Beautiful @Bob thank you for your input but l am busy
@felix_dakat l look forward to 5 scientific journal articles demonstrating evolution, as promised l will go over them with you and explain any fallacies.
I pledge to give the victory to Theism. I risk Theism looking weak if my counterarguments fail or just look weak. I am confident in Theism because I am confident in science.
It will not make any impression on you if you are over 30 as by then itâs usually too late. But think of younger generations! Peace!
Incidentally, the Greek word the author of 2Peter is mythos from which we get the word myth. Fable is a poor translation of the word from a modern literary perspective.
Ok then, please explain the specific divine revelation you had which led you to KNOW for ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that (your particular version of) God ABSOLUTELY EXISTS with ZERO DOUBT WHATSOEVER.
Thanks homie, ill wait 
Absolute certainty is nonsense compared to knowledge.
If you know someone personally, whatâs the point of assurances?
So, simple logic: the question is not whether God exists, but what is required to be called God.
Logic: if there are any notions of something, then that something already exists, even in an insubstantial form.
First of all, letâs discard that which has no right to be called God.
A true God has no name, because names are given by parents.
So all the âgodsâ with names â are idols.
They were invented to be sold, and thatâs what feeds those who made them.
Then let us formulate what is true, unambiguous, and undeniably certain:
The existing (truly existing) God is the understanding of all existence as a whole, by a rational, all-powerful being.
Thus, God becomes the face of matter, space, and time. I hope atheists wonât argue that existence itself doesnât exist?
And religious adherents canât object either â because beyond everything that exists, there is nothing, and nothing can possibly be.
No True Scotsman fallacy - i.e. distinction is arbitrary because itâs based on arbitrary claim you made to rule out a prior claim
Non Sequitur? Whatever the fallacy is, itâs just not true to say a deity, even a false one, which has a name, is an idol. For example, a deity called âNon-Idol Destroyer of Idolsâ is not an idol.
Found the kernel of truth - about idols:
Youâre wasting your time. See above.
Do you think expressing reason is a waste of time?
Funny question â why?
Because no one needs reason?
Or are there other reasons?
Your argument began on false premises. Also, you need to find better terminology to express difficult ideas, because the more you go into it, the more incoherent it gets. This is a major problem with philosophy, the obscure vocabulary, and worse, in your case, the lack of sufficient vocabulary.
Your absurdity is a lie â a refusal to acknowledge the fact that only parents have the right to give a name.
Is your name the result of neighborsâ mockery?
Are you capable of understanding the difference between a name, a nickname, and a title?
I had no thunder or lightning moment, it was a quiet acknowledgement and recognition of the truth.
Romans 1:20 states that Godâs invisible qualities, including His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen through His creation, leaving people without excuse.
Hereâs a more detailed breakdown:
âFor since the creation of the world Godâs invisible qualitiesâŚâ
This establishes the context: the verse is about understanding God through the natural world.
ââŚHis eternal power and divine natureâŚâ
This specifies what Godâs invisible qualities are, namely His power that lasts forever and His nature as God.
ââŚhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been madeâŚâ
This emphasizes that Godâs attributes are evident in the world around us, through the things He has created.
ââŚso that people are without excuse.â
This highlights the consequence of not knowing God, despite the evidence of His existence being readily available in creation.
We have a choice we can look at the world from an evolutionary paradigm or we can look at it from a creation perspective there is nothing which forces us to accept the one paradigm as being better than the other one, both of them require faith and none of them can exclusively prove that they are right and therefore the choice remains with us.
If we believe the Bible and we look at the prophetic value of the Bible and we see all of these other paradigms, we see lives changed, maybe the Book is believable, on the other hand if you want to be an evolutionist there is nothing to prevent you from being one.
The choice is ours.
Rarely do demons (feelings) come kicking the door open. Most often, they sneak in quietly to take over the mind and bring disaster.
The Bible is thoroughly false â both in its details and as a whole.
God comes to know Himself through people, who are tools in this process of understanding.
So where is this simple idea in the Bible?
It is completely distorted.
That people were created in the image of Godâs mind â thatâs why they are unique.
Instead, we are given lies about the âinvisibleâ and âpower.â
What invisible, if everything has already been written?
What âpower,â if God is pitiful compared to His own more perfect future, which will ultimately end in death â the Apocalypse.
Faith is the instinct of herd behavior, pure animalism. Where one sheep goes, the second follows. Any lie is upheld precisely by faith.
One who believes in a lie has no freedom at all â they are entirely subject to that lie.
For example, a sheep goes where the shepherds drive the flock â to the slaughter and total extermination.
Indeed, God is the infinite ground of being upon which all beings depend for their existence.
