Power of mind

[imtiaz82]

Originally posted by Arnab
All in all, it looks like MOrgan was skeptical of evolution BEFORE 1900 and later in his life actually did seminal work on flies that SUPPORTS evolution via experiment and was given the nobel prize for doing it!

But he did go against some aspects about the "Theory of evolution" and he(like all other scientits) has not been able to prove the fact that evolution happened, is 100% true and it should be elevated as a Law.

As I said before, many scientists have disagreed with certain aspects of theory of evoltion while others completely. Merely showing that a scientist has worked in trying to prove the theory doesn't mean that the "Theory" itself is right.

If you really want to convince me, instead of pasting biography, you should refer me to a scientific journal where "Theory of Evolution" has been said to be 100% right with no doubt what so ever.

[Arnab]

If you really want to convince me, instead of pasting biography, you should refer me to a scientific journal where "Theory of Evolution" has been said to be 100% right with no doubt what so ever.

What is the point of contention here?

Do you concede that almost ALL contemporary (within the past 50 years at least; and majority even before that) biologists, especially after our advancement in genetics, agree that evolution happened and that it is a fact?

Why do I have to give you a scientific journal stating the "theory of evolution" is a 100% true?

And what's this obsession with "Law"? Newton's Laws are also not 100% true anymore, so what? We still use the word "Law" don't we? And when it comes to biology, there's not really a whole lot of physics-like Laws anyway, is there?

Do you also not believe in the fact that the earth is billions of years old? Because we don't have 100% factual evidence for that hypothesis either?

You are setting a 100% proof limit for me, and what is YOUR defence for creationism? Show me a scientific journal entry that even remotely supports creatoionism, lets say 10%, not even 100%.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 7:58 AM GMT, by Arnab.

[imtiaz82]

You have ALL in caps, and "almost" in lower case lol That means, even you admit that not ALL scientists in the last 50 years believe in theory of evolution.

Please, quote 1 scientist who have disproved establised laws in science. Like Newton's laws.( Is there any debate going on in the scientific world regarding this?)

Same thing about the earth being billion years old, there is no doubt among the scientists regarding this information, unlike Theory of evolution. So these are not good analogies.

If theories and laws are same things then how come every dictionary defines them in a different way.(I have given the definations in one of my earlier posts)

Since you cannot show proof to show that "Theory of evolution" is nothing but a strong hypothesis you have taken a U turn and asking me to prove creationalism.

This is a different topic, so far I have been arguing againt people who were coming up with lame excuses like "theory of evolution" to find scientific mistakes in Quran

[quote]Originally posted by Arnab
What is the point of contention here?

Do you concede that almost ALL contemporary (within the past 50 years at least; and majority even before that) biologists, especially after our advancement in genetics, agree that evolution happened and that it is a fact?

Why do I have to give you a scientific journal stating the "theory of evolution" is a 100% true?

And what's this obsession with "Law"? Newton's Laws are also not 100% true anymore, so what? We still use the word "Law" don't we? And when it comes to biology, there's not really a whole lot of physics-like Laws anyway, is there?

Do you also not believe in the fact that the earth is billions of years old? Because we don't have 100% factual evidence for that hypothesis either?

You are setting a 100% proof limit for me, and what is YOUR defence for creationism? Show me a scientific journal entry that even remotely supports creatoionism, lets say 10%, not even 100%.


Edited on, March 30, 2005, 8:27 AM GMT, by nayeem007.

[mwrkhan]

Nayeem007,

Newton's laws do not hold at the sub-atomic level. The interaction of particles at the sub-atomic level are governed by quantum mechanics.

According to your logic, If the theory of evolution is wrong and the "creationist" argument in the quran is correct then you MUST be able to point to convincing scientific proof of it. After all if the quran is infallible and cannot be wrong about anything then creationism HAS to be correct, right? If that is indeed your contention then you should be able to point to a scientific journal entry that claims 100% that creationism is right. If you are unable to do so then you cannot say with certitude that the quran is 100% correct. Mind you, you have been claiming all along that the quran contains no mistakes, if that is the case then the fact that creationism is still being debated automatically nullifies your stance.

Finally, the quran is a RELIGIOUS and NOT a scientific text.

