapable.
"Read the Quran you might find it interesting and educational."
I've a lot of other things I want to read first, but I may actually do that, eventually.
Rik Bailey Posted Dec 17, 2002
OK. Now thats clear good.
Unforunatly I can not give you what the Quran says word to word as you do not know Arabic and it is impossible to get a 100% accurate translation in English so your going to have to do with basic meaning as thats the best any one can do.
I will not repeat what I have already said you will find every thing on these two entries if you get the time to read them.
For the big bang you might find this one usefull.
Hope you do get round to reading the Quran as even in its most basic form you will find it interesting I think.
Rik Bailey Posted Dec 17, 2002
As for the scientist thing, well the three I mentioned in the above posting all converted to Islam because of the information in the Quran.
I think that you think I am saying the Quran can be used as a science book but thats not its purpose its a book of signs. Its down to the individule if they accept the signs or not. So far nothing has contradicted science and the fact is the Quran can only be understood in its glory because of the knowledge we have now.
Without that knowledge then people would or may over look statements in the Quran.
U195408 Posted Dec 17, 2002
I agree, the intrusion of probability does not make the prediction any less hard. I think the problem is that we don't have enough data to test evolution yet - We've only been thinking about this for a couple hundred years, and no drastic climatic changes have occured.
Wait a minute, that's not true, the development of cities, etc. has changed certain areas. I guess the question then is has anyone studied the evolution of organisms within a city (rats, pigeons, etc..). I'll have to start doing some reading.
Rik Bailey Posted Dec 17, 2002
You will find none of them have evolved in any way. pigeons are still the same as they always have been and rats etc..
H will of course point out that we have not had enough years for them to start to evolve in a way we can see.
If he does he is right. There is insuficent time for them to start addapting and evolving at the mo. So There is no evidence to sugest either.
U195408 Posted Dec 17, 2002
Also, they can flee the city. But I still think that the city environment could select for certain traits. Not that in an evolutionary sense the animals are different, but for example perhaps the average weight has changed, just from the simple fact that there is more food available. If this weight change is non-genetic, then I guess it is an indirect stimulus or factor affecting the genetic evolution. For example, maybe if the animals have gotten heavier, only the ones with genes/traits that can cope with excess weight will survive in the "long run".
Hoovooloo Posted Dec 17, 2002
Oh, and there HAS been enough time for evolution to be affected by industrialisation - dave, you might like to search on "peppered moths".
Basically the story is: moth species basically various colours, which is fine because they like to settle on the bark of various trees, along comes the industrial revolution, all the trees are now black with soot, and surprise suprise, in next to no time there are no light coloured moths - they've all been eaten by birds.
Much later, less soot in the air, less soot on trunks, more colours of trunk, moths become more colours. Beautiful example of selection and mutation combining to alter the characteristics of a species, and quite well documented over the course of a couple of human lifetimes.
Similarly, there was a story in the news only a couple of months back about hedgehogs. The little spiny fellas had, for about the last hundred years, been responding to cars in the way they respond to most other threats - i.e. freezing or rolling into a ball, with predictable results. >splat<
But just lately naturalists have been observing significant reductions in hedgehog roadkill - it seems the little blighters are learning that the proper response to an oncoming vehicle is to RUN. And that's a basic change in behaviour which will be self-reinforcing in the population. Runners will breed more successfully than freezers and rollers, so there's going to be more runners... It's early days for this, but the beginnings of a basic change in the behaviour of the hedgehog, and therefore a basic change to the species (because an isolated population of hedgehogs which don't know about cars would end up, if left long enough, completely different...), in response to a specific environmental factor (i.e. cars) is beginning to be noticed *right now*. Isn't that cool? If the car was a feature of the environment for long enough, one can picture fleetfooted hedgehogs whizzing across roads like racehorses... Of course, that won't happen because our effect on the environment will, one hopes, be transient - cars will be phased out in favour of cheaper, cleaner transport which doesn't flatten wildlife. Well, we can dream, eh?
U195408 Posted Dec 18, 2002
Excellent! I will definitely look those up. Now, to take it to another level - the hedgehogs had basically 2 reactions to cars
2) run away
The ones that froze are being killed off much faster than those that run away. Now, what is the difference between the two types of hedgehog? Are the type2 hedgehogs smarter? Are they learning from watching other hedgehogs? Or are they more "cowardly"? What I'm wondering is what is the specific trait that makes the hedgehog run and survive. And has that trait been present and dormant for thousands of years (maybe in the case of cowardice) or has it been something that has been being developped gradually, and is only now becoming critical (in the case of sentience/smartness).
