The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[carlosMM]

Since kind is my aggregation of species, my definition of kind is the only correct one, so deal.

I define 'brown plumpudding' to include you - that#s the only definition there is, so deal!

As far as bringing up Hox genes goes, I just did here, and I know I have in the past. If search is ever enabled, you can see for yourself.

yeah, I brought them up jsut before

'Reticulated' was the wrong word, sorry. I was thining of rectilinear, a form of motion that snakes use that requires unfused vertebrae. Undulation and sidewinding also require great freedom of motion. The idea that animals with literally stiff necks could do these things is one I find dubious at best.

ahem, stiff 'necks'? liazrds undulate thei bodes quite well - the trunk vertebrae, to be exact

You have proof of this? A fossil lineage? Bring it forth! All the fossils of 'snake ancestors' I've seen have modern snake characteristics, or are clearly reptiles.

see above.....

The 'limb vestiges' are just poorly suppressed Hox genes, caused by crossing over and other genetic drift.

this is getting better and better - again you concede that another part o the ToE is correct! gene drift happenes, crossing voer happenes.....[/quote] Snakes are the way they because that's how they started out, with fully suppressed Hox genes. [/quote] so your creator created a snake with fully suppressed HOX genes for complete functional legs????????


let's say I find this explanation a LOT more suspicious than simple evolution!

As time went by, the suppression mutated slightly, and now they express the limbs a teensy bit, that's all.

interestingly, the fossil record shows EARLY snakes have MORE legs expressed - some fully functional) than RECENT snakes. Contrary to your interesting claim!

Whimper and bleat all you want to about kinds, it's not going to change the fact that a kind is what it is.

Yes, everything is what it is. But what *is* a kind????????

I don't know if frog and toads are one kind, or if there's enough differences to call them seperate kinds for example, but if I looked at the issue hard enough, I could tell you in short order.

please do! I#d love to finally get ONE CLEAR definition out of you! Especially as YOU are the ignoratn who keeps claiming that scientists contiunously change definitions. The only shifting definition I have encountered is yours!

'Kind' doesn't have a neat and tidy definition, any more than species does.

hm, I find that Mayr defined species rather well

For the sake of argument, I'm willing to grant that God hatched the first snakes out of lizard eggs, but it could have been any lizards at all. Same goes for mammals and birds. The point is, no clear path from one to the other can be proven, nor can the near-hits be shown to have any more meaning than that.

ha! Let's take snakes, while we're with them, right? The prgression of changes in skull anatomy, vertebra anatomy and the continued increase in leg reduction throughout the fossil record is a very clear indicator.
Your creator, OTOH, has NOTHING indicating its existence.

Hm, which of the two theories is credible?

You have a guess that fits the facts you have, but assumes facts not in evidence. I have an explanation that fits the first, and has no need of the second.

You have a guess that demands a lot of ad hoc assumptions and then must be twisted a lot to fit the facts. Sorry, but creating theories out of thin air is as credible as creating animals out of thin air - NOT!

 

[The Last Conformist]

carlos, a kind is what it is. Much like a famous SC justice once said of pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Moths are a kind. Butterflies are another kind. Ants are a kind. Sunflowers are a kind. Goldfish and carp are a kind. Pumpkins and squashes are members of the guord kind. That's as specific as it gets. Deal with it

So, you're either claiming that these kinds, which provide absolute limits for morphological variation among animals do not themselves have clear boundaries, or that, altho unaccessible to mere humans, there are clear, objective, boundaries to what is pornography?

