:-)

Ahmed, you did not understand some basic things in evolution: The genetic variation is working with randomness, but the evolution does not! The natural selection only accept solutions that work. Only changes that are good enough will survive. Your example with 2 boys in the pool are not so stupid actually. One drowns, the other stay alive. Who will spread his genes forward? Well not the drown boy at least.
Your next statement that evolution can not explain the big variety of life on earth is also false. It can and if you understand how it works, you would see I am right. What do you think, that we would have just few species if evolution was right? Conditions at our planet are extremely various and they even changed throughout the earths history. The species have to adapt all the time and so they did. Those who did not, they did not survive. It would be very strange if the animals looked the same on the whole planet. About the fossils. They do not demand the evolution. They confirm it. You can see that for billions of years life was extremely simple. First about some 500-600 millions of years ago life started to give some more advanced animals like fishes for example. You will not see any birds, or mammals at this time. You will find them first hundreds of millions of years later. Why did your god wait soooo long time to create humans? You say there are no forms of life between the species? Look only at humans. There are so many forms and links between us and apes. And so you will find even among other animals. If you are the expert at the evolution, than I must say I am disappointed, but not too surprised. Evolution is the best evidence against creation, and DNA is the medium point in this evidence. DNA in our and all other creatures are unique for every individual. That gives evolution a chance to work. If we all had same DNA, there would be no space for evolution. We use evolution to change species of dogs, birds, cats, or whatever you want. How do we do that? By being gods? I wanted the answer on that question before, but you simply ignore questions you don't know how to answer. Other questions you reply very simple, like "DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation". In what way? Can you explain that to me? Best regards from Charlie#

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now. But it does not have to be start of the time and probably it is not. However it is very difficult to study what was happening before the great explosion that changed everything in our universe and made it start from zero.
Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God? How could he just appear from nothing? Ok you can say he is eternal, but in that case you accept a cause that you don't accept for the nature itself? And not just that, you even get another difficult question to reply: How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids? Best regards, from Charlie#

Thank you Charlie
Well I didn't mean it to be tricky to trap you or something. Lets admit that the question is tough.
Well may be option 1 of a creator shouldn't be discussed at this point
I guess, the second option makes sense.
Saying it is eternal is even aganist the Big bang ( if it is correct)
Come to existence from nothing without a cause doesn't make sense to me and it violates the basic logic. and I can say that it destroys science which depends on cause and effect.
Eternal and caused by a certain cause are the only two options ( in my opinion as we will discuss they will be reduced to a single point)

Lets stick now to caused by a cause? I will not say a Creator at this point because logic would say may be it is someything else right?

Do you agree on that ? Can we move forward or do you think that there is something strange in what I said?


Charlie, I hope you caught my way of thinking: I want to start from the very basic principles, as we do in mathematics.

Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

i admet that the discussion with you is intersting, not like the atheist arab, how are very stupid at least you admit that you havent the answer about the formation of the first cell that's what i want from you to say, because is imposible to creat a complex llife forme with only randoomness, you say that we imited what is goin on nature and you talk about natural selection engine?? abrother said: for me natural selection is like putting two boys in a swimming pool, one boy survived because he know how to swimm !..

natural selection still a randoom ((engine)) cant explain the varity on the nature

the fossil data deny the theory every day, wheres the the mutable form of the (between) creature,....

also: DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

You put a very short question and I thought it would be easy to answer, but when i read the alternatives, i found it being more tricky. That is why i choose to reply Ahmeds mail before yours, even though it looked more complicated at first view. Well I know alternative 1 is wrong. It presumes a creator, and that is impossible. That would not be a real start because someone would have to create the creator before that... and so on.. It makes no sense. Alternative 2 sounds ok because something must have caused it, otherwise we would not be here, nor would the space be here. I presume we talk about the origin of the space, not just the species. Alternative 3... hmm....maybe, but here we are in too deep water. Eternity is a too long time for me to understand. Alternative 4 is "other". I have no real idea what it could be, but if you give me some idea, than maybe I can tell you.. I hope my answer did not disappoint you, but I could not give a simple answer here. Best regards Charlie#

Hi Ahmed, Not sure I got your point. My English is not perfect either, so you may excuse , me for that. However some things I understood, that you misunderstood. Evolution does not work through randomness. Ok, genetic variations happen all the time (we are all unique) , but very few genetic variations will lead to evolutionary development. The engine is as I said the natural selection. Best evidence for this is maybe our own activity when making different races of dogs, cats, pigeons etc. We let some individuals that have the characteristics that we like, to produce themselves, while others are being removed. This is how we made all subspecies of dogs for example. Some are so different from other subspecies that in wild they would impossibly be able to get puppies. How did we do this? Are we gods? Of course not. We just use same methods that work in nature all the time. But we select with the goal we want to achieve and that makes the whole procedure a lot faster.
To your other statement. Well, evolution and big bang are two completely different things. Big bang theory (yes it is still a theory, although it looks more and more like the true fact) tells us about development of the universe. Nothing else. Evolution (not a theory anymore) explains us how species develop from one species to others. And yes.... Just as the word evolution means "development" it explains the development of life, not the start of life itself. Big bang is also talking about development of space.... Not about it's start. Not yet. What exploded and why it exploded, or was it really a start of the universe, or was there a universe even before? We don't know yet. This is a big task for science. But we know species did not just appear like they are now. They developed by millions and billions of years... This is a scientific fact, no matter what Quran says. Best regards from Charlie :-) a#