[Arnab]

You have ALL in caps, and "almost" in lower case lol That means, even you admit that not ALL scientists in the last 50 years believe in theory of evolution.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Let me make it easy for you. What are the names of biologists in the last 50 years who do not believe in

a. the fact that evolution happened?
b. the theory of evolution, i.e., the ever-expanding body of knowledge that establishes the mechanism of evolution?

[Arnab]

OK let me help you here with a Stephen Jay Gould quote where he explains as clearly as possible the difference between 'theory' and 'fact', most probably for people just like you. Read very carefully.

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 9:04 AM GMT, by Arnab.

[Arnab]

OK a little more help even. Let's take paleontologists first.

The Paleontological Society is an international organization devoted exclusively to the advancement of the science of paleontology. At the end of 1994, the Society had 1,591 members in several membership categories, including regular, student, retired, emeritus, and spousal. Members, representing 40 countries.

THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY POSITION STATEMENT: EVOLUTION

Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases. Evolution is also a theory – an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms. Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases.

[RazabQ]

Originally posted by jabbar
Arnab, what do you think the purpose of your life is? Do you have an answer for that one, smart-a**? And "living happily" will not suffice as an answer.

The mission of Arnab's life is to do good deeds until he has built up enough good Karma to date lots of supermodels. :P Don't ask me how I know this - I just do. Why does he need good Karma? Because he is ugly as hell with a weird unibrow (yuck

I'm sorry jabbar. I might think Arnab is a too-smart-for-his-own-good overly preachy Atheist with unfathomable time to spend on this forum , but you have no right to bash his choice of belief (or lack thereof). Even the Quraan says "lakum di nu kum waliya din" or something like that - and I have a tough time believing that our prophet (pbuh) would be the kind of man who would resort to calling names to someone who, while of a different belief-system, has not done anything to mess with your salvation.

[Arnab]

All I can say is that I love to learn new facts about my appearance, my ultimate belief system and my life goals from other people on the internet. I feel like a celebrity. Maybe I should release a single like Lindsay Lohan and pose for US magazine.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 9:41 AM GMT, by Arnab.

[Orpheus]

alright I was about to go to sleep - and should have went four hours ago..... but I just wanted to say something....and not a reply to any post eventhough i watnted too..

But Arnab, will you please consider deleting the portion where you talked about Muhammad's appearance. Out of moral values... Since it's on the top of first page.. you will ocassionally see new ppl getting all emotional.

And thanks for giveing some great quotes on evolutionary facts and theory. I think it doesn't go any better than that. and there can nothing be done if ppl want to be in denial. The problem I figured is they never tried to actually look at the evidence that are here.

and I also liked that fact that you set a fifty year criteria. Ppl don't realize the advancement we made in some field relating this.

anyways Good night!!

[imtiaz82]

Your logic doesn't make sense. The fact that creationalism is still being debated just shows the current stage of science. In future, it is possible that Science will prove Quran's point.(just because current hypothesis goes against it, doesn't make Quran invalid).

For example: Quran says that Allah(God) is steadily expanding the universe.In early 1900s the scientific theories were against it, saying that the size of universe is constant. But recent research has shown that the universe is infact expanding.(In 1929 Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies are receding from the earth, and the further away they were,the faster they were moving.)

If you could have found something concrete, like laws of Physics disproving facts stated in Quran, in that case it would have nullified my claim

You are right in saying Quran is a religious book. But since it is from our creator it doesn't have any flaws or mistakes.( an example will be : A manual for a Tv, which tells how to operate it, is not a scientific book on the tv but just set of instructions, but all the facts used in the manual are based on science as its written by someone who made the TV in the first place.)- this is my personal point of view.

Anyways, I am tired of these arguments.I have no problem with you or anyone else being atheist. This whole thing started because Arnab, started stating that prophet Muhammad(pbuh) made up religion of Islam as a fact. That is a very big statement, and without 100% percent proof regarding this, people should not be making such statements.

Originally posted by mwrkhan
Nayeem007,

Newton's laws do not hold at the sub-atomic level. The interaction of particles at the sub-atomic level are governed by quantum mechanics.

According to your logic, If the theory of evolution is wrong and the "creationist" argument in the quran is correct then you MUST be able to point to convincing scientific proof of it. After all if the quran is infallible and cannot be wrong about anything then creationism HAS to be correct, right? If that is indeed your contention then you should be able to point to a scientific journal entry that claims 100% that creationism is right. If you are unable to do so then you cannot say with certitude that the quran is 100% correct. Mind you, you have been claiming all along that the quran contains no mistakes, if that is the case then the fact that creationism is still being debated automatically nullifies your stance.