 

[CrazyScientist]

Moths are a kind? The moths are an entire family of organisms (the family Bombycoidea). Just like the primates are an entire family, except that moths have more genetic diversity. If all moths are a kind, then all primates are a kind. A smaller, less diverse kind.
Same with butterflies (Papilionidea).
Same with ants (Formicoidae).
Carps include all fish of the family Cyprinidae. You might be interested to know that the goldfish belongs to this same family. One of your kinds is a subset of the other.
But all this crap about names of families and genera is not that important. I mean, it's important in that you're lumping incredibly diverse organisms into "kinds" arbtirarily, but the point is that the designations of higher taxonomic groups are not biologically important, except in predicting common ancestry.
As a sidenote, the phylogenetic relationships and common ancestry of these clades have been confirmed using genetic sequence data, another testable prediction based on macroevolutionary theory that was born out by new and independent sources of data.
But the point I'm trying to make is that the only "kind" that makes any sense biologically is the species. I'm pretty sure I made a couple of posts on this idea about 10 pages back. Sexual isolation operates the same way between two barely distinguishable species of finch, as it does between a tree and a cow. Irreversable separation, capability of divergence without bound, seperate evolutionary lineages. The only difference is the recency of the speciation event.

 

[sir_schwick]

I did not bother reading through all ten pages, but here are some points that might focus dicussion if not already mentioned. Remember, I may not personally think these statements, but they are questions that already came about.

Support for the Seven Day Theory
1) When God created the Universe it looked roughly as it did now. Of course it would appear as a universe of considerable age. Because no one can 'beyond reasonable doubt' know what the Earth was like 20,000 years ago, if it was here, we do not know if the universe really is old or just appears that way because of how things are arranged.
2) Between major species there would be many transitional forms. Fossil records just do not have the quantity that natural(4-Billion Years of Evolution) evolution theory would predict.

Arguments against Natural Evolution
1) According to simulation and evolution models(I will have to locate the studies I read), it would have taken 30 to 40 billion years for humans and many other animals to evolve. The Earth is around 4 billion years old. Then the question becomes the source of this advanced genetic material.
1A) Extra-Terrestials either breeded on Earth or introduced the genetic material in various forms.
1B) God introduced the advanced genetic material at his discretion.
1C) Evolution models need to be adjusted.

 

[Yuri2356]

I'd say 1C becasuse that's how science works. If something's wrong with the theory, you change it.

 

[sir_schwick]

But how do you know the models aren't correct and many forms of life on Earth in fact should not exist? LIke I said, I need to find where that figure comes from to estimate its legitimacy in this debate. Saying 1C is the answer is making an assumption that all life on Earth naturally evolved. That is not a proven assumption, but a disputed thoery.

 

[Yuri2356]

And if definate evidence of outside influence is discovered, then The theory shall adapt to encompass it. That's just the way science works, you just keep revising until you get it right.

 

[Gothmog]

Support for the Seven Day Theory
1) When God created the Universe it looked roughly as it did now. Of course it would appear as a universe of considerable age. Because no one can 'beyond reasonable doubt' know what the Earth was like 20,000 years ago, if it was here, we do not know if the universe really is old or just appears that way because of how things are arranged.

If an omnipotent being wants to play this sort of game with us, there is nothing we can do about it. Science is not equipped to deal with a being of that nature. All evidence about the age of the earth and the age of the universe converge to a reasonably slim range of values. That is what science can tell us.

2) Between major species there would be many transitional forms. Fossil records just do not have the quantity that natural(4-Billion Years of Evolution) evolution theory would predict.

This is, of course, a matter of opinion. But expert opinion disagrees with your statement. And of course huge amounts of additional evidence from molecular biology and genetics is not addressed by this statement.

Arguments against Natural Evolution
1) According to simulation and evolution models(I will have to locate the studies I read), it would have taken 30 to 40 billion years for humans and many other animals to evolve. The Earth is around 4 billion years old. Then the question becomes the source of this advanced genetic material.
1A) Extra-Terrestials either breeded on Earth or introduced the genetic material in various forms.
1B) God introduced the advanced genetic material at his discretion.
1C) Evolution models need to be adjusted.

There are no complete simulations of the evolution of life that I know of. The rates of genetic change just aren’t well enough constrained yet. We know for sure that the rates of change differ with time (due to gene-environment interaction) and location on the genome. These interactions are non-linear.