yeah charlie, your right, but still missing the target, i dont speak about religion here, even if iam a religious individual, i speak about logic, you steel cant give me the answer for this : how can we can discuss about a doctrine denied by many many scientist in the world?? i admit that she's the single theory explaining the apparition of life in earth i admid it... but i ask you why such a theory has borned dead still considered as the single answer of all question about the begining of life (the complex systeme can not be maked by randoomnes and coincidense) sorry for bothering you but this is 2 facts:

evolution is the single theory accepted in the big and great university around the world F/R : RIGHT

evolution can not give or at least remains and still remain unable to give an answer for the beginning of life, the harmony in the nature, ect....ect..... F/R : RIGHT!!!

from ahmed

Sorry Charlie My name is Ibn Alsunnah
Well before telling you my arguments, plz tell me what do you think is the probable answer first
1-Created from Nothing
2- Some cause created it
3- Eternal
4-Others
Best Regards
ibn alsunnah

Hi... yes i can talk to Brother Ahmed about the evolution and with you Brother... ehm.... about creation. You can tell me how can someone create a whole world from nothing? Would be very interesting to know Best regards, Charlie

Hi Ahmed,
Nice to meet you. Well, I see no reason why we should stop the discussion. I just presume that you would not like if i start bombing you with different links that will talk instead of me. Saying this, I think you understand why I don't like to get links myself(except for some special occasions)
#So let's go to the subject. You blame evolution being something invented by undeveloped science. This is a very interesting argument. Darwin's theory was presented some 150 years ago. Quran was written some 1400 years ago! This is the reason why Mohammad (or whoever wrote it) did not write about the evolution, if you let me be a bit sarcastic ;-) But, regardless to that Darwinism is not something that modern science denies. It confirms it! Darwin did not know anything about genetics. Modern science found support in Darwin's teaching right there in the genetics. It explains how natural selection and the evolution works. Darwinism is today being teched and studied in the top universities of the world, like Cambridge or Oxford! Which modern university will deny evolution, except for maybe some that are strictly in the hands of religious teaching? This is the way Islamic teaching works. If they find something that science supports, than they will say "Look, here we have evidence that Quran is a wholly book" If science finds something that is on the contrary of what Quran says, than they simply denies it by saying it is not true. That is not a serious way of debating, but a desperate way of protecting the religion which can not be true. If someone told you that moderns science denies evolution,, than he lie to you. It is a complete lie. You can check it if you really want. Funny world we live in... You don't need a microscope to get a good idea. But sometimes the microscope will confirm the idea. So it was in Darwin s case. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie, Do you prefer to talk with Brother Ahmed about the theory of Evolution and then we can talk about the creation and how it come into existence?

Charlie , I requested from you to read the links because I wanted to build a common ground for both of us.
In my opinion this would reduce the time of discussions.

If you don't like that ok lets start
What is the cause of the universe? I mean how did it come to exist?
I say: A creator since this is the only logical solution
All possible soutions are:
1- It is everlasting and eternal
2- It was found from nothing
3- It was found by a cause

Do you have any other opinion?

by the way sorry for not presented myself iam ahhmed fathy mouwahhid

so charlie how can we descuss something that collapse from the first step: the formation of the first cell (amyba) the evolution theory is a dead doctrine, She appeared in a period when science was still under-developed when the cell is shown under the primary microscope like asimple bubble, but when science has developed we discoverer a lot of intersting things, the cell was considered as a big spacial ship, with millions of particles that are working with a very miraculous armony, and you try to convice us that the evolution is the explication of all this!! you have to pursue the last experience



read this:
Morowitz’s probability calculation

The probability calculations cited above are in agreement with a calculation by the biophysicist Harold Morowitz. He assumed he had broken all the chemical bonds in the E. coli bacterium and released all the atoms comprising it, and then calculated the probability of these atoms spontaneously recombining to give rise to the E. coli once again. In this theoretical experiment, all the atoms required are present in all the appropriate quantities, and it is assumed that no other atom can become involved from the outside. Nonetheless, he calculated that the chances of all the atoms coming together spontaneously in a specific order, despite their being in the appropriate numbers and in an appropriate environment, in such a way as to produce an E. coli bacterium was 1 in 10100,000,000,000.[3]This goes far beyond being merely impossible. Such a number reveals the impossibility of even the least complex organism in the universe forming by chance, even if all the conditions and materials are brought together. ,

Dear....ehm.... Mr...
I have lots of links to send to you too. It is very boring to chat by sending links. If you need support by other writers, than maybe I am not the right person to chat with. I prefer an open debate where we both need to think and make up our own questions and answers. That is developing. Funny I often get links when I try to chat with Muslims. Why? Are you guys not feeling sure in yourself to run an own debate and tell me your own opinion? Why always asking for supports by websites? Best regards from Charlie