The Sun Revolves Around the Earth

[manama]

We have scholars, priests, imams and teachers etc being the worst closet pedophiles and have molested children and abusing their power. And this is just one example of religious scholars being the worst kind of people behind doors. If you are going to take something as a fact just because a scholar said it and you won't question it DESPITE THE FACT that Prophet s.a.w said that at the end of times, scholars will misguide the masses. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You judge science and don't take it at face value despite the fact that you have NO qualification in that matter, you have no proofs, no experiments, no facts and no logic to back you up just because you "feel" that the world is against you and the elites yada yada when honestly nobody could give a damn about you. How about you start questioning your religious beliefs a little bit too? Maybe if everyone did, we'd have less people still worshipping trees.

And stop taking verses out of context.

 

[mecca]

The logical problems of abiogenesis kill evolution for me at its conception

But they are two separate topics. They aren’t connected so disagreeing with one shouldn’t make you disagree with the other. You’re conflating them even though they’re not at the same level. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory... theories have mountainous evidence in support of them, they are factual.

 

[Wigi]

But there are two separate topics. They aren’t connected so disagreeing with one shouldn’t make you disagree with the other. You’re conflating them even though they’re not at the same level. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory... theories have mountainous evidence in support of them, they are factual.

Hi,

I think the issue for him is : evolution can't even start if life doesn't exist in the first place.
If evolution can't begin without the first self replicating cell, creation is a logical conclusion.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

You know, one of the main conditions of issuing the fatwa is that the Scholar issuing it should be "an expert" about the topic he is issuing the fatwa of. And he should issue it only after a lengthy discussion and consensus with majority of other scholars.

-Nobody agrees with whoever youre quoting
-He is NOT an expert in anything science.

That already nullifies that fatwa and he has, in layman terms, pretty much sinned by giving that fatwa.

And fatwas in this case are weak argument anyway. A Saudi imam had given the fatwa against women driving saying that "women who drive can't have kids". Now i don't need to be an expert in biology to know that driving a car has nothing to do with having kids but you know "aN imAm gAvE fAtwA".

"but you know "aN imAm gAvE fAtwA"."
This.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

So if anyone has the proof of a "missing link"........ why hasnt it been posted here yet?

 

[Colonel Valerio]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

(Not for humans but the best “transitional fossil” )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

But there are two separate topics. They aren’t connected so disagreeing with one shouldn’t make you disagree with the other. You’re conflating them even though they’re not at the same level. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory... theories have mountainous evidence in support of them, they are factual.

That's why I added my main objection of irreducible complexity.

"...but even given a materialistic miracle the gulf of irreducible complexity between biological functional structures (e.g. eyes) make the evolutionary story seem like a modern fairy-tale."

I don't just take issue with the start, it's the process itself that seems to me in need of distinctive design leaps that go well beyond the scientific evidence.

People postulate a leap from frayed scales in dinosaurs through to feathers of birds without taking any understanding of the pure design engineering of a feather into consideration. Even the shaft of the feather is packed with design.



Mutation and selection alone would not produce such structures. If you want to put your faith in such a process, that's your call, but it is metaphysical, and no more "true empirical science" than creationism. Both are unique, unobserved and support for the view is mostly arrived at by inference and interpretation from the raw data.

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

wait what?

you gave that whole speech and now you tryna promote Hindu stuff?

and GRAHAM HANCOCK?

no disrespect intended but I'm not into either.

That was intended as a reply to TheShadowKnows' comment about the great year/yuga cycle earlier in the conversation. I just started using the VC forums and I didn't know that I had to quote the user I was trying to rely to in the reply. I know that now. And I wasnt trying to "promote hindu stuff," I was trying to respond to a comment of someone already knew about it and/or was always interested about it. I'm not much into prostelitizing.

 

[Wigi]

That's why I added my main objection of irreducible complexity.

"...but even given a materialistic miracle the gulf of irreducible complexity between biological functional structures (e.g. eyes) make the evolutionary story seem like a modern fairy-tale."