There is no evidence for extra-terrestrial material, nor introduced material. It would stick out like a sore thumb in the hierarchy of protein evolution etc. unless it was incredibly subtle, or an omnipotent being changed the evidence after the fact.

Saying 1C is the answer is making an assumption that all life on Earth naturally evolved. That is not a proven assumption, but a disputed thoery.

1C reflects the fact that there is no major theory competing with the ToE. This is because the evidence for the ToE is so strong. The ToE is not disputed in any real sense, it is less disputed than relativity for example. It is still evolving (heh), but is not disputed due to the overwhelming amount of data it successfully explains and the many predictions it has made that have been born out by data. If it is ever overturned, the new theory will have to incorporate the vast majority of its ideas. This is like we still accept the theory of the proton (i.e. that protons exist), though we now think they are made up of quarks.

 

[Perfection]

1) When God created the Universe it looked roughly as it did now. Of course it would appear as a universe of considerable age. Because no one can 'beyond reasonable doubt' know what the Earth was like 20,000 years ago, if it was here, we do not know if the universe really is old or just appears that way because of how things are arranged.

This arguement is irrational and flies in the face of all scientific reasoning. The fact it is not logically impossible for god to be decieving us all (there is massive evidence for an "old earth") does not provide merit for its existance. If it was a valid arguement I could argue on the same principles that invisable intangible gremlins sitting on your shoulder and since it appears that there are none, but you can't really know then it too would provide justification for its existance.

2) Between major species there would be many transitional forms. Fossil records just do not have the quantity that natural(4-Billion Years of Evolution) evolution theory would predict.

Incorrect, there are vast numbers of transitional fossils. The fact that not many date back more than a billion or so years ago is because before then there was only unicellular life which makes for poor fossilization.

Arguments against Natural Evolution
1) According to simulation and evolution models(I will have to locate the studies I read), it would have taken 30 to 40 billion years for humans and many other animals to evolve. The Earth is around 4 billion years old. Then the question becomes the source of this advanced genetic material.

These are based on faulty assumptions, a few common ones:
1. They use point mutations as the only form increasing genetic variety
2. They discount the variance inthe ratio in beneficial/harmful mutations
3. They underestimate the usefulness of larger mutations

1A) Extra-Terrestials either breeded on Earth or introduced the genetic material in various forms.

No evidence

1B) God introduced the advanced genetic material at his discretion.

No evidence

1C) Evolution models need to be adjusted.

Of course, no simulation in the near future is going to be able to come up with a good timescale given the immense intricacy of evolutionary theory's various mechanisms.

 

[sir_schwick]

Like I said before, these are not arguments I personally subscribe too, but ones that did need answering. Specifically, I needed them answered for an assingment for my 'religion' class. This has been a fascinating and useful source and would like to thank all your gentlemen/ladies for being civil in your discussion.

 

[Perfection]

Specifically, I needed them answered for an assingment for my 'religion' class.

Just out of curiosity what is the assignment?

 

[sir_schwick]

Basically it was to see what kind of attack could be made against those specific points. We discussed today, and my teacher presented the point that there was no way to prove or disprove 1). The same way you can't prove God does not exist or does exist. On 2) he says there really is not a field consensus on the answer to that question. I raised the point that most life a billion years ago was uni-cellular, and he clarified that the disputed fossil evidence is from more recent evolution. He was not sure about the models for the 30-40 billion year question. He is not a geneticist and admits that.

 

[Perfection]

Basically it was to see what kind of attack could be made against those specific points.

He seems creationist, go hardline against him. For the cause!

We discussed today, and my teacher presented the point that there was no way to prove or disprove 1). The same way you can't prove God does not exist or does exist.

So it's really a pointless arguement if you can't back it up except for a strict interpretation of a piece of literature of disputed accuracy and no other evidence, now isn't it?

