Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 5/19/2019 at 4:43 PM, OrthodoxTruth said:

Sayyed Ammar explains it all in his newest Ramadan lecture;

 

As salaamun aleikum, 

Id like to know how the ayatt of: 

Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 33:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَىٰ آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ

Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.

...is to be understood....Who was Adam(عليه السلام) "chosen" from, if there were no other humans to be chosen from?

W/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 5:46 AM, Guest theObserver said:

Evolution is just a theory, a theory that is nice and fun bedtime story, and which always when faced with questions about its mechanism is answered with tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, millions and billions of years ago

So its easy to sell the idea, but really if we dealt with any other science this way of leaving things in the unknown and stretching answers out to something which really is inadvertently saying "we don’t know" but saying it in a way which looks like an ends all argument tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee , then we would have no definite science that can be used pratically

There is a TONNE of problems and questions which evolution and even people who study this theory , fail to answer , literally tonnes of problems, but they still choose to believe in evolution theory cause they don’t like the alternative , so basically their belief in it is based on faith

Thanks for the technical response. You could write a text book with these words.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 2:01 PM, dragonxx said:

That pretty much sums me up. I draw the line at human beings

This is logical inconsistency. To suggest that evolution is plausible up until the discussion involves mankind. 

Either you accept the science or you reject the science. You can't logically accept it for all life forms, then just reject it for humanity, because the justifications for evolution of all life forms, are identical.

I mean, I guess you can believe whatever you want, but such ways of thinking are...non-scientific  and maybe even philosophically inconsistent as well.

It's like accepting gravity for objects on Earth and accepting gravity up until it relates to objects in space, then rejecting gravity with respect to stars, just because someone has a belief that stars are different. Even though nothing to anyone's knowledge evidently demonstrates that stars are unique and not subject to gravity. There is no physical mechanism or anything unique about stars that would make them not subject to gravity just like everything else.

Either you accept gravity or you don't. And if you don't accept evolution on the grounds that you feel it contradicts the Qur'an, that's ok. But if that's the case, I would not bother accepting evolution of any other life either. Because the evidence is all the same.

Anyway, I guess there's not much more to say here, all the best.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/19/2019 at 2:01 PM, dragonxx said:

Honestly, no clue. That does not mean evolution being the only potential explanation that it is the correct explanation

And I don't mean to be offensive here I'll try to word this nicely.

And I think this statement of yours is a testament to the...brokenness in your perception.

You appear to feel as though perhaps other life forms beyond humans have evolved. Then when asked about things like wisdom teeth, hernias, hickups, goose bumps, our tail bone, and more, the response is...well, humans are an exception, and "honestly, no clue", even though the answer is right here before you, on a silver platter.

 

Here's something that I like doing.

PRshaBZ.png.f2d22988476decf2a858c3e07d42cfaa.png

690245073_elephant-evolution(1).jpg.6f94bc242527f27ba5e7afd1aa7e3666.jpg

It's basically a sequence of elephants over time. It is the evolution of elephants from dog sized ungulates that didn't really have tusks or trunks, to the behemoths we know them as today.

If not through common descent, what is the explanation for the sequence of fossils that we find? 

God created and then wasn't happy and destroyed, then recreated something similar right after, then destroyed again, then created something slightly different, then destroyed again, over and over and over again?

Alternatively, it is no mystery to us that mutations occur and accumulate. Children are always genetically slightly different than their parents.

Simple, easy, clean.

We have things like ERVs and fused chromosome #2.

We have paleogeographic distributions (Indian elephants and African elephants are different species), why don't elephants exist elsewhere in Asia? The simple answer is that they descended from a common ancestor back when India was still attached to Africa. Now they are morphologically and genetically unique from one another.

Why are there sequences of marsupials randomly spanning Antarctica when living related marsupials dominate Australia and are found in South America? Well because a common ancestor traversed Antarctica when it was connected between the two.

Another question: why would tiktaalik, a fish with legs, appear in the fossil succession after fish but before terrestrial tetrapods? Why would archaeopteryx appear in the fossil succession after feathered bird-like theropods, but before modern birds? Why do turtles with half shells appear in the fossil record after reptiles with endo-shells and turtles with full exo-shells? Why would the classic "frogamander" appear after amphibians but before reptiles? Why would terrestrial whale-like mammals appear after artiodactyls but before modern whales?

And the list goes on and on. And this is just in paleontology. In biology they have their own list of questions that all logically point to one conclusion. Which is common descent.

And a strength of a good scientist, is being able to go where the evidence points. No matter what pre conceived ideas we have beforehand. If we simply rejected our evidence, of course we would intellectually collapse as a society.

Islam isn't trapped like young Earth creationism. I think that Muslims should fight to keep it that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 11:35 PM, iCenozoic said:

This is logical inconsistency. To suggest that evolution is plausible up until the discussion involves mankind. 

