Do Muslims believe in creationism or evolution?

nesf

af_thefragile wrote: »

^Nope, I think building a car over a million years would be rather a slow, gradual and granular process. Okay, lets take the garage's roof off and let it be exposed to the elements. All the necessary material to build the ferrari is available in the garage. Frequent storms and other natural forces moves the parts around eachother so that they "might" get alligned in the right way over the million years.

Can you expect to see a shiney new ferrari in that garage if you walk in there after about a million years??

I presume your most logical answer would be NO! Cuz you need a proper mechanic who knows how to build a proper ferrari to be present in the garage to build the car.
Maybe there was a "mechanic" who built the universe too? After all everything in the universe is more mechanical than random. If you could tend to agree with me.

Does a "form" imply a creator? Snowflakes are precise sharply defined shapes but there isn't someone up in the clouds sculpting each one individually. Yet they look far too complex to just be "random".

af_thefragile

There is physics behing the formation of snowflakes.
Physics is what explains how the earth was made and how the universe stays in balance.
But if you ever looked into theoretical physics you'ld find out all the laws of physics break down when you go right back at the time of the formation of the universe just after the big bang. [Stephen Hawkings explains it in The Brief History on Time].

Physics can explain why showflakes form and why they fall to the ground when they form.
Physics can't explain how or why the universe exactly was formed.
Physics can't explain how a bunch of atoms came together to form the ultra-complex DNA molecule and how that combined with another bunch of atoms all by itself to eventually form the most spectacular mechanical framework of atoms and molecules working completely in sync with eachother forming the human body.

nesf

af_thefragile wrote: »

There is physics behing the formation of snowflakes.
Physics is what explains how the earth was made and how the universe stays in balance.
But if you ever looked into theoretical physics you'ld find out all the laws of physics break down when you go right back at the time of the formation of the universe just after the big bang. [Stephen Hawkings explains it in The Brief History on Time].

Physics can explain why showflakes form and why they fall to the ground when they form.
Physics can't explain how or why the universe exactly was formed.
Physics can't explain how a bunch of atoms came together to form the ultra-complex DNA molecule and how that combined with another bunch of atoms all by itself to eventually form the most spectacular mechanical framework of atoms and molecules working completely in sync with eachother forming the human body.

Physics explains how, not why these things happened. It's not concerned with the why question, it's a philosophical question not a scientific one. Most of the trouble with this is because people confuse the two questions as being the same.

af_thefragile

No, i'm pretty sure physics does explain why snowflakes form.
I presume you are confusing yourself here.

Physics can explain why we need to sleep at nights, why we walk the way we do, why we eat the way we eat, why we see the way we see.

Physics cannot explain the why the universe formed.

Physics cannot explain HOW humans evolved.

Evolution is a mere hypothesis. It doesn't have enough evidence to it to even state is as a theory.
Though some people completely overlook that fact and like to state it as a theory.
Still, its not a fact!

Schuhart

nesf wrote: »

Your image is one of something springing fully complete from nothing rather than the slow gradual granular process that is evolution.

Is it also fair to say the ‘nuts and bolts assembling themselves’ point relates more to life in general coming into existence, rather than the specific history of our species. That said, I take it the poster has read the thread from the start and we don’t need to repeat all that stuff again about evolution not purporting to explain how life came to exist in the first place.

The relevance of evolution to humans is presumably just whether or not we accept the reasonable evidence that suggests we share a common ancestor with apes. We don’t need to imagine humans spontaneously emerging from a big pool of gloop. We just have to envisage an animal that would be the parent of us and our cousins such as Chimps. That animal would, of course, have its own ancestry and, as you say, the gradual climb of ‘Mount Improbable’ becomes clearer.

nesf

af_thefragile wrote: »

No, i'm pretty sure physics does explain why snowflakes form.
I presume you are confusing yourself here.

You don't seem to understand the distinction I was making.

Ekancone

Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.
Evolution is not random. Biology doesn't say it is.


Do we understand?