On 2) he says there really is not a field consensus on the answer to that question.

Not among Biologists, the vast majority are evolutionists.

I raised the point that most life a billion years ago was uni-cellular, and he clarified that the disputed fossil evidence is from more recent evolution.

There's dispute over the exact lineage of certain fossils and if they are transitional, but many fossils follow clearly defined lineages

He was not sure about the models for the 30-40 billion year question.

Let me put it in perspective on the difficulty of calculating the exact time you have to deal with all of the following: anuepolyploidy, tetrapoliploidy, frameshift mutations, translocation mutations/genetic copying, sex, conjugation, viral genetic transfers and other vectors, hybridization, point mutations, effects of diploidy vs. haploidy, deletion mutations, genic versus cellular versus organismic versus demic versus specefic versus cladistic selectionism, synthetic selction, puctuated equilibruim (catastrophes), operons, wobble, non-standard aminoacid coding sequences, introns/exons, Gaia theory.

The factors of evolution go on and on and on, try making that into a simulation!

He is not a geneticist and admits that.

What level of science education does he have?

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Since FL2 was leading the Flag of creationism I will give him a break (even though I should of entered the debate a while back) and I will resume the flag of Creationism.

So perfection, you think that Creationism is an idea full of illogical and unreasonable evidence with crakes and holes. Well can you till me where in the 7th century European or western science was; I mean did they know the world was Round like a spare? NO! Because no one traveled beyond what had already been discovered. The Quran states the world is a spare and I have shown you many evidences in the Quran that supports this; so don’t ask me to provide evidence. Anyway, the Quran states that the world is a spare in the 6th century. Now this is a scientific break through for the people that are living in the 6th century. Can you see the significances of the statement that the world is round and not flat? This is evidence that the quran and religious texts are pure scientific sources and miracles.

People living in the 7th century sore this as a miracle, but today it’s not a miracle because we have satellites, which orbit the earth, thus reinforces what had been revived to us in the 6th century. This even furthers my point that the quran is scientific and Creator/Allah is the most wise when it comes to science and the metaphysical.

If we were so evolved we could have just come up with that idea the world is round and not flat, since our minds would just look at the moon and eventually work out that the earth is as round as the moon. Wait a minute you say Copernicus invented astronomy and helped us understand the stars a little better? But that was like in 1514! In that same year he distributed a little book called Little Commentary and in it he has seven axioms, what are these axioms:

1.There is no one centre in the universe.

First of all no were in the quran does it say that, the universe does not have a centre

2.The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe.

Allah tells us that the earth is part of a bigger picture of the universe, and all the planets and world he has created.

3.The centre of the universe is near the sun.

This is wrong even when the Muslims confirmed it to the Europeans that the universe has a centure but that is not the sun…when NASA looked with the humble telescope they found our Solar system at the tip of the Milky way Galaxy. Also Scientists and astronomers say that the centure of the universe is some other place and not near the sun.

4.The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars.

The distance of the earth to the sun is small compared with the Stars and other Galaxies that is true but we must look at who came up with the idea first? In the quran Allah states “is it not us who has created Vass distances between the heavens and earth and even more so between the stars and the heavens”.

5.The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars.

Allah says “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course. And “The sun and the moon follow precise courses”

6.The Earth revolving round it causes the apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun.

Allah says “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course.

7.The motion of the Earth from which one observes causes the apparent retrograde motion of the planets.

It has been well stated in many scientific books that the gravitational pull of the earth has an effect on the moon and no other star. However, the sun has a large pull on all the inner planets and the force gets weaker as you move out would.

All this scientific evidence and observatory was reviled to mankind in the 6th century, I have a feeling, who knows, there are many more things the quran will revile in time.

 

[Blasphemous]

Since FL2 was leading the Flag of creationism I will give him a break (even though I should of entered the debate a while back) and I will resume the flag of Creationism.