Finally, the quran is a RELIGIOUS and NOT a scientific text.

[Arnab]

Orpheus, is this about the unibrow? I read in the intermediate Islamiat textbooks (for my SSC chotha) that Muhammad definitely had an unibrow and that it was considered very sexy among arabs back then.

It's just that it's not so sexy in our current society.

Or my islamiat textbooks could be bollocks. There is a very good possibility. But I still like almost all the moral rules I learned in Islamiat classes, what can I say?

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 10:09 AM GMT, by Arnab.

[Arnab]

This whole thing started because Arnab, started stating that prophet Muhammad(pbuh) made up religion of Islam as a fact.

Because that is the only logical thing that follows from my atheism.

The main contention is not abuot Muhammad, but about the existence of God. I don't think the existence of God is a fact. Everythign follows from that. SImple.

If it makes you any happier, I don't have very favorable views about Jesus or Moses either. Or some chinese prophet who had connection to heaven. Or some shaman in Africa. Or the hindu priests. You get the drift.

[imtiaz82]

While researching a bit more about this "theory of evolution" and Islam's point of view regarding this. I came across this article.

The article replies to the following querry by a muslim biologist:

"Recently a pamphlet has been circulated around Oxford saying that evolution is synonymous with kufr and shirk. I myself am a biologist and am convinced by the evidence which supports the theory of evolution. I am writing to ask whether the Quranic account of Creation is incompatible with man having evolved. Are there any books which you would recommend on the subject?" "

The reply is given by another muslim biologist and scholar who studied at University of Chicago:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

I specially request Orpheus, Arnab and Mwrkhan to read the reply and give some input.(because all your comments, explanation so far have made me think about my own belief and have forced me to look for more convincing reasons.)


Edited on, March 30, 2005, 10:59 AM GMT, by nayeem007.

[Arnab]

hmmm... Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller (the guy who wrote the reply to the muslim biologist) is not a biologist himself. He "was educated in philosophy and Arabic at the University of Chicago and UCLA" and wors as an "American Muslim translator and specialist in Islamic Law."

But anyway I will give it a better read. On a cursory glance, I like his writing style, very nice to read.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by nayeem007
because all your comments, explanation so far have made me think about my own belief and have forced me to look for more convincing reasons.

That is awesome. It's always good for any person to work those gray cells.

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 11:25 AM GMT, by Arnab.

[Orpheus]

Originally posted by Arnab
Orpheus, is this about the unibrow?
Edited on, March 30, 2005, 10:09 AM GMT, by Arnab.

WEll the only thing that sounds bad is the text after "*****". Not really the unibrow but the way it was put. Other than that, I don't t think why ppl would get emotional.

If it's the first post, then those ppl should be made fun upon anyway.

It's like this, you love your mom to death and now some f***er out of nowhere calls her ugly and a ***. You would beat the crap out of him even if he is right. DOesn't matter. She is beautful to you.

anyways, that was just a request to be considered. From a neutral perspective, there is nothing wrong with the text.

[al Furqaan]

here is a problem with "evolution" as i see it.

i don't think we understand evolution in the correct way. think about it, billions of years later, single celled, organims, eventually became us? to me it doesn't make sense. you realize that our bodies have trillions of cells. i mean you take a trillion and divide it by 5 billion [the accepted age of the earth] and you end up with, what, 200? that translates out to an average increase in cell number of an organisim of about 200 cells/ year. obviously cells dont grow at a linear rate. but still, on average in linear numbers 200 a year. cells grow at an exponential rate. so that would make the growth a bit more plausible, but still that would mean that this small incremental change that is "evolution" is on average 200 cells per year. hardly incremental at all. that is not only doubtful, but laughable as well.

and can a single evolutionary parent yeild such largely different offspring such as a mosquito and a blue whale? does it make sense?

our concept of evolution is defintely incorrect. thus i feel creationism and true evolution are in synch with one another.

[al Furqaan]

Arnab,

i'm still waiting for the completion of the reply back on page 5. when ur done let me know in a attention grabbing manner (u2u???).