Yes the scientific method is limited to natural phenomena. God is the ultimate unknown knower who knows all and cannot be known except by revelation or gnosis as you said.
No, evolution by gene mutation has not been disproved. While some studies have shown that mutations may not be entirely random, the underlying principle of evolution, which relies on mutations as the raw material for natural selection, remains valid.
Evolutionary theory posits that new variations in a population arise through genetic mutations, which are changes in the DNA sequence.
Some research suggests that mutation rates can be influenced by factors like nucleotide composition and DNA repair mechanisms, meaning they might not occur with equal probability across the genome. Natural selection acts on these variations.
The individuals with advantageous mutations are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on these mutations to the next generation, which gradually changes the genetic makeup of the population over time.
The core concept remains valid. While the specifics of how mutations occur are being refined, the basic principle that mutations are the driving force behind evolution remains a cornerstone of scientific understanding. The discovery that mutations may not be entirely random doesnât undermine the core theory of evolution. It simply highlights that the process of mutation is more complex than previously understood and opens new avenues for research and understanding.
No, fossil evidence for evolution has not been invalidated by fakery, although some fossil forgeries have been identified. While some individuals or groups may attempt to misrepresent or forge fossils to support certain agendas, the overwhelming majority of fossil evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution. In general, fossils document the changes in life forms over time, showing how species have diversified and adapted to their environments. Fossils provide evidence of transitional forms, showing how one group of organisms may have evolved into another. Fossil evidence is consistent with other lines of evidence for evolution such as comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and embryology.
Scientists acknowledge that there have been hoaxes. Examples include the infamous Piltdown Man hoax, where a fabricated skull was presented as evidence of a human ancestor, and more recent forgeries where soft tissues were painted onto fossils. The discovery of a few fakes does not undermine the vast body of evidence for evolution that comes from a multitude of genuine fossil discoveries.
Scientists are constantly re-evaluating and revising their understanding. The scientific process is one of constant discovery and revision, and new discoveries and interpretations may change our understanding of evolution over time.
Open science and transparency are essential for identifying and correcting errors. Making data and specimens widely available allows for more rigorous scrutiny and can help to catch errors and fakes.
In conclusion, while fossil forgeries have occurred, they do not invalidate the overwhelming evidence for evolution that comes from the fossil record and other scientific disciplines.
The distribution of species across the globe provides compelling evidence of both evolution and geological changes. Organisms are not randomly distributed; their locations reflect their evolutionary history and the movements of continents over geological time. Geographic isolation, often caused by landmass movements or changing climate, can lead to unique adaptations and new species, as seen in Darwinâs finches on the Galapagos Islands. The patterns of species distribution, especially in isolated regions like islands, reflect how organisms have spread, diversified, and adapted to different environments over time.
The movement of tectonic plates has played a major role in shaping species distributions. For example, the breakup of Pangaea to the unique flora and fauna of continents that formed from the supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwana. Climate changes, including glacial periods and interglacial periods, have influenced species distribution patterns, forcing species to adapt or migrate. Islands, due to their isolation, often exhibit unique species and diversification patterns, providing insights into evolutionary processes. Geological changes, like mountain formation or sea level fluctuations, have altered habitats and influenced where species can live.
Biogeography considers both isolation due to geological events and dispersal via migration over land or water in explaining species distribution.
The genes that control early embryonic development, like the Hox genes, are highly conserved across a wide range of species. This means that these genes have been passed down from a common ancestor and are responsible for organizing the body plan in a similar way across different lineages.
Just as similar bone structures (like forelimbs) in different animals suggest a common ancestor, similarities in the early embryonic development of different species, such as the presence of gill slits in fish and human embryos, point to a shared evolutionary history.
Similarly, many invertebrates have similar larval stages, even though the adults are vastly different, supporting a shared evolutionary history.
Over extremely long periods, these small changes (microevolution) can accumulate, potentially leading to the formation of new species (macroevolution or speciation). This requires the accumulation of significant genetic differences between populations, often accompanied by reproductive isolation.
From my point of view all of this follows from the laws of physics given by God. While scientists cannot explain the emergence of life from inanimate matter, it wouldnât shake my theology if they did because the potential for life was there from the beginning.
My viewpoint is compatible with that of biologist Stephen Jay Gouldâs Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) doctrine that posits that science and religion operate in distinct domains, or âmagisteria,â and do not conflict because they address different aspects of human experience. Science deals with the empirical world and how it works, while religion or spirituality addresses questions of ultimate reality. The latter encompasses and permeates the former but is undetectable by the senses. Revelation is required. I donât think think that conflicts with Islam.