Yes []

No []

I actually know this but i would rather purport this ignorant viewpoint in order to degrade evolutionary theory. []

Simon.d

af_thefragile wrote: »

There is physics behing the formation of snowflakes.
Physics is what explains how the earth was made and how the universe stays in balance.
But if you ever looked into theoretical physics you'ld find out all the laws of physics break down when you go right back at the time of the formation of the universe just after the big bang. [Stephen Hawkings explains it in The Brief History on Time].

The laws of physics are only theories in reality, man made approximations to the workings of the world around us, so just because they don't describe something in no way means that physics can't. We don't know how to describe the big bang as of yet, but that knowledge probably isn't that far off, as Stephen Hawkings fully believes himself.. CERNs research on black holes, commencing this year, might have something to do with it..

af_thefragile wrote: »

Physics can't explain how a bunch of atoms came together to form the ultra-complex DNA molecule and how that combined with another bunch of atoms all by itself to eventually form the most spectacular mechanical framework of atoms and molecules working completely in sync with eachother forming the human body.

Again physics can explain the ultra complex formation of our DNA.. That's done by evolution I'm afraid.. It can track our complex code back down to the very simplistic nucleotide sequence of our ancestral bacterium species.

What we haven't quite figured out is what kick started evolution into motion.. How the first reproducing, self replicating organism came about.. Many of the necessary components for this spontaneous eruption of life have been replicated in the lab, i.e. spontaneous cell like structures forming, the necessary chemicals like Amino Acids and RNA being synthesised etc etc.. So a good & solid theory explaining this event mightn't be too far off either..

af_thefragile

^If you look into it the probability of a DNA molecule forming on its own is 1 in 1x10^600.
I'll explain out the maths if you ask me to.
And thats too little a probability to just happen by itself.

Physics is not just a bunch of theories. Its a bunch of facts too. Gravity is a fact, pressure is a fact, Newtons 3 laws are facts.
Infact evolution is a theory. Actually there's not even evidence to call it a theory. Its just a mere hypothesis.
Sure scientists can put together the necessary chemicals in their exact proportions to form Amino Acids and RNA. But scientists have a mind of thier own. They have hands and instruments to find all the necessary chemicals and put them together themselves. They know how much energy is required for the process, they know how to obtain the right conditions and they artificially create them.
Infact what they are creating is what goes on in the human body. Not what happened when the first organisms came about.

Scientists have a mind and high level of intelligence to create these things. I doubt nature has that much of intelligence to somehow manage to bring together all the necessary components on its own and create the exact conditions for the synthesis of those structures.
Failing to explain what kick started evolution is where the whole theory of evolution fails. You can create all the proteins and cells to form the organism, but you can't give it a soul, you can't give it life. All you'll be left with is a replica of the lifeless organism. You can put together bunch of molecues in the exact way and form DNA, you can put together amino acids and form proteins, you can manage to artificially form a cell. There's no guarantee the cell is actually gonna function. You can give it the shape but you can't give it life.
And this is where evolution fails.

If you look at it, everything is created. Nothing evolves. You never see houses building up on their own, you never see a computer becoming more intelligent on its own (infact the opposite happens here). Sure you do keep getting more and more intelligent computers nowdays and you might say computer's are "evolving". But think bout it, are they evolving on their own? No. There are a bunch of scientists and engineers working day and night to CREATE better and more intelligent computers.
Nothing just evolves into something better by itself. There's always someone behind it who's making it happen.

If you say nature is inteligent enough to bring all the necessary components together to create life on its own. Think bout it, what could that intelligence be?...God?!

After all we don't share Michaelangelo's idea of God as a big old man with a long white beard, sitting on top of a cloud.
We (or atleast I), believe God is an energy. He's got no materialistic, organic or physical form. He's just pure energy. He's light (noor) and light is energy. He's intelligent and he's everywhere.
He's the energy that drives the universe. He's the energy and the intelligence that runs nature. He's the energy that governs physics. He's what contains the universe.
We cannot trully explain or understand what God is. But if we look at physics and go with Einstine's law of conservation of mass-energy. The total amount of mass-energy in this universe always remains constant. It just keeps converting from one form into another.