 Either you accept the science or you reject the science. You can't logically accept it for all life forms, then just reject it for humanity, because the justifications for evolution of all life forms, are identical.

 I mean, I guess you can believe whatever you want, but such ways of thinking are...non-scientific  and maybe even philosophically inconsistent as well.

It's like accepting gravity for objects on Earth and accepting gravity up until it relates to objects in space, then rejecting gravity with respect to stars, just because someone has a belief that stars are different. Even though nothing to anyone's knowledge evidently demonstrates that stars are unique and not subject to gravity. There is no physical mechanism or anything unique about stars that would make them not subject to gravity just like everything else.

 Either you accept gravity or you don't. And if you don't accept evolution on the grounds that you feel it contradicts the Qur'an, that's ok. But if that's the case, I would not bother accepting evolution of any other life either. Because the evidence is all the same.

Anyway, I guess there's not much more to say here, all the best.

As you said, I have been saying that evolution is plausible, not that I have fully understood and accepted it, rather I am open to it - up until the human being - and the reason for that is because as far as I know Islam does not speak about the creation and/or stages of creation of creatures. It does however give me a decent enough idea to conclude that present day humans and Adam ((عليه السلام)) did not evolve from another creature, and because Islam has made this clear to me, I am therefore not open to the concept Adam had 1-2 creatures that gave birth to him.

On the flip side, it would be a logical inconsistency to say life came from nothing/random event/uncontrolled mutations. An ultimate being is required to illuminate the rest of life.

Thanks for the analogy, though I don't see the gravity and evolution measuring up in the same way.

On 5/22/2019 at 12:08 AM, iCenozoic said:

 

 

And I don't mean to be offensive here I'll try to word this nicely.

 And I think this statement of yours is a testament to the...brokenness in your perception.

 You appear to feel as though perhaps other life forms beyond humans have evolved. Then when asked about things like wisdom teeth, hernias, hickups, goose bumps, our tail bone, and more, the response is...well, humans are an exception, and "honestly, no clue", even though the answer is right here before you, on a silver platter.

  

Here's something that I like doing.

PRshaBZ.png.f2d22988476decf2a858c3e07d42cfaa.png

690245073_elephant-evolution(1).jpg.6f94bc242527f27ba5e7afd1aa7e3666.jpg

It's basically a sequence of elephants over time. It is the evolution of elephants from dog sized ungulates that didn't really have tusks or trunks, to the behemoths we know them as today.

 If not through common descent, what is the explanation for the sequence of fossils that we find? 

 God created and then wasn't happy and destroyed, then recreated something similar right after, then destroyed again, then created something slightly different, then destroyed again, over and over and over again?

 Alternatively, it is no mystery to us that mutations occur and accumulate. Children are always genetically slightly different than their parents.

 Simple, easy, clean.

We have things like ERVs and fused chromosome #2.

We have paleogeographic distributions (Indian elephants and African elephants are different species), why don't elephants exist elsewhere in Asia? The simple answer is that they descended from a common ancestor back when India was still attached to Africa. Now they are morphologically and genetically unique from one another.

 Why are there sequences of marsupials randomly spanning Antarctica when living related marsupials dominate Australia and are found in South America? Well because a common ancestor traversed Antarctica when it was connected between the two.

 Another question: why would tiktaalik, a fish with legs, appear in the fossil succession after fish but before terrestrial tetrapods? Why would archaeopteryx appear in the fossil succession after feathered bird-like theropods, but before modern birds? Why do turtles with half shells appear in the fossil record after reptiles with endo-shells and turtles with full exo-shells? Why would the classic "frogamander" appear after amphibians but before reptiles? Why would terrestrial whale-like mammals appear after artiodactyls but before modern whales?

 And the list goes on and on. And this is just in paleontology. In biology they have their own list of questions that all logically point to one conclusion. Which is common descent.

 And a strength of a good scientist, is being able to go where the evidence points. No matter what pre conceived ideas we have beforehand. If we simply rejected our evidence, of course we would intellectually collapse as a society.

 Islam isn't trapped like young Earth creationism. I think that Muslims should fight to keep it that way.

  

I have no clue because I feel I haven't read thoroughly enough to give a reasonable answer.

All of your questions are good, but I don't know enough to comment on them. I'll need several months to find the time to look into evolution more thoroughly because the concept does interest me a lot , so at present time I can only thank you for pointing me in the direction of where to read.

All the best to you as well. I certainly agree with your last 2 lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 12:42 AM, khamosh21 said:

I don't know if anyone can provide any evidence other than the words in books which can show us Adam and Hawa magically appeared on Earth or on some spaceship.

Don't have evidence either whether an ape give birth to a human lolz. 

:hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Don't have evidence either whether an ape give birth to a human lolz. 

:hahaha:

yes you are absolutely right, you can't give evidence for something that didn't happen. I accept your statment, but it doesn't answer or satisfy my request for evidence for another claim...

Edited by khamosh21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...