Rik Bailey Posted Jan 2, 2003
The peppered moth thing has been proven to be false. I will go in to detail later.
Basically the two different types of moth lived in different places on the tree. The white ones lived on the bark while the dark ones lived under the leafs.
Plus the populations of each moth type increased and dicreased by the same amouunt in citys and country sides which should not happen as there was no pollution in the country side ares.
Another facter is that the guy used dead moths to take his photo's with so you could compare them to each other on the trunk.
This is unfair experiment as they lived on different parts of the tree.
Another facter is that there always the two types of moth and today they both exist. Hence never one has evolved all that has happened is that there was a drop in one moth colour and a increase in the other and then swopped rounf again later.
Ste Posted Jan 2, 2003
Hello, I'm back!
The peppered moth example is by no means false. Industrial melanism has been observed and documented in many places, from the Midlands to Michigan. It has been observed in numerous species, aswell as the original moth that Kettlewell worked upon, Biston betularia. Industrial melanism observes an increase in the frequency of dark ("melanic") forms corresponding to an increase in particulate pollution ("soot" ) that was seen to darken the bark of trees. Did you ever see the Houses of Parliament before it was cleaned a few years ago? It was black from pollution, and the same can be seen on many buildings.
Industrial melanism is fact. The scientific community recognises that Kettlewell's original experiments were flawed (e.g., the moths live in the canopy, not on the trunks, and there are actually *three* moth types), but subsequent experiments and observation have shown industrial melanism to exist.
Xanatic Posted Jan 4, 2003
Okay, I just wanted to talk about the "no scientific contradictions in the quran". I also would say that deciding evolution is wrong because the Quran says so, seems to be an example of a scientific contradiction.
In the Bible the stars are considered to be tiny little lights fitted in the firmament that is the sky. I think it also mentions multiple "heavens" Now it seems the Quran has the same idea:
Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens
one above the other,
and made the moon a light in their midst,
and made the sun as a lamp? (71:15-16)
And I'll just go look at the stuff about Costeau being a muslim. It seems a lot of famous people have been credited with converting, without knowing it themselves.
Xanatic Posted Jan 4, 2003
Okay, you can have a look at www.answering-islam.org They have a letter from the Costeau foundation saying he never turned muslim. Also something about other false converts.
Don Malvado, so bitter my cat won't even lick me Posted Mar 15, 2003
I personally believe that evolution happens instantly on a geological scale, so fossils of intermittent spices are never found because they're incredibly rare.
Are you aware that to begin with there were 2 types of coral, both of which became extinct during the Permian (290 to 250 million years ago). Where as the type of coral we know today appeared in the mid Triassic (230Ma). It seems that they disappeared for about 50 million years before coming back in a slightly altered form. This apparently happens surprisingly often and highlights our lack of knowledge of the fossil record. Just because we haven't found it does not mean it has anything to do with god
I'm rather more willing to believe that the Quran is very open to interpretation than believe that it contains all the secrets of the universe. It seems quite odd that people should claim now that the Quran contains all the present theories of science, even when these may not be correct.
Key: Complain about this post
- 61: U195408 (Dec 16, 2002)
- 62: Rik Bailey (Dec 16, 2002)
- 63: Hoovooloo (Dec 17, 2002)
- 64: Hoovooloo (Dec 17, 2002)
- 65: Rik Bailey (Dec 17, 2002)
- 66: Hoovooloo (Dec 17, 2002)
- 67: Rik Bailey (Dec 17, 2002)
- 68: Rik Bailey (Dec 17, 2002)
- 69: U195408 (Dec 17, 2002)
- 70: Rik Bailey (Dec 17, 2002)
- 71: U195408 (Dec 17, 2002)
- 72: Rik Bailey (Dec 17, 2002)
- 73: Hoovooloo (Dec 17, 2002)
- 74: U195408 (Dec 18, 2002)
- 75: Rik Bailey (Jan 2, 2003)
- 76: Ste (Jan 2, 2003)
- 77: Xanatic (Jan 4, 2003)
- 78: Xanatic (Jan 4, 2003)
- 79: Don Malvado, so bitter my cat won't even lick me (Mar 15, 2003)