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

ever lived on this Earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator. But this inference is chiefly grounded on anal-

ogy, and it is immaterial wheter or not it be accepted.

The case is different with the members of each great class,

as the Vertebrata or Articulata; for here, as has just been

remarked, we have in the laws of homology and embry-

ology, &c., some distinct evidence that all have descended

from a single primordial parent.]

(On the Origin of Species, p. 433, Charles Robert Darwin).

imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-73-KT4-H9r-P0z

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is false. It was propagated by the enemies of Islam. It has been refuted many times by intelligent people.

Humans beings did not develop from apes. Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) was the first man on Earth.

Here is a good discussion by Sheik Aous Asfar that refutes Darwin's theory of natural selection :

(there is also another good discussion I watched by Sayed Mohammed al Musawi on the topic)

 

Edited by Murtaza1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Murtaza1 said:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is false. It was propagated by the enemies of Islam. It has been refuted many times by intelligent people.

Humans beings did not develop from apes. Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) was the first man on Earth.

Here is a good discussion by Sheik Aous Asfar that refutes Darwin's theory of natural selection :

(there is also another good discussion I watched by Sayed Mohammed al Musawi on the topic)

 

You’ve misunderstood me. I don’t believe in the evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no evidence in our narrations for or against the theory of evolution. 

An important distinction to make is between the mechanism of evolution and the metaphysics of evolution. 

The former has a place for God, as an intelligent designer and/or sustainer, whereas the latter may not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ali sultan

Believe in the theory of evolution does not mean not believing in the God there is no conflict but there may be conflict with some religious texts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Murtaza1 said:

Humans beings did not develop from apes.

that is a misreading of the theory of evolution. evolution does not state in any way, shape, or form that we developed from apes. Evolution states that we and apes have a common ancestor. Qur'an [2:30] is an Ayah that talks about similar forms to humans. Quite possibly neanderthals since some people have been scientifically proven to have neanderthal genes in them. This could mean that humans did mate with neanderthals, which some scholars have suggested was a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

There's no evidence in our narrations for or against the theory of evolution. 

 

Sure but, when it comes to human beings, I feel the spirit of Islam would be against humans specifically "evolving" from animals. Otherwise, humans aside, I don't see a contradiction so far...

Edited by dragonxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Not necessarily true.

Evidence from Qur'an and hadith I believe suggests that there were many 'humans' before our Adam ((عليه السلام)). 

The attempt to use vague Verses and hadith to prove scientific theories and scientific facts has always fallen short.

Muslims need to remember their book isn't a scientific textbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Sure but, when it comes to human beings, I feel the spirit of Islam would be against humans specifically "evolving" from animals. Otherwise, humans aside, I don't see a contradiction so far...

I hear this a lot. I think this is a tough position to hold, the idea that, perhaps life at large evolves, but that with regards to humans, there is an exception.

But all life, including people, are DNA based. We mutate, our mutations are passed on to our children. Our children grow up and are slightly different and unique from us, genetically and morphologically. And when our children have children, those grand children will be just a little more different. 

And, there is no known mechanism which would ever stop these slight changes from occuring indefinetly, over hundreds of millions of years.

And this holds true in any life that is DNA based.

People have trouble believing in this idea that historically we were not human as we are today. But look at us. We have a tail bone. We have wisdom teeth that don't even fit in our mouths. We get hickups and muscle spasms and hernias upon birth. We have goosebumps when we are cold. Our backs regularly are in pain and many of us need glasses because our eyes are somewhat in efficient and flawed.

These are all byproducts of our history. Goosebumps helps hair stand in furry animals, but we don't have fur. Our testicals migrate from our throws down toward our anus during development, and sometimes it goes too far and we have a hernia, but our ancestors wouldn't experience that, as their testicals were further up their body. We have these random spasms in our neck and chest that produces hickups, where our nerves traverse our body. An issue for us, yet sensible for an ancestors which has breathing structures closer to their brain. A tail bone and wisdom teeth that don't fit in our mouths. Again, useless and even a pain for us. But ideal for ancestors who used a tail and used / needed more teeth. And of course we get goosebumps which seems utterly pointless, when we are cold. But if we had fur like our ancestors, we would be motioning our fur to coat ourselves from cold weather.

