That's not the claim by many creationists, though. They claim everything was created exactly as things are today, which is obviously willfully ignorant.
Original view of genetic mutations is that is it chance-based in relation to adaptation (element of randomness). However, this view was challenged in newer studies with observations that suggest that genetic mutations tend to be "directed." You can find ample details here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/695...n;view=fulltext
Now we have various articles popping out all over the web with caption "misconceptions about evolution" which is ironic in the light of the fact that the aforementioned debate has not be settled yet.
Scientists themselves are responsible for prevalent confusion and misconceptions.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 12:21 PM
Even this lady admits that there are beneficial outcomes. She's struggling pretty hard to debunk evolution...
And allow me to post another excerpt from Richard Dawkins as I am reading one of his books...
What? No, that would be creationists constantly spreading willfully ignorant and idiotic assertions. Like not understanding the definition of a scientific "theory," as another example. Even our scientifically illiterate Vice President has used that same tired argument.
__________________
Last edited by Patient_Leech on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 02:35 PM
It's a waste of time arguing with that churchy liar. Creationists are inherently dishonest and/or they don't care about facts and evidence. Somebody who denies that there is common descent of humans, chimps, rabbits, birds is a Creationist no matter if he thinks the world is a few thousand or a few billion years old. You know that; stop lying.
And here's a case of an animal currently in the process of evolving:
I find the web pieces with caption "misconceptions about Evolution" ridiculous and funny.
You also stated that Evolution is anything but random - you are in agreement with so-called Creationists on this part.
---
As for Godly intervention, I have a question for you:
The comet that struck Earth 65 million years ago did (not) alter the course of evolution on Earth?
This extraterrestrial intervention enabled mammals to replace dinosaurs as the dominant life-form across the world and set in motion evolutionary processes that would eventually lead to hominids.
---
As for "it is directed by Allah" part:-
I am an advocate of "open-ended approach" to assess all developments.
Faith and Science can work in tandem for "enriched learning experience" for all of us - they don't have to be at loggerheads for the masses. Here is a beautiful argument from an atheist scientist: https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...d/#4851c7815ada
Those who are trying their best to disprove the notion of GOD with the "randomness nonsense" - are failing spectacularly in this matter and are just as deluded as those who are trying to rely upon science to rediscover GOD.
If somebody believes in GOD - so be it. No need to judge him for this belief because nobody have a sound refutation for it - all of us are learning in the end.
My faith is that all of us will figure out the ultimate truths one day.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 10th, 2017 at 12:10 PM
My faith is that ultimate truths will eventually come to light one day - and those who were in the wrong, will truly regret it on that day. This is also the gist of arguments in the Quran.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 10th, 2017 at 12:20 PM
I'm not missing the point. Creationist think life was created exactly as it is now less than 10,000 years ago. To them it's not directed at all, because it's not evolving. It's perfect and complete as is.
Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. I guess you could say it's a phenomenon that directs itself?
Yeah, I would definitely say it did alter the course of evolution. Not sure what your point is.
Evolution is a visible phenomenon but THEORY of EVOLUTION does not accounts for additional realities such as extraterrestrial interventions (and their implications for natural evolutionary processes) and how it all began (origin of life). This is why THEORY of EVOLUTION cannot refute the notion of Creation because it is just a part of the puzzle.
Creation also happens (i.e. origin of life) but we need a refined understanding of its concepts and driving forces. I am also expecting some scientists to explain "creation" with alternative terminologies because this word is like a big dildo up their @sses.
(please log in to view the image)
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 10th, 2017 at 01:03 PM
The ones who take the words in Genesis 1 in the Bible literally. There are many of them here in the Unites States. My father is one of them. See the graph I posted on the bottom of Page 2.
Sure.
Scientists probably prefer the word chemistry, seeing as God is a way to explain things we don't understand and stop inquiry.
And there goes any credibility you may have once had.
However, nobody can (and should) deny Creation - it happens. Scientists might use another term but it is an undeniable fact of our Universe.
This "attitude" is something that EXTREMIST on the Left and EXTREMIST on the Right have in common and it doesn't address anything. Atheist think they know better and have greater credibility - they are just as deluded as those biblical nuts.
My point is that ultimate truths will come to light one day - and each individual will know if he was right or wrong. Nothing controversial in this.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 10th, 2017 at 03:41 PM
No, that is a false comparison. Bible nuts believe a bunch of silly stuff in a book without good evidence. Atheists simply reject such unsubstantiated silliness. That is not "EXTREMISM" as you seem to think. It is reasonableness.
No, what you said was...
You're at least implicitly stating that there is some sort of judgment after death, and yes, that is controversial. It comes down to believing things without good evidence again. There is no evidence for such nonsense.
Debunking efforts are not really working - are they?
I am sure many Atheist are into conspiracy theories as well - they just pretend to know better.
We cannot (and should not) take scientific studies as "gospel" either because newer findings can invalidate older assessments and/or rewrite them. Many scientists and/or researchers will tell you this.
And if it is not nonsense? Dead don't talk and explain their experiences - do they?
What we know today is not the end.
Last edited by S_W_LeGenD on Jul 10th, 2017 at 04:13 PM