First before the big bang, in the universe there was just pure energy. Then something caused this energy to start converting into matter (big bang) and thats what keeps happening in the universe. In nebulas energy is being converted constantly into matter. While in black holes matter keeps getting converted constantly back into energy.

Thinking about what was there before the universe (big bang) and answering nothing is not true. There was Energy.
That Energy was God. God was always there and he always will be there. There was pure energy before matter in the universe. Energy great enough from where the whole universe and all the matter contained in it was formed. Energy powerful enough to fuel and run the whole universe. Energy intelligent enough that all intelligence comes from it. All the physics, chemistry and biology. All the laws of the world and universe are formed by it. Its the Energy that balances the universe. Energy that is constant, energy that is intelligent, energy that creates things and even destroys it. Energy that was always there and will always remain.
That energy is God.

Schuhart

af_thefragile wrote: »

Newtons 3 laws are facts.

Facts or approximations?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Infact evolution is a theory. Actually there's not even evidence to call it a theory. Its just a mere hypothesis.

What part of evolution would you feel looks to be questionable? Do you feel the idea that life inherits features from previous generations is unsound? Or do you see the problem as envisaging that life with features that makes its reproduction relatively more successful will thrive compared to life that doesn't?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Thinking about what was there before the universe (big bang) and answering nothing is not true. There was Energy.
That Energy was God. God was always there and he always will be there.

But have you any evidence at all for these assertions? A moment ago you were saying evolution only has enough evidence to make it a hypothesis. By that standard, surely your statements about God simply amount to wild speculation.

c0rk3r

ha! Eureka

Thats exactly my thinking on the subject too af_thefragile. brilliant post

af_thefragile

Schuhart wrote: »

Facts or approximations?What part of evolution would you feel looks to be questionable? Do you feel the idea that life inherits features from previous generations is unsound? Or do you see the problem as envisaging that life with features that makes its reproduction relatively more successful will thrive compared to life that doesn't?But have you any evidence at all for these assertions? A moment ago you were saying evolution only has enough evidence to make it a hypothesis. By that standard, surely your statements about God simply amount to wild speculation.

1. I'm pretty sure Newton's Laws are facts. Or else they wouldn't be LAWS. Or even if they are just approximations, they're pretty damn close ones.

2. Evolution states the universe doesn't need a God (or atleast many evolutionists say that), life was created by itself as a matter of probability and chance. (Saying evolution is not random is contradicting yourself, or atleast the basis of how life was initially formed is a contradiction to not random). That is whats questionable about evolution. I never said all of evolution was false. There are bits of evolution thats true. All that natural selection stuff is pretty true.

3. No i don't have any hard evidence for my assertions. Apart from my understanding of science (physics, matter, energy, universe) and whats written in the Quran (where it repeatedly states God is light). My statements about God are by no way a theory. I did state it that no one can trully explain or understand what God is. Its just my personal understanding. You can go ahead scrutinize and confront all the statements i made and see if you can come up with something better. I never stated my understanding should be universally believed. I'm by no means an expert in this field. My understanding is just my hypothesis of God and the universe. It makes perfect sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to anyone else, they can go and find their own littler theory or hypothesis that can make more sense to them.

For me Religion does not contradict with science. It infact complements it.
I always try to make scientific connections to what knowledge i get from religion and religious connections to science. Islam is not like Catholicism where you'ld be condemned a heretic and burned at the stake for believing the earth was not the center of the universe. Islam welcomes science. Its true we're just an insignificant spec of dust in a vast desert that stretches across the universe. Its even true you can even find a whole world in a grain of sand.

You can never find the true answer. All we can do is keep searching for a better answer. Life is a test of faith and you can choose to believe.