I don't just take issue with the start, it's the process itself that seems to me in need of distinctive design leaps that go well beyond the scientific evidence.

People postulate a leap from frayed scales in dinosaurs through to feathers of birds without taking any understanding of the pure design engineering of a feather into consideration. Even the shaft of the feather is packed with design.

View attachment 18086

Mutation and selection alone would not produce such structures. If you want to put your faith in such a process, that's your call, but it is metaphysical, and no more "true empirical science" than creationism. Both are unique, unobserved and support for the view is mostly arrived at by inference and interpretation from the raw data.

Good argument here and the simple fact that the golden ratio/divine proportion exist everywhere in this material world argues for the existence of an intelligent designer who is the creator and the architect of this creation.

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

Hi,

I think the issue for him is : evolution can't even start if life doesn't exist in the first place.
If evolution can't begin without the first self replicating cell, creation is a logical conclusion.

Life (conciousness) was always and will always be there. The universe is always expanding and contracting, right now, and for the last few billion years, it has been expanding, but there will come a time when all matter will get so far apart that universe would have to contract to the point that everything is contained in a space smaller than the atom. Then, inevitably the universe expands, in what we perceive to be evolution. You see, the universe is like a wave, it's in a state of oscillation, i.e. vibration, as is all matter, (because the universe is all matter and conciousness) everything is a vibration. The particles in the couch I'm sitting on right now are vibrating right now, obviously they're so small that we cant see it happening, but its vibrating none the less. So life is there and always will be there, and God, Brahman, Buddha-nature, Yahweh, Allah, whatever you want to call Him/It/She is the very vibration, the divine energy. The universe was not "created" but it was always there.

 

[Wigi]

Life (conciousness) was always and will always be there. The universe is always expanding and contracting, right now, and for the last few billion years, it has been expanding, but there will come a time when all matter will get so far apart that universe would have to contract to the point that everything is contained in a space smaller than the atom. Then, inevitably the universe expands, in what we perceive to be evolution. You see, the universe is like a wave, it's in a state of oscillation, i.e. vibration, as is all matter, (because the universe is all matter and conciousness) everything is a vibration. The particles in the couch I'm sitting on right now are vibrating right now, obviously they're so small that we cant see it happening, but its vibrating none the less. So life is there and always will be there, and God, Brahman, Buddha-nature, Yahweh, Allah, whatever you want to call Him/It/She is the very vibration, the divine energy. The universe was not "created" but it was always there.

Hi,
You basically assume that a Big crunch happened ?
In fact this universe is ruled by physical laws and these laws (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) makes me say this universe can't be eternal and had a beginning.

If biogenesis is true and abiogenesis impossible, life in the universe can't be eternal because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics that states everything is decaying.

Even the Bible says that God will make a new earth because everything will pass away.

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

Hi,
You basically assume that a Big crunch happened ?
In fact this universe is ruled by physical laws and these laws (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) makes me say this universe can't be eternal and had a beginning.

If biogenesis is true and abiogenesis impossible, life in the universe can't be eternal because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics that states everything is decaying.

Even the Bible says that God will make a new earth because everything will pass away.

Well, the first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so therefore, j
It was always there, and always will be.

Hi,
You basically assume that a Big crunch happened ?
In fact this universe is ruled by physical laws and these laws (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) makes me say this universe can't be eternal and had a beginning.

If biogenesis is true and abiogenesis impossible, life in the universe can't be eternal because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics that states everything is decaying.

Even the Bible says that God will make a new earth because everything will pass away.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so therefore it was always and will always be there. I did say that life would always be there, and by "life" I mean that life is conciousness itself. All conciousness is is energy (vibration), which cannot be destroyed or created. All the matter has always been there, in different forms, of course. So the bible is right when it says that the earth will pass away, but its matter and energy will still exist in different forms.