Not only does the evidence indicate evolution of all life through genetics and paleontology, but further it makes logical sense. Otherwise we would be left with an unanswered question of why God designed us to grow more teeth in our heads than our jaws even have room for. Among other things. Why would we randomly get goosebumps? Why would we randomly have hernias? And hickups etc.

To be logically consistent, if there is enough evidence to support belief in evolution of animals, then it ought to follow that mankind is no exception. As we display and have the same evidence for our own history as other life forms do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCenozoic

I've read about all those examples and more. I do understand them. Perhaps there are explanation we aren't truly aware of. I mean there was one point 400 years ago where the majority of the West believed the Earth was flat. So who knows.

Anyway it's hard for me to reconcile the idea that as a Muslim, having a Prophet whose light was created before other creations, that that same light would be instilled in the descendants of animals. Why couldn't Adam ((عليه السلام)) be created the same way Jesus ((عليه السلام)) was? Why does Islam tell us to reject whatever animal instincts we have and remain above that? It would hardly make sense that God caused humans to come forth from the very same animals we are to be different from. Etc. Etc. That's why macroevolution inclusive of humans is not something I can swallow as it appears contradictory to Islam.

As for the changes in humans over the millennia, it doesn't seem to extend past microevolution which I don't really have a problem understanding.

Also, just a side note, isn't interesting that in a way some of the examples you mentioned could be perceived as devolving as opposed to being the most evolved. If we are the culmination of evolution, should we not be rid of significant disadvantages of which our ancestors had the 'counter' advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

@iCenozoic

I've read about all those examples and more. I do understand them. Perhaps there are explanation we aren't truly aware of. I mean there was one point 400 years ago where the majority of the West believed the Earth was flat. So who knows.

Anyway it's hard for me to reconcile the idea that as a Muslim, having a Prophet whose light was created before other creations, that that same light would be instilled in the descendants of animals. Why couldn't Adam ((عليه السلام)) be created the same way Jesus ((عليه السلام)) was? Why does Islam tell us to reject whatever animal instincts we have and remain above that? It would hardly make sense that God caused humans to come forth from the very same animals we are to be different from. Etc. Etc. That's why macroevolution inclusive of humans is not something I can swallow as it appears contradictory to Islam.

As for the changes in humans over the millennia, it doesn't seem to extend past microevolution which I don't really have a problem understanding.

Also, just a side note, isn't interesting that in a way some of the examples you mentioned could be perceived as devolving as opposed to being the most evolved. If we are the culmination of evolution, should we not be rid of significant disadvantages of which our ancestors had the 'counter' advantage?

Yea I mean, there are questions that we all have to examine and ponder over. If it were so easy for all of us to accept the idea of primitive origins, we wouldn't all be having this conversation now. And that's kind of up to each individual, to determine how to respond.

People can choose to believe in some kind of barrier between micro evolution and macro. But, as far as anyone is aware, no such barrier exists. Really, we aren't even able to define the difference between micro and macro evolution, because there is no such thing, aside from the factor of time. Which of course never stops. Some have suggested that speciation is the cutoff point between micro and macro evolution. But then speciation was observed. Then macro evolution became a change in some sort of arbitrary "kind" with logical inconsistencies. It's like trying to define the difference between a light gray and a slightly lighter gray.

Regarding the idea of devolving, although I have a tail bone, goosebumps, I had a hernia in the past, many of us have back issues, I had wisdom teeth that I needed to have removed because they didn't fit in my head...regardless of these complications, this isn't hurting my ability to procreate. Which is what it all comes down to.

Evolution often works with what is already available. For example, birds didn't just appear. They worked off of theropods with bird features, like feathers. People's arms and legs don't just appear, rather bones are gradually changed over time into arms and legs. And in that use of historical morphology, we inevitably retain qualities of life from the past. Kind of like scars. We have scars from our past. But goosebumps don't hurt my ability to survive, even though they are seemingly useless now. And with that, these attributes continue through the ages. Passed on to children.

Ultimately, I think people just have to go where the evidence points. Sometimes it's difficult to accept things that run contrary to preconceived notions. Actually it's always difficult. But it is what it is. The other day someone corrected me on something. I was offended and hurt. But then I said, you know what, that person is factually correct, and acknowledging that just makes me better informed. And I swallowed my pride and moved on with life. 