To end with a quote from Albert Einstein:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

af_thefragile

af_thefragile wrote: »

1. I'm pretty sure Newton's Laws are facts. Or else they wouldn't be LAWS. Or even if they are just approximations, they're pretty damn close ones.

they're a bit out when you're dealing with genrel or quantum scales

2. Evolution states the universe doesn't need a God (or atleast many evolutionists say that)

1- it does not say any such thing. remotely. don't lie about it
2- what some "evolutionists" say has as much bearing on the truth of evolution as what some religious fundies say has on religion as a whole

, life was created by itself as a matter of probability and chance. (Saying evolution is not random is contradicting yourself, or atleast the basis of how life was initially formed is a contradiction to not random).

Except evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so how life began, randomly or otherwise, has nothing to do with the matter here.

That is whats questionable about evolution.

Excellent!
Well then since origins of life have nothing to do with evolution, I'm glad we're all agreed it's a fact/well supported theory.

af_thefragile

^Wasn't "The Origin of Life" the title of Darwin's book from which most of all these evolutionary ideas evolved??

What is questionable about evolution is how life began. Evolution cannot explain that. It states it just happened that a RNA molecue was formed and all life evolved from that one molecule.

There are many organisms in the Kingdom Protista which don't fit anywhere. Basically the animal kingdom Protista is a collection of organisms that don't seem to fit anywhere else. You can't determine where all these organisms have evolved from.

I said there are some bits about evolution that are true. Not all of it.
Humans did not just evolve from apes and plan to take over the world cuz they had a larger cranial capacity therefore larger intelligence. Elephants have much larger brains than humans do. They why arn't they more intelligent than humans?!

If you think about it evolution does rule out the concept of religion and the existance of God.
Evolution states humans evolved from apes and because they evolved to have larger cranial capacities, they had larger brains which made them more intelligent than all the other species in the world.
Which means everything thats stated in religion and about God is B.S. when God said humans are the chosen one's to rule the planet. When according to evolution humans just happened to become the species to rule the planet because of a mutation in apes that caused them to have larger brains. If dogs had evolved to have bigger brains, they'ld be ruling the planet right now. But God doesn't say anything like that. God says humans were the chosen ones from the begining.

Now you can say God chosed evolution as the way to create humans. Well, then why did God hafta make up this whole story about Adam and Eve and say it to humans when he could have had just said the truth that humans evolved from apes which evolved from a bacteria.
Well, God didn't say that. Which means God may have had lied. Well, God doesn't lie. Then it might be the humans who lied! Religion is all made up B.S. devised by humans to scare people and use as a tool rule over them. Which means if Religion is B.S., then the whole concept of God (which came from religion) should be B.S. too!

Which means evolution and God are two contradicting entities! God stands for creating everything intelligently. Evolution says it all happened on its own through nature.

You can't bridge the gap between evolution and God without modifing one theory. Either evolution or God!

Again I'll end by quoting Albert Einstein here:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

Ekancone

af_thefragile wrote: »

1. I'm pretty sure Newton's Laws are facts. Or else they wouldn't be LAWS. Or even if they are just approximations, they're pretty damn close ones.

'Pretty sure' and 'facts' don't sound too convincing together, don't you think? Perhaps you could begin by what you mean by 'fact' in this context. Also, please define what constitutes a scientific law, in your mind.

af_thefragile wrote: »

2. Evolution states the universe doesn't need a God (or atleast many evolutionists say that), life was created by itself as a matter of probability and chance.

Evolution doesn't say that, because evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life, you are thinking of abiogenesis. This is complete ignorance on your part. Also, what is an evolutionist? I also believe in the theory of gravity, does that make me a gravitationist? Don't be so silly. Again, this displays your total and utter ignorance, you are clearly getting this nonsense from a creationist website.

af_thefragile wrote: »

(Saying evolution is not random is contradicting yourself, or atleast the basis of how life was initially formed is a contradiction to not random). That is whats questionable about evolution. I never said all of evolution was false. There are bits of evolution thats true. All that natural selection stuff is pretty true.

You are not very good at this, are you? The theory of evolution is silent on the beginnings of life. Only an idiot would think that. You are thinking of abiogenesis.

af_thefragile wrote: »

3. No i don't have any hard evidence for my assertions.

Why isn't that surprising? :rolleyes:

af_thefragile wrote: »

My statements about God are by no way a theory.