 

[Karlysymon]

That's a false statement... there are plenty of transitional fossils. And every fossil can be considered to be a transitional fossil. Also, animals don't just magically transform into a different species, they still remain a part of their genetic lineage. An evolved frog won't magically turn into a completely different animal like a rabbit... it will become a new type of frog suited to it's environment.

Pretty bold statement for you to make, considering...

For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”​

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”​

Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”​

 

[mecca]

@Karlysymon
Non-scientific creationist websites have a vested interest in painting a false narrative about what evolution is and what scientist know about it. I can tell you that it is a fact that scientists have found transitional fossils (and that every fossil can be considered a transitional fossil) but if you don’t want to believe it, I can’t convince you despite the large amounts of evidence. That’s okay... but I will still post some links.

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5-1.html

https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There are many transitional fossils... the fact that we have found so many transitional fossils is already amazing since the probability of fossilization is very low. You should also know that evolution isn’t only built up on the existence of transitional fossils, evolution is proved by evidence from multiple areas of study that connect together.

 

[elsbet]

@Karlysymon
Non-scientific creationist websites have a vested interest in painting a false narrative about what evolution is and what scientist know about it. I can tell you that it is a fact that scientists have found transitional fossils (and that every fossil can be considered a transitional fossil) but if you don’t want to believe it, I can’t convince you despite the large amounts of evidence. That’s okay... but I will still post some links.

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5-1.html

https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There are many transitional fossils... the fact that we have found so many transitional fossils is already amazing since the probability of fossilization is very low. You should also know that evolution isn’t only built up on the existence of transitional fossils, evolution is proved by evidence from multiple areas of study that connect together.

Wtf
She did not quote creationists, mecca.

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

View attachment 18092
@justjess happy holidays!!!

What does this have to do with this conversation?

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

@Karlysymon
Non-scientific creationist websites have a vested interest in painting a false narrative about what evolution is and what scientist know about it. I can tell you that it is a fact that scientists have found transitional fossils (and that every fossil can be considered a transitional fossil) but if you don’t want to believe it, I can’t convince you despite the large amounts of evidence. That’s okay... but I will still post some links.

https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5-1.html

https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There are many transitional fossils... the fact that we have found so many transitional fossils is already amazing since the probability of fossilization is very low. You should also know that evolution isn’t only built up on the existence of transitional fossils, evolution is proved by evidence from multiple areas of study that connect together.

I have to concur with Mecca that nearly all the scientific evidence points to a gradual process in which different organisms came into being. Creationism and darwinism don't have to be at odds with each other. I think that organisms evolved slowly, but in an intelligent manner. The process of evolution was and still is (because evolution is still happening) guided by the divine energy (God), though not how it is portrayed in Genesis. After all, the bible is a book which was transcribed by men, who make mistakes like everybody else. Maybe the narrative in Genesis is the one God intended because humans' intellect at that time was not complex enough to understand evolution. Maybe there is so much questioning of books like Genesis, because our collective intellect has evolved to understand more complex narratives. This is not meant as an affront to Christianity, because, though not my personal faith, it is a respectable religion. I mean to say that we cant take everything in religious texts at face value, but that doesn't diminish their moral and spiritual value.

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

@justjess

HappyHolidays

View attachment 18103View attachment 18103View attachment 18103View attachment 18103

WHAT THE FUCK, SHAWNA?!?!?
IS THERE SOMETHING YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY?!?

 

[Z. T. Jacob]

Happy holidays, merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, and happy Kwanzaa to you too, Shawna.
Sincerely, T. Z. Jacob

 

[mecca]

Wtf
She did not quote creationists, mecca.

Her sources were from creation.com so yes she did. Like I said, those websites have a vested interest in misconstruing what scientists actually know and have said about evolution.

You are free to think that evolution isn’t true and believe in a non-scientific creationism. But like I’ve said before, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive and I’m not going to deny scientific facts about nature. God created nature which means that he put the processes of nature in place. Evolution is a process of nature.