The Fall from Grace: A Tale Beyond the Garden

[LampAndNightingale (Plebius Sealionus Maximus Walrus)]

Hello. God by defintion is beyond the limits of the finite human mind. As you agreed with me, Islam teaches that before creation, there was only God, and now, there is still only God. Within this imagined cosmos of his, is an imagined lab which will not be able to put him in a test tube and measure him and prove to God that he doesn’t exist. But that’s obvious.

My point is:

1. Science will only take us so far. Then mysticism, Then even mysticism breaks down and you’re either taken the rest of the way to Gnosis or you’re not.
2. Science will take us as far as disproving the current theory of evolution as utterly devoid of science. That is what l have demonstrated above. You have yet to acknowledge that the evolution by gene mutation has been debunked. This is a specific fact that can be specifically acknowledged without sweeping hand gestures about will we ever know God etc etc.
3. As an asides, and please don’t use this as an escape vehicle: Both religion and atheism are unfalsifiable a la Karl Popper. They therefore both have no place in secular education.
4. Still, the theory of evolution by gene mutation is a fantasy and has no basis in science and is positively trashed by scientific enquiry. It can and has been and shall be dismissed outright. I have even proposed alternative theories for evolution myself, l won’t divulge them here - but l bet you never thought l’d say that. It’s important for me because l strongly feel faith can never be proven in this life otherwise it’d lose its merit.

You don’t address my actual counterarguments but l’ll address more of your claims as l’m only here for the hard data and arguments anyway:

@felix_dakat

the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, and molecular biology, all of which demonstrate the shared ancestry and gradual change of species over time. The fossil record provides a chronological sequence of life forms, showing that organisms have changed over time and that extinct species are related to modern ones.

Says you. But:

1. The fossil records are shot through with fakery, e.g. the chart of horse evolution, which mixes up a rabbit-like creature, the Hyrax species (Cony) with horses, and thus shows horses starting tiny (Hyrax) and getting bigger and bigger (Equus). In fact even today in slavic languages they call Horse with the prefix “Konyy-”. But they are different species and the horse evolution records has different fake members appearing in radically different parts of the world.
   It’s fanciful joining of dots. I think this is called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy (target drawn around bullet holes, thus showing off the shooter’s accuracy).

Quote from National Geographic: "The popular notion that horses started off the size of small dogs and grew progressively bigger is now shown to be false. From the tooth-fossil evidence, MacFadden found that during an explosion in horse diversity some 20 million years ago, many species got smaller as well as larger."

2. I could easily create a flipbook which shows a rabbit morphing into a human.

3. I have seen Chinese propaganda videos showing black africans transforming into Laotians via animated graphics

Btw @felix_dakat if you at this point decide to deploy AI (not saying you are) flood evolutionary dogma l will deploy a robot that will feed off anti-evo gleanings and my robot will fight your robot and ignore your robot like your robot ignored me on the “Makkah is Petra, Facts be Damned, so Islam Needn’t Even Be Rebutted” thread. I’ve been too noble to do this so far.

@felix_dakat

The distribution of species across the globe reflects evolutionary history and geological changes, with similar species found in areas with similar environments and geographic connections. Similarities in the skeletal structures, organs, and other physical features of different species, even those that appear very different, suggest common ancestry.

No, that could be explained by God making them suited for their environments, plus any number of other factors. There’s no hard science in saying they look similar, therefore this fantastic mechanism called evolution that is the wonder of the universe is true despite no science verifying it and despite science in fact debunking evolution.

Also my cat looked like a rabbit. Did they have a common ancestor? Did one branch of the family tell the other they’d be the cat, the other will be its prey the rabbit? And did they decide to wait 1,000,000,000 for the first meal, knowing in their hearts that it’s worth it, to break free of religion?

In fact, l’ve often noticed that human races will reflect the fauna of their natural habitats, e.g. the aryans of the middle part of the world resembling lions with their high cheekbones, the Mongols self declaring as the descendants of the silver wolf and fallow deer - and looking every bit so, etc. etc. etc. Hey, at least l’m not trying get my musings into a science textbook. You would yours though.

@felix_dakat

The early developmental stages of different species often show striking similarities, indicating a shared evolutionary history.

This is again pareidolia, fancy cognition. It has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, you just think we resemble different things as we develop in the womb.

It cannot be linked to evolution even if evolution were true. It has no route of entry into evolutionary theory.

@felix_dakat

DNA and protein sequences reveal universal similarities among all life forms, indicating a common ancestor, and differences in these sequences reflect evolutionary divergence.

I’ve studied these charts, very long ago. They attach numbers to allele frequencies and probability of relationships. This does nothing for science. This is fancy. This absolutely can prove that Sauron and Hobbits are related. This is the epitome of lies, damned lies and statistics. It is just statistics to support some variant of Texas Sharpshooter.

In fact it could be argued that there need to be some basic genetic similarities in order for one species to be edible to another. This is God’s mercy. There may have been far more deadly interspecies viruses than at present, if there were more genetic dissimilarity. There could be all manner of explanations.

At the most fundamental level, there’s still no mechanism for stock DNA to diverge via evolution. There’s the problem of hard science, L@@K:

1. Inhertiability. The changes don’t get inherited except if gametes (sex cells) bear the mutation
2. Inter-species mating: it doesn’t produce babies. You’d need this to happen.
3. Mutations don’t produce anything good anyway, just cancers and other defects, or neutral effect. I need wings, badly need to grow wings. Everyday though, my fear is cancer, no wings my friend.
4. DNA assembly, maintenance, action, replication, etc. are vast operations. And then you want to throw in mutations to that balance? And then points (1) & (2) as well?
5. Zero scientific observation of mutations occurring which confer new physical features that give improved adaptation to the environment

@felix_dakat

Scientists can directly observe evolution occurring in populations with short lifecycles, such as the development of pesticide resistance in insects. Finally, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which states that organisms with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, is supported by numerous observations of adaptation and speciation.

This tells me you’ve not really read my replies.

Natural Selection is good science, it can be and is, demonstrated in the laboratory.

Natural Selection is all too often BAIT AND SWITCH for evolution as we know it. It is used by adults to trick youngsters and the scientifically non-literate. Natural Selection PRODUCES NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. It merely changes the relative frequencies of alleles (forms of a gene) in a population. So, during the industrial revolution in England, when factory smoke blackened tree bark. the melanic form of a moth fared better than its white counterpart, as the former was effectively camouflaged from predators by its blackness. The white moth did not transform into the black moth. The gene pool merely narrowed. THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION.

Holler back, but please, integrate my counterarguments.