So perfection, you think that Creationism is an idea full of illogical and unreasonable evidence with crakes and holes. Well can you till me where in the 7th century European or western science was; I mean did they know the world was Round like a spare? NO! Because no one traveled beyond what had already been discovered. The Quran states the world is a spare and I have shown you many evidences in the Quran that supports this; so don’t ask me to provide evidence. Anyway, the Quran states that the world is a spare in the 6th century. Now this is a scientific break through for the people that are living in the 6th century. Can you see the significances of the statement that the world is round and not flat? This is evidence that the quran and religious texts are pure scientific sources and miracles.

People living in the 7th century sore this as a miracle, but today it’s not a miracle because we have satellites, which orbit the earth, thus reinforces what had been revived to us in the 6th century. This even furthers my point that the quran is scientific and Creator/Allah is the most wise when it comes to science and the metaphysical.

If we were so evolved we could have just come up with that idea the world is round and not flat, since our minds would just look at the moon and eventually work out that the earth is as round as the moon. Wait a minute you say Copernicus invented astronomy and helped us understand the stars a little better? But that was like in 1514! In that same year he distributed a little book called Little Commentary and in it he has seven axioms, what are these axioms:

1.There is no one centre in the universe.

First of all no were in the quran does it say that, the universe does not have a centre

2.The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe.

Allah tells us that the earth is part of a bigger picture of the universe, and all the planets and world he has created.

3.The centre of the universe is near the sun.


This is wrong even when the Muslims confirmed it to the Europeans that the universe has a centure but that is not the sun…when NASA looked with the humble telescope they found our Solar system at the tip of the Milky way Galaxy. Also Scientists and astronomers say that the centure of the universe is some other place and not near the sun.

4.The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars.

The distance of the earth to the sun is small compared with the Stars and other Galaxies that is true but we must look at who came up with the idea first? In the quran Allah states “is it not us who has created Vass distances between the heavens and earth and even more so between the stars and the heavens”.

5.The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars.

Allah says “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course. And “The sun and the moon follow precise courses”

6.The Earth revolving round it causes the apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun.

Allah says “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course.

7.The motion of the Earth from which one observes causes the apparent retrograde motion of the planets.

It has been well stated in many scientific books that the gravitational pull of the earth has an effect on the moon and no other star. However, the sun has a large pull on all the inner planets and the force gets weaker as you move out would.

All this scientific evidence and observatory was reviled to mankind in the 6th century, I have a feeling, who knows, there are many more things the quran will revile in time.

Ahh, HamBab, non-sensicle as always.
You do nothing by refuting Copernicus, I'm not astrologer but obviously many discoveries since his time have proven him wrong in many aspects.
Now, western science was only strong in anceint greece and then much later in all of Europe from the 15th/16th century (and later on in the rest of the world as it still is today.) The Arabs were surely scientifically ahead at the time that the Quran was written, so it's no surprise there are some advanced scientific thruth in there (if interpreted correctly in hindsight, of course). However, this does not make the entire book a "pure scientific source and miracle." If all you need is one scientific fact to turn an entire book (and all affiliated texts) into pure truth, I could quickly have you believe you are a rabt with shapeshifting powers who is stuck in human form with no memory of his past (and also that this is how all of humanity is.)
Your logic is heavily flawed, and it infuriates me time after time that you claim to be "regilious&scientific", because you are not at all scientific or rational.

 

[Gladi]

Ahem.
Did not pope John Paul II. several years ago oficially confirmed evolution, thus making it Roman Catholic doctrine?

 

[Perfection]

So perfection, you think that Creationism is an idea full of illogical and unreasonable evidence with crakes and holes. Well can you till me where in the 7th century European or western science was; I mean did they know the world was Round like a spare? NO! Because no one traveled beyond what had already been discovered. The Quran states the world is a spare and I have shown you many evidences in the Quran that supports this; so don’t ask me to provide evidence. Anyway, the Quran states that the world is a spare in the 6th century. Now this is a scientific break through for the people that are living in the 6th century. Can you see the significances of the statement that the world is round and not flat? This is evidence that the quran and religious texts are pure scientific sources and miracles.