People are prideful, they don't want to believe that they once were primitive. Dirty, uneducated, maybe barbaric. Unclean. These are common qualities we associate with other animals. We don't even call ourselves animals, we don't even call ourselves apes or mammals. But technically we are all of the above. And we certainly don't want to believe that our Prophets were animals either. Because they were perfect. How dare anyone suggest that we descended from animals that lived in the dirt?

It's pride. Which results in denial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 5:36 PM, iCenozoic said:

And we certainly don't want to believe that our Prophets were animals either. Because they were perfect. How dare anyone suggest that we descended from animals that lived in the dirt?

Indeed =P but also pride aside, it does not make logical sense to me that imperfect creatures would culminate into a perfect being. Whereas the perfect being can degrade themselves to imperfect beings.

On 4/28/2019 at 5:36 PM, iCenozoic said:

 It's pride. Which results in denial. 

True, when it's unfounded. And in most cases, this would apply.

However there is no denial the human species is the only intelligent species on the entire Earth. Pride or not, that is factual. To not take pride in being different to a pig is tantamount to stripping one's own dignity and intellect away.

Anyway steering it away from the philosophical ideas, it comes down to the evidence as you stated, therein lies the problem itself. Different people will value certain evidences more than others, like my example, spirit of Islam being against human evolution (In my humble opinion) versus the theory of evolution suggesting otherwise. For me, the former (for now as I understand it) holds more value than the latter.

We shall see if that changes as I learn more.

 

On 4/28/2019 at 5:36 PM, iCenozoic said:

 Regarding the idea of devolving, although I have a tail bone, goosebumps, I had a hernia in the past, many of us have back issues, I had wisdom teeth that I needed to have removed because they didn't fit in my head...regardless of these complications, this isn't hurting my ability to procreate. Which is what it all comes down to.

 

Just a technical point here, I'd disagree with some of these points. Sure goosebumps, tail bone, etc. isn't averse to our existence. But for example hernia is, because if everyone had hernias and there was no treatment for it, and it gets incarcerated, we would eventually over a very long period of time (as evolution suggests) would die off. Besides, these are minor examples, I am sure there are more 'significant' examples that more clearly affect the ability to survive/procreate, yet these traits are alive and kicking despite seemingly being at the peak of "macroevolution".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 3:42 PM, 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.

When you go to sleep, don’t you magically appear in different places?  

Well, the entire world is imaginary.  No need to create a distinction between the world when you are awake and the world when you sleep.

The world is magical (all of it)... even if the dreamer doesn’t believe so.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

When you go to sleep, don’t you magically appear in different places?  

Well, the entire world is imaginary.  No need to create a distinction between the world when you are awake and the world when you sleep.

The world is magical (all of it)... even if the dreamer doesn’t believe so.  

 the world is an AI computer generated reality.

should I believe anything anyone says even if it sounds all spiritual and nice?

prove it, otherwise the only thing imaginary is your intelligence 

*I do not believe in my first sentence, just making a point.

Edited by khamosh21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, khamosh21 said:

 the world is an AI computer generated reality.

should I believe anything anyone says even if it sounds all spiritual and nice?

prove it, otherwise the only thing imaginary is your intelligence 

*I do not believe in my first sentence, just making a point.

You don't have to believe what anyone says...including these words 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Indeed =P but also pride aside, it does not make logical sense to me that imperfect creatures would culminate into a perfect being. Whereas the perfect being can degrade themselves to imperfect beings.

True, when it's unfounded. And in most cases, this would apply.

However there is no denial the human species is the only intelligent species on the entire Earth. Pride or not, that is factual. To not take pride in being different to a pig is tantamount to stripping one's own dignity and intellect away.

Anyway steering it away from the philosophical ideas, it comes down to the evidence as you stated, therein lies the problem itself. Different people will value certain evidences more than others, like my example, spirit of Islam being against human evolution (In my humble opinion) versus the theory of evolution suggesting otherwise. For me, the former (for now as I understand it) holds more value than the latter.

We shall see if that changes as I learn more.