You are right, they are a hypothesis.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I did state it that no one can trully explain or understand what God is. Its just my personal understanding. You can go ahead scrutinize and confront all the statements i made and see if you can come up with something better. I never stated my understanding should be universally believed. I'm by no means an expert in this field. My understanding is just my hypothesis of God and the universe. It makes perfect sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to anyone else, they can go and find their own little theory or hypothesis that can make more sense to them.

That's perfectly ok, but don't go around spreading ignorant drivel with the purpose of undermining science.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Islam is not like Catholicism where you'ld be condemned a heretic and burned at the stake for believing the earth was not the center of the universe. Islam welcomes science.

About 1000 years ago, this statement would have been true. But im afraid the roles have reversed now.

af_thefragile wrote: »

You can never find the true answer. All we can do is keep searching for a better answer.

This is exactly what science does and any decent scientist would admit to it.

af_thefragile wrote: »

To end with a quote from Albert Einstein:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I disagree, it is clear that as long as the fundamentalist element of religion exists, religion will always be a threat to science.

Ekancone

af_thefragile wrote: »

Wasn't "The Origin of Life" the title of Darwin's book from which most of all these evolutionary ideas evolved??

This gets better and better. The book is called 'Origin of Species' not 'Origin of Life'. For this reason i think people should just stop listening to you, you clearly dont know what you are talking about.

af_thefragile wrote: »

What is questionable about evolution is how life began. Evolution cannot explain that. It states it just happened that a RNA molecue was formed and all life evolved from that one molecule.

Evoltion doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, you are thinking o abiogenesis. Im feeling embarrassed for you.

af_thefragile wrote: »

There are many organisms in the Kingdom Protista which don't fit anywhere. Basically the animal kingdom Protista is a collection of organisms that don't seem to fit anywhere else. You can't determine where all these organisms have evolved from.

There is a wealth of studies explaining where these organisms evolved from, you are talking nonsense.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I said there are some bits about evolution that are true. Not all of it.
Humans did not just evolve from apes and plan to take over the world cuz they had a larger cranial capacity therefore larger intelligence. Elephants have much larger brains than humans do. They why arn't they more intelligent than humans?!

Again, this shows a complete ignorance of science on your part. Its not about the total mass of your brain, its about the size of your brain relative to your body. Also, there were many other aspects of our evolution that made us what we are today that elephants don't display. Opposable thumbs, walking upright were also crucial to this development. The fact is that genetics points to us as being evolved from apes. This may be an uncomfortable truth for you, but it is a fact.

af_thefragile wrote: »

If you think about it evolution does rule out the concept of religion and the existance of God.
Evolution states humans evolved from apes and because they evolved to have larger cranial capacities, they had larger brains which made them more intelligent than all the other species in the world.
Which means everything thats stated in religion and about God is B.S. when God said humans are the chosen one's to rule the planet. When according to evolution humans just happened to become the species to rule the planet because of a mutation in apes that caused them to have larger brains. If dogs had evolved to have bigger brains, they'ld be ruling the planet right now. But God doesn't say anything like that. God says humans were the chosen ones from the begining.

No, it just means that mans attempt at explaining life around them using theistic metaphors have all been wrong. But it doesn't mean there is no god.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Now you can say God chosed evolution as the way to create humans. Well, then why did God hafta make up this whole story about Adam and Eve and say it to humans when he could have had just said the truth that humans evolved from apes which evolved from a bacteria.
Well, God didn't say that. Which means God may have had lied. Well, God doesn't lie. Then it might be the humans who lied! Religion is all made up B.S. devised by humans to scare people and use as a tool rule over them. Which means if Religion is B.S., then the whole concept of God (which came from religion) should be B.S. too!

God didn't write the Old Testament.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Which means evolution and God are two contradicting entities! God stands for creating everything intelligently. Evolution says it all happened on its own through nature.

No, it just means mans interpretation of god has been wrong. Thats all. Science doesn't say god isn't there.

af_thefragile wrote: »

You can't bridge the gap between evolution and God without modifing one theory. Either evolution or God!