1. Show me where the quran says it's a sphere
2. Some people thought the world was spherical before the 6th century
3. It doesn't mean you're right about evolution

People living in the 7th century sore this as a miracle, but today it’s not a miracle because we have satellites, which orbit the earth, thus reinforces what had been revived to us in the 6th century. This even furthers my point that the quran is scientific and Creator/Allah is the most wise when it comes to science and the metaphysical.

Explain how this is a miracle.

If we were so evolved we could have just come up with that idea the world is round and not flat, since our minds would just look at the moon and eventually work out that the earth is as round as the moon. Wait a minute you say Copernicus invented astronomy and helped us understand the stars a little better? But that was like in 1514! In that same year he distributed a little book called Little Commentary and in it he has seven axioms, what are these axioms:

Copernicus's brilliance was not saying those things, but providing evidence for them.

1.There is no one centre in the universe.

First of all no were in the quran does it say that, the universe does not have a centre

It not mentioning it doesn't make it evidence

2.The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe.

Allah tells us that the earth is part of a bigger picture of the universe, and all the planets and world he has created.

It can still be part of the bigger picture and still be in the center

3.The centre of the universe is near the sun.

This is wrong even when the Muslims confirmed it to the Europeans that the universe has a centure but that is not the sun…when NASA looked with the humble telescope they found our Solar system at the tip of the Milky way Galaxy. Also Scientists and astronomers say that the centure of the universe is some other place and not near the sun.

Actually he said the center of the solar system

4.The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars.

The distance of the earth to the sun is small compared with the Stars and other Galaxies that is true but we must look at who came up with the idea first? In the quran Allah states “is it not us who has created Vass distances between the heavens and earth and even more so between the stars and the heavens”.

geocentric theories ususaully said the stars were the farthest out.

5.The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars.

Allah says “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course. And “The sun and the moon follow precise courses”

Except that it's motion of the earth that accounts for it not the sun and moon

6.The Earth revolving round it causes the apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun.

Allah says “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course.

Except that it's motion of the earth that accounts for it not the sun and moon

7.The motion of the Earth from which one observes causes the apparent retrograde motion of the planets.

It has been well stated in many scientific books that the gravitational pull of the earth has an effect on the moon and no other star. However, the sun has a large pull on all the inner planets and the force gets weaker as you move out would.

And this has to do with the quran, how?

All this scientific evidence and observatory was reviled to mankind in the 6th century, I have a feeling, who knows, there are many more things the quran will revile in time.

Okay show quantum electrodynamics, general relativity, atomic thoery, chemistry, astrophyics and everything else!


And how the hell does this prove evolution false? Where the hell is evolution in your arguement?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Anyway, the Quran states that the world is a spare in the 6th century. Now this is a scientific break through for the people that are living in the 6th century. Can you see the significances of the statement that the world is round and not flat? This is evidence that the quran and religious texts are pure scientific sources and miracles.

People living in the 7th century sore this as a miracle, but today it’s not a miracle because we have satellites, which orbit the earth, thus reinforces what had been revived to us in the 6th century. This even furthers my point that the quran is scientific and Creator/Allah is the most wise when it comes to science and the metaphysical.

As a staunch believer in science and its role in uncovering truth, let me for a moment change horses and rephrase what I think HB is trying to get across. I have not read the Quran and so I am assuming that his quotes are accurate translations. That is a different discussion. He seems to be arguing that in the 6th century the Quran described aspects of our world and the universe in a manner that has proven to be somewhat accurate given the lack of appropriate scientific language available at the time and the passing of over 1000 years. Since these descriptions came at a time when science had not uncovered them, they can be interpreted to reveal that Mohammed had access to knowledge beyond what was known at the time. Therefore HB assumes, along with other muslims, that the source of that knowledge was Allah.

