Originally posted by RJHinds
You will find the Creation Model explained at the following Link:
http://www.usislam.org/38creat.htm
Okay - I've read that source and here are my responses. I have to say, though, it is terribly thin.
It is known that some creatures appeared at certain time, and never changed since. This persistence of life is contrary to what one would expect from the evolution model.
FALSE assertion about the theory of evolution.
In addition, this section fails to describe the vastly greater list of species that have not remained unchanged over time nor to address the process of change and transformation.
Man was created with systems that are similar to other species according to the divine Law of Repetition. When evolutionists closely examine the case of a man and other species that have similar systems to him, they develop comparative anatomy that may rest on logical, but not enough, bases. The existence of some similarity between man and apes cannot be denied. But the resemblance between man and apes was imposed upon all animal and human species because they all share the same environment with all its variations.
The close dependence of all species on their environment is not a matter of dispute - this argument fails to separate creationism from evolution. The Theory of Natural Selection sets out exactly the nature of the dependence.
The human body consists of many organs and systems. Each one of them, when studied with objectivity represents a remarkable proof of a creation by the Almighty. Take, for example, the wrist joint that rotates 360 degrees and can stop at any angle. What would it take from a biomedical engineer to design such a joint in such a space that keeps on working for so many years without external greasing?
What type of an argument is that? If a biomedical engineer could not make it then God must have made it. !!! If the organs were designed, then I agree they were not designed by a biomedical engineer. But they were not designed. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains in exquisite detail how NATURE produces each species and its various organs.
Miracles are also acts of God that defy the laws of physics.
Fair enough. So give us an example of anything that has happened in defiance of the laws of physics.
All miracles performed by prophets, with the permission of God, defy the laws of physics.
Not good enough as examples. The evidence base is pathetic.
The cosmic Big Bang challenges the laws of physics because it was a moment of Creation.
Maybe there is a challenge to the laws of physics. It depends which law of physics you have in mind. The laws of classical physics break down, the laws of Quantum physics come into their own. This also is the case when we move from large objects to the atomic level of matter. Nice try - but not a valid assertion. In any case, this type of argument only helps if you want to promote a God of the Gaps - the things we do not yet fully understand we can attribute to god, but there is an awful lot that we do understand without God.
If someone told you that all the physical laws that exist in the universe had simply happened by themselves, would you believe it? The global educational system attaches a name of a human being to every physical law, such as Newton’s law of gravity or Einstein’s theory of relativity. And somehow in the middle of this educational process, we tend to think that the discoverer of a certain law is actually the creator of that law. Well, he is not. Any discoverer is only a medium of revealing God’s spectacle, and the Almighty is the One and Only Creator of all laws.
What type of an argument is this? It defies classifying really. I am not sure anyone believes that the laws of physics are arbitrary and come from nothing. There is a credible argument that the way we describe the world is essentially arbitrary, but in the case of modern science, this implies that someone can come up with an arbitrary alternative that is just as good. Many have tried! I suppose a great example of success was non Euclidean geometry, but it does not make Euclidean geometry false or even redundant, it simply elaborates it for new applications (curved space).
However,
the closing phrases seem to be capable of accepting the validity of all the laws of physics, and all of science, without requiring of necessity that we be atheists or deny that God created the universe. Newton was inspired by God to propose the theory of gravity (He would have accepted that description readily). Darwin was inspired by God to discover the theory of evolution by natural selection. It was the argument which most Christians and Muslims have accepted for generations, and still do, apart from some fundamentalists. What it is NOT is an argument against science at all.
as the story goes, the cosmic egg exploded (no atheist knows why!). The universe expanded and cooled sufficiently that the hydrogen gas and the helium gas could form. From these hydrogen and helium, somehow, evolutionists believe that:
A cosmic egg created itself somewhere and somehow for an unknown period of time.
The cosmic egg exploded with an unknown reason.
All laws of physics and chemistry created themselves, or by the scientists who discovered them.
All galaxies and stars created themselves.
Our solar system created itself.
Life created itself.
A series of facetious misrepresentations. There is a very full and clear mathematical account of the process from Big Bang to the present state of the universe. There are rival theories about the Big Bang, including the serious and mathematically valid proposals about multiple universes. There are a whole series of readable "popular science" accounts of all this so that it is not necessary to be trained in science or mathematics to grasp the essence of the account, but it is indeed essential to understand mathematics in order to engage critically with the science.
Finally from that first primordial form of life all other forms of life evolved according to Darwin’s natural selection.
Correct and the theory explains all the evidence so far.
Oh. That seems to be the end and we have yet to encounter anything serious whatever. Typical. Still at least I listened carefully, read through the stuff and considered it. Apparently that makes me a bigot (Jaywill).
By the way, refreshing to see RJJHinds recommend an Islamist web site for his argument!
the creationism model
31 May '12 19:18
YouTube
Back to Top