No, it just means that all the holy books that man has written are wrong. Too bad.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Again I'll end by quoting Albert Einstein here:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

Its a shame you can't take that advice instead of spreading total lies.

af_thefragile

Too easy to call my explanations lies instead of coming up with something convincing yourself huh?!

If all the holy books are wrong then how can you say God exists??!
If the interpretation of God has been wrong all along, do you have a better interpretation of God then in you vast understanding?!

Do you have a descent explanation for how life began on earth?

What does evolution explain then if it doesn't explain the begining of life?
Abiogenesis is an idea evolved from explanation.

Okay, Evolution explains how one species evolved from another. Is that all it explains?
What about the right bottom of the chart. The little unicellular organism from which all other organisms seemed to have evolved. Where did that come from?

And then there are a million other questions too.
Evolution seemed to have worked in an opposite direction for humans.
Instead of evolving into a better adapted, stronger and faster species, humans seemed to have gone backwards.
They lost their fur for some reason.
They became weaker, they became slower, they wern't as agile anymore.
All this seemes to bo going against the theory of natural selection.
Then how did humans suddenly come on top of other animals?
Even apes have opposable thumbs. And being upright doesn't seem too great an advantage to me.

Genetics shows a similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. That doesn't mean humans evolved from apes. Its just something evolutionists like you assumed and publicised it as a fact.

af_thefragile

af_thefragile wrote: »

Too easy to call my explanations lies instead of coming up with something convincing yourself huh?!

If all the holy books are wrong then how can you say God exists??!
If the interpretation of God has been wrong all along, do you have a better interpretation of God then in you vast understanding?!

Do you have a descent explanation for how life began on earth?

What does evolution explain then if it doesn't explain the begining of life?
Abiogenesis is an idea evolved from explanation.

Okay, Evolution explains how one species evolved from another. Is that all it explains?
What about the right bottom of the chart. The little unicellular organism from which all other organisms seemed to have evolved. Where did that come from?

A good question which is a completely seperate issue and has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of evolution.

And then there are a million other questions too.

Ones which I am not sure you genuinely want an answer to, given your posts.

If you think about it evolution does rule out the concept of religion and the existance of God.

No. It doesn't. Which is why there are so many theists who are quite happy with evolution.
The problem here is that you are starting off with the conclusion that it must not be true and going from there. Obviously that isn't going to get you anywhere.

Ekancone

af_thefragile wrote: »

Too easy to call my explanations lies instead of coming up with something convincing yourself huh?!

Ok then, instead of lies call them misguided inaccuracies based on incredulity.

af_thefragile wrote: »

If all the holy books are wrong then how can you say God exists??!
If the interpretation of God has been wrong all along, do you have a better interpretation of God then in you vast understanding?!

I didn't say god exists, i just said that its still possible that he/she/it does. I wouldn't waste my time trying to explain the supernatural, its just not possible. Anyway, i believe that anything supernatural is just nonsense anyway.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Do you have a descent explanation for how life began on earth?

Me? Personally? No, i don't study abiogenesis, you would have to ask a biochemistry scientist. Or you could read up on the subject yourself, you never know, you might learn something.

af_thefragile wrote: »

What does evolution explain then if it doesn't explain the begining of life?
Abiogenesis is an idea evolved from explanation.

Evolution explains how life can diversify from a single-cell organism, and how these evolutionary changes come about. Again, a little reading (non-creationist) wouldn't do you harm.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Okay, Evolution explains how one species evolved from another. Is that all it explains?

Pretty much. It explains how different species adapt to their environment, and how different populations interact and compete for finite resources. Its really fascinating, and makes very accurate predictions about the natural world. Which is why it is a theory and not a hypothesis. In fact, according to the theory of evolution, you could justify saying God did it. But thats just silly.

af_thefragile wrote: »

What about the right bottom of the chart. The little unicellular organism from which all other organisms seemed to have evolved. Where did that come from?