I don't believe that he is arguing that we should use the Quran as a science book. Through the Quran, god described the universe in a manner that was closer to reality than previous books and traditions, and prepared the world for the science to come. Did the descriptions of the universe in the Quran "shake up" the scientific thinking (such as it was) of the day? Did it lay the ground work for the blossoming of Islamic science that came later? Can a case be made that the new scientific paradigm expressed in the Quran worked to fuel the rise of science in the West?

What we read as mushy metaphor and vague may not have been so back in 7-11th Centuries. Was it a radical departure from the norm? Did it allow thinking people of the 7th C to ask new questions about how the world was organized and behaved? If so, then its value to science should be reappraised.

HB, I don't know if this is what you are trying to say, but from what you have posted, it makes sense to me.

 

[Perfection]

As a staunch believer in science and its role in uncovering truth, let me for a moment change horses and rephrase what I think HB is trying to get across. I have not read the Quran and so I am assuming that his quotes are accurate translations. That is a different discussion. He seems to be arguing that in the 6th century the Quran described aspects of our world and the universe in a manner that has proven to be somewhat accurate given the lack of appropriate scientific language available at the time and the passing of over 1000 years.

No more accurate then any other book of the time, the fact is it's vague inspecefic and can be interpreted in many way.

Since these descriptions came at a time when science had not uncovered them, they can be interpreted to reveal that Mohammed had access to knowledge beyond what was known at the time. Therefore HB assumes, along with other muslims, that the source of that knowledge was Allah.

Except that the "knowledge" is vague innacurate or already known.

I don't believe that he is arguing that we should use the Quran as a science book.

Then why does he need to use it to prove evolution false?

Through the Quran, god described the universe in a manner that was closer to reality than previous books and traditions, and prepared the world for the science to come.

Not really, from what he's shown me it looks more fitting with geocentrism.

Did the descriptions of the universe in the Quran "shake up" the scientific thinking (such as it was) of the day?

Starting the arguement is not the same as winning it

Did it lay the ground work for the blossoming of Islamic science that came later?

By provding national unity, yes, by basing facts of what the Quran says, no.

Can a case be made that the new scientific paradigm expressed in the Quran worked to fuel the rise of science in the West?

I don't believe so, rather it provided an environemnt for science to rise. The difference is the ideas came from the world and were able to be expressed by Muslim thinkers, not that they got the ideas from the Quran

What we read as mushy metaphor and vague may not have been so back in 7-11th Centuries. Was it a radical departure from the norm?

The social ideas were radical the scientific were not

Did it allow thinking people of the 7th C to ask new questions about how the world was organized and behaved? If so, then its value to science should be reappraised.

It only allowed it sociatally by providing a social framework that allowed for new ideas, not by providing factual ideas for sceintists to use.

 

[stormbind]

Conventionally, evolution by natural selection is almost inseparable from the notion of accumulating successive slight variations.

It has been suggested that symbiotic mechanisms that combine together existing entities provide an alternative to gradual, or accretive, evolutionary change, there has been disagreement about what impact these mechanisms have on our understanding of evolutionary processes. There is no evidence to suggest that accretive evolution can result in a new species, yet this is the primary issue to which Perfection continuously draws attention.

In artificial evolution methods, demonstrated through computer science, it has been suggested that the composition of genetic material under sexual recombination may provide adaptation that is not available under mutational variation. Quantitative investigations show evidence to suggest that another form of evolution, an unknown science, is required for a new species to exist. This much, science has proven.

Thus far, Perfection, you have failed to KO anything. Your signature line demonstrates only excessive quantities of dilusional self-worth. The only way you can prove evolution, is to find the missing link in scientific understanding, for which you would no doubt be awarded many internationally-respected science awards. Good luck!