 

Just a technical point here, I'd disagree with some of these points. Sure goosebumps, tail bone, etc. isn't averse to our existence. But for example hernia is, because if everyone had hernias and there was no treatment for it, and it gets incarcerated, we would eventually over a very long period of time (as evolution suggests) would die off. Besides, these are minor examples, I am sure there are more 'significant' examples that more clearly affect the ability to survive/procreate, yet these traits are alive and kicking despite seemingly being at the peak of "macroevolution".

Seems like you half agree and half disagree. Some people can die from things. One thing to also examine are the frequencies of hernias, but also how long humanity has struggled with hernias. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3031184/

"An abdominal wall hernia is an abnormal protrusion of a peritoneal-lined sac through the musculo-aponeurotic covering of the abdomen. Abdominal wall hernias are common, classically taught to occur in at least 2% of men1 while statistics from the United States estimate 15 per 1000 population (1.5%).2 "

So you have a relatively low percentage of people experiencing hernias. Of course we breed faster and the detriments of hernias should also be compared to the values of walking upright (as bipedalism would be the driver of hernias). Bipedalism supports our large brain, so it's easy to understand why we would evolve to have hernias. Same with wisdom teeth, if we have a choice between bigger jaws and more teeth, or bone material from the jaw being redirected to our skull for a larger brain, I would take a smaller jaw that can't fit wisdom teeth, in favor of a larger brain, any day of the week.

For the second question, for how long have we experienced hernias? And the answer is that we have been since we have been walking upright, which would be less than a 4 million years. Which isn't a particularly long time. 

And with that, it's also a relatively recent issue, that affects less than 5% of us as opposed to something morphologically drastic that has been around for a hundred million years. And beyond this, the occurance of hernias has ultimately been for a cause that increases survivability (bipedalism). A species with large brains and hernias will out-compete a quadraped with a smaller brain (such as a lion that wants to eat us) as we see in the real world.

Also, not all hernias are life threatening.

"ANSWER: Abdominal hernias are common and not necessarily dangerous. But, a hernia doesn’t usually get better on its own. In rare circumstances, it can lead to life-threatening complications. Consequently, surgery is usually recommended for a hernia that’s painful or becoming larger." -mayoclinic.org

and further, not all hernias affect people before they have children. And so someone might have children, pass the genes, then later have a hernia after they've already passed the genes on.

so we have a small percentage of people experiencing hernias (5%), we have probable cause (values in bipedalism), not all hernias are immediately life threatening and not all hernias occur at young ages before having children.

Regarding wisdom teeth, goose bumps, hickups, glasses, tail bones, bad backs etc. Sounds like you don't have anything to say.

Why do you think we have all of the other qualities?

Some Evangelical Christians would say that we are "devolving" since the introduction of sin in the garden of Eden (the concept of original sin). But of course this isn't supported by evidence. I'm not sure if Muslims believe in original sin or not, I don't think Muslims typically do.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 4:16 PM, dragonxx said:

Not necessarily true.

Evidence from Qur'an and hadith I believe suggests that there were many 'humans' before our Adam ((عليه السلام)). 

I've heard of this, can you show examples?

What is the main view among ulema? I always thought Adam (عليه السلام) was first man. Humanity are referred to as Bani Adam collectively

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest to Brothers and sisters who are not familiar with the theory of evolution, as constructed by Darwin, do not post on this topic. We don't want to sound ignorant, like those Evangelical Christians who do silly things like propose that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time, in order to attempt to rectify the Biblical account of creation with modern scientific evidence regarding the age of the Earth, and the different epochs which lasted for millions of years. 

For those who don't already know

1. The Qur'an states that the 'heavens and the Earth' were created in six stages or periods. It doesn't say God 'rested' on the Seventh Day, like the Bible says. It also doesn't give a time span for these stages or periods, like for example, the Bible does when it say in Genesis 'there was morning, and there was evening, a ____ day'. Morning and Evening presupposes rotations of a celestial body around a transverse axis and positioned in relation to a source of light that is fixed (I.e. a star). 

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً قَالُواْ أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ الدِّمَاء وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ قَالَ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

  “When your Lord said to the angels, “I am placing on Earth a Khalifa.” they said, “Will You place in it someone who will make mischief in it and shed blood? While we continuously serve you and exalt your Glory.”God said, “I know what you do not know.”” Holy Qur'an 2:30. 