[mwrkhan]

!!??! What if in the future science concludes without doubt that evolution is correct? What then?

By the way, the steady state theory of the universe (Fred Hoyle) still hasn't died out. Stay tuned.


[quote]Originally posted by nayeem007
Your logic doesn't make sense. The fact that creationalism is still being debated just shows the current stage of science. In future, it is possible that Science will prove Quran's point.(just because current hypothesis goes against it, doesn't make Quran invalid). [quote]

Edited on, March 30, 2005, 6:06 PM GMT, by mwrkhan.

[chinaman]

Originally posted by al Furqaan
.. you realize that our bodies have trillions of cells. ... but still that would mean that this small incremental change that is "evolution" is on average 200 cells per year.

ahh, the 'right' cell divides and developed into complete 'baby' being in, what, less than a year, right?

Anyway, one factor that I'm still at a loss at is "incubation". Say, by the rarest chance, one right cell was formed from the so-called 'soup'. Where and how does it get the incubation? By chance again?

Any article on it? Thanks.

[imtiaz82]

Let's leave that to the future.As Al-Furqaan stated, the concept of evolution might change so much in future that it would be in synch with creationism.(or it could be disproved all together, who knows )

You can read the article I posted earlier ( http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm)

It talks about parts of the current theory of evolution that is against Islamic view and parts of the theory that does not go against it.(An example: believing men have evolved from non-human species is kufr while Islamic belief does not go against the theory that states other animals have evolved.)-check the article for details, and don't reply with counter arguements, as it's not my writing.

Originally posted by mwrkhan
!!??! What if in the future science concludes without doubt that evolution is correct? What then?

By the way, the steady state theory of the universe (Fred Hoyle) still hasn't died out. Stay tuned.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 1:29 AM GMT, by nayeem007.

[Arnab]

Al furqaan:

I am not sure I understand your probabilistic calculations here.

Answer me this first, and then we will take it from there:

Our body doesn't have trillions of KINDS of cells, does it?

[al Furqaan]

Originally posted by Arnab
Al furqaan:

I am not sure I understand your probabilistic calculations here.

Answer me this first, and then we will take it from there:

Our body doesn't have trillions of KINDS of cells, does it?

our bodies have millions of types of differentiated cells no doubt. the average adult human, if i recall correctly, has approximately 10 trillion cells (this is the total aggregate number, much higher than the number of TYPES of cells).

life according to science began about 3 or 4 billion years ago with the simplest unicellular organisms. now suppose that a year after life first arose, you came back and saw some organisms with 1000 cells. that must have been some pretty quick evolution. or the 1000-celled thing must have been created on the spot!!!

i know that cellular division does not occur at a linear rate (200 additional cells per year, per organism). however the simple math is such that, thats what it comes to be if you took the average. an introductory survey of differential calculus (as well as common sense) will tell you that in order to have an average rate, the instananeous rate must at some point reach and even go beyond the average rate. for example, if you fly from dhaka to london in 10 hours your average speed would be about 500 mph. in order to fly at that average speed, at some point in the flight you must have been going exactly 500 mph and even faster than that. if you never reached that high speed, how can you average that speed for the journey???

so if you take the number of cells in a human (10 trillion) and divide by the number of years it took to go from 1-celled organisms to humans (roughly 3 or 4 billion years) you get an answer of about 2500-3333. this is the average number of cells an organism grew by, per year, to reach humans today. now, are there any flaws in my reasoning and if not, can you buy this, because evolutionists must?

and how do we know that evolution as we know it today, is the absolute correct understanding of it? can technology not improve in the future? haven't theories of past been proved, disproved, or modified? people used to think that the world was flat.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 12:34 AM GMT, by al Furqaan.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 12:35 AM GMT, by al Furqaan.
Reason: clarification and typo elimination

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 12:35 AM GMT, by al Furqaan.

[Arnab]

Did you just repeat your entire last post again?

our bodies have millions of types of differentiated cells no doubt. the average adult human, if i recall correctly, has approximately 10 trillion cells (this is the total aggregate number, much higher than the number of TYPES of cells).

So, you concede that the human body doesn't have trillions of KINDS of cells?

If not, then how many unique kinds of cells are there in human body? Cite authoritative sources.

Edited on, March 31, 2005, 12:43 AM GMT, by Arnab.