That is a question for a biochemist, as far as i know that question still hasn't been answered fully, so I nor Science wouldn't pretend to have the full explanation (like you guys). They are getting close though, and one day we will know.

af_thefragile wrote: »

And then there are a million other questions too.
Evolution seemed to have worked in an opposite direction for humans.
Instead of evolving into a better adapted, stronger and faster species, humans seemed to have gone backwards.
They lost their fur for some reason.
They became weaker, they became slower, they wern't as agile anymore.
All this seemes to bo going against the theory of natural selection.
Then how did humans suddenly come on top of other animals?
Even apes have opposable thumbs. And being upright doesn't seem too great an advantage to me.

You are getting confused by that old statement: 'Survival of the fittest' (which wasn't coined by Darwin), what it should say is 'Survival of the fitting'. Evolution doesn't say that animals should keep getting stronger and stronger to infinity, there are a finite number of resources that a body can have which the environment dictates. Therefore, the most successful organisms are the ones which adapt best to their environment, however that may be. You seem to think that the most successful creatures are the ones who are the strongest and fastest, but you are wrong. Its the ones you least suspect.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Genetics shows a similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. That doesn't mean humans evolved from apes. Its just something evolutionists like you assumed and publicised it as a fact.

No, it is not an assumption, and you are spreading lies again. This is based on observation and evidence, science doesn't work by using guesses, thats for theologians like yourself. By the way, what is an evolutionist? Why is it an 'ism'? Are you are gravitationist? Answer the question this time.

To make it easier for you i will give you some links to videos, it may broaden your understanding of what science actually does.

Origin of Life Made Easy

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy

Why you are wrong about 'evolutionists' just assuming things



EDIT: Here is one more video by a guy who wrote a computer program which very simply illustrates how evolution works:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

Icarian

Originally Posted by af_thefragile
And then there are a million other questions too.
Evolution seemed to have worked in an opposite direction for humans.
Instead of evolving into a better adapted, stronger and faster species, humans seemed to have gone backwards.
They lost their fur for some reason.
They became weaker, they became slower, they wern't as agile anymore.
All this seemes to bo going against the theory of natural selection.
Then how did humans suddenly come on top of other animals?
Even apes have opposable thumbs. And being upright doesn't seem too great an advantage to me.

so... by your logic, whales should be ruling the world cos theyre really big, really strong and fast!!

seriously dude are you an actual scientist?

have you read The Origin of Species?

because it sounds to me like you have a very loose grasp on the cncepts of genetics, evolution, survival of the fittest, biochemistry, religion, and even logic you certainly arent a scientist, thats for sure...

go and read the origin of species, then come back here

oh, and read this too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells

just because you cant explain something, doesnt mean god did it, it just means that you have yet to learn the truth, or you are too stupid or blinkered to understand or accept the truth

Ekancone

Icarian wrote: »

Originally Posted by af_thefragile
And then there are a million other questions too.
Evolution seemed to have worked in an opposite direction for humans.
Instead of evolving into a better adapted, stronger and faster species, humans seemed to have gone backwards.
They lost their fur for some reason.
They became weaker, they became slower, they wern't as agile anymore.
All this seemes to bo going against the theory of natural selection.
Then how did humans suddenly come on top of other animals?
Even apes have opposable thumbs. And being upright doesn't seem too great an advantage to me.

so... by your logic, whales should be ruling the world cos theyre really big, really strong and fast!!

seriously dude are you an actual scientist?

have you read The Origin of Species?

because it sounds to me like you have a very loose grasp on the cncepts of genetics, evolution, survival of the fittest, biochemistry, religion, and even logic you certainly arent a scientist, thats for sure...

go and read the origin of species, then come back here

oh, and read this too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells

just because you cant explain something, doesnt mean god did it, it just means that you have yet to learn the truth, or you are too stupid or blinkered to understand or accept the truth

The best books for understanding evolutionary theory are The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Evolutionary theory has come a long way since the time of Darwin.

Eschatologist

Very interesting paper on the possible thermophyllic origins of life:

http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/032/0168/bst0320168.htm


And another excellent paper on the topic of a Martian origin for life:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/pe/2001_2/editor/mars.pdf