Yes it has been disproved by myself, in outline. The hard proof would require experiments performed before our eyes. Or as l asked: some research papers detailing such experiments. Right @felix_dakat : where are the 5 science papers l requested? Make them good ones, 5 of the best.
By the way, surely you know lâm not saying gene mutations are impossible? I know they happen, they happen all the time. My argument clearly is that no good comes of them. - wby which l mean no new structures that confer advantage. Destroy my POV please. Iâm still waiting. 5. Five. Five research papers.
I said they are shot through with fakery, which they are. And you then go on to agree. Thanks for the honesty.
Show me the evidence, not just because it would prove what youâre saying, but also it would explain what you are saying. Because right now youâre just hand waving. I wave back: this territory is allllllllll mine.
So youâre saying, similarities in species - e.g. that they have arms and legs - imply that they had a common ancestor which evolved through evolution via gene mutation. And this is your proof of evolution via gene mutation.
In other words, something suggests evolution by gene mutation, which proves (with reasonable certainty) evolution by gene mutation. This is Circular Logic. You havenât actually proven evolution by gene mutation. Youâve just said, it looks likely to have occurred, and so it is. But âitâ is a fantasy that you made up. I mean: evolution by gene mutation is a fantasy.
Also, you are ignoring what l said earlier, that even if evolution by gene mutation were true, the presence of, say, what you refer to as âgill slitsâ in the embryo (which is encapsulated in amniotic fluid, you know?) has no mechanism to feed into the theory of evolution. Why would the process of evolution recurr during foetal development? Iâve basically asked you this already. Youâre repeating the original claim only.
Evolutionary changes by gene mutation are not âmicroevolutionâ. Microevolution is natural selection and refers to the change in allele frequency, which is sound science.
Iâm sorry but l donât know Stephen Gould. I donât know NOMA but it sounds nice. Is it a cream? Seriously, though: can you show me some peer reviewed top top top quality research articles giving hard data on evolution. Experiments which demonstrate evolution? Make them top top top quality. Destroy me. Iâm still waiting.
All you have shown me is IT SO IS. Evolution is SO true. But my friend, it makes no sense, it is improbable. Thereâs no mechanism for it. The changes would need to occur simultaneously across many genes, and itâs not just genes there are so many other factors that need to act in unison etc. etc.
APPENDIX: TIMESCALES - you SORCEROR!
And then you keep referring to huge timescales. But huge timescales donât make the impossible more possible, at least from what l can tell. This is a Stastical Fallacy (e.g. a subgroup, e.g. a cousin to the Gamblerâs Fallacy) - even over an infinite timescale, something may never occur. This is true for a coin landing on heads, but more blatantly true for evolution, which is inconceivable from the outset.
Also, this is a Circular Argument logical fallacy. You say evolution is true. I will not see the proof now, but later. In fact l donât need to wait, because every living thing around me has been produced by it. I donât see it directly but it can be inferred to have occurred over time.
And in all that, you never proved âitâ (Evolution). You took it for granted. You made it something when it is nothing. In Islam, we class Sophistry / âmere eloquenceâ as a branch of Sorcery. It is casting a glamour on someone so they accept a thing, but there is no thing. I think this is the root of why usury is banned in Islam - it is money out of nowhere. No creation of value, no addition to the economy.
APPENDIX: NO CONFLICT WITH ISLAM?
As stated before, it could be seen to displace Allah as creator.
My main gripe though, is that itâs a lie. In Islam, one definition of a lie is to merely repeat what one hears. Quote: âAbu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, âIt is enough for a man to prove himself a liar when he goes on narrating whatever he hears.â [listed in Sahih Muslim]â
And so, to promulgate evolution without sound scientific basis, e.g. hard experimental data, is a lie. In other words, the Unscientific is the Lie.
What you are proposing is Unscientific, and not just that, it is a Lie, even if it is true, it is a Lie because youâve given no evidence.
Show me some hard evidence, show me 5 curated research papers. Iâll thank you for it. I will deconstruct them comprehensively. If l fail, then l will make Theism look weak. I will do all the hard work. Please?
It seems to me that the origin of life, rather than the origin of species is what is important here. There is as yet no plausible explanation for the former, but plenty of evidence for the latter.
There still remains, however, some organic developments in evolution that are not sufficiently explained, and there tends to be an unwarranted dogmatism around them.
Obviously Pantheism is congenial to you and also since time immemorial in India.
Pantheism offers only an amoral universe and provides no basis for moral discernment. In what might be thought of as a pantheistic version of the problem of evil, it is challenged that if God includes everything and God is perfect or good, (morally neutralânot good and not bad) then it is safe to say everything which exists ought to be perfect or good, a conclusion which seems wholly counter to our common experience that much in the world today, is very far from.
Pantheism has only one formidable opponent - namely Christianity