This verse implies that there were creatures on Earth before Adam who were similar to modern humans. Otherwise, how would the angels have known to make the observation 'Will you place in it someone who will make mischeif and shed blood'. How would they have known that unless they had observed this before God made this statement ? So this is one verse (amoung many) that proves that the view of Islam toward evolution is much more complex and nuanced than the modern Evangelical Christian view. Because, to most English speaking people, the only other view of evolution they ever hear, besides the secular scientific view, is the Evangelical view, they wrongly believe that Islam says the same on this topic. It doesn't. 

 

As for Darwin's view, his view that species adapt and change in response to changes in their environment, that can be proven in a petri dish, and Darwin himself proved it with his observations regarding the Galapagos finches. At the same time, his assertion that 'all being evolved from a single primordial being' is not proven, nor is the assertion that our distant ancestors were apes. For those who believe in God, and believe that God created everything that exists, it is somewhat irrelevant whether God created everything through an evolutionary process from one primordial being, or created each species separately. Even if, say for example at some point in time, it is proven that our distant ancestors were apes, it doesn't change the fact that apes (and their predecessors) were created by God, and we were created by God(s.w.a) via the process of evolution. I, for one, would be perfectly willing to accept that(although this hasn't been proven). But to assert that because our ancestors are apes, we are the same as apes, that is obviously false as there are many things that humans posses, mainly having to do with the intellect, that apes don't have. Islam teaches that what distinguished Adam from other created beings was his intellect ('and God taught Adam the names, all of them') which allowed him (and his children, I.e. us) to transcend his physical nature and instinct to his benefit (and the benefit of his children) and sometimes to his detriment, in the case of his disobedience to God(s.w.a). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 7:24 AM, iCenozoic said:

Seems like you half agree and half disagree.

That pretty much sums me up. I draw the line at human beings, and that is because I prioritize the Qur'an over human conjecture. I do believe proven science is always in-line with religion. My thought process is simple (being a layman when it comes to the theory of evolution); when evolution includes humans in the macro process, this is in contradiction to what I believe to be a truth, and so I am convinced in the future there will be clear scientific evidence that throws the theory out the window. Such events have happened in the past with other theories, no reason this should be any different.

Your points about hernia are fair.

On 5/5/2019 at 7:24 AM, iCenozoic said:

 Why do you think we have all of the other qualities?

 

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

On 5/5/2019 at 7:24 AM, iCenozoic said:

I'm not sure if Muslims believe in original sin or not, I don't think Muslims typically do.

Islam certainly doesn't preach original sin, so you are right in thinking Muslims don't typically believe in it.

 

On 5/5/2019 at 7:57 AM, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

I've heard of this, can you show examples?

What is the main view among ulema? I always thought Adam (عليه السلام) was first man. Humanity are referred to as Bani Adam collectively

I've read the hadiths in passing, I'll try and go back and find them but it's been very busy for me recently.

The main view as far as I understand, there were 1000s of Adams before our Adam, and that each 'humanity' was assigned 10,000 years on Earth. Abu Hadi provided some of the reasoning about there being humanoid creatures before us from Quranic verses above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 10:59 AM, Abu Hadi said:

For those who believe in God, and believe that God created everything that exists, it is somewhat irrelevant whether God created everything through an evolutionary process from one primordial being, or created each species separately. Even if, say for example at some point in time, it is proven that our distant ancestors were apes, it doesn't change the fact that apes (and their predecessors) were created by God, and we were created by God(s.w.a) via the process of evolution.

Disagree if you are including humans being a part of that evolutionary process.

It is very relevant whether or not Adam had apes for parents or not.

The story of Jesus ((عليه السلام)) makes it abundantly clear that Adam ((عليه السلام)) could not have had apes for parents.

 

But just to add some thoughts I think are interesting,

How is it just that God commands us to be unlike animals yet that is exactly what we are? Humans, jinn, animals; all three are different and distinct. Which raises a question for us Muslims, where do Jinn fall into the evolutionary process?

And the light of the Prophet (pbuhf) and Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)), their light was created before any of these creations, how can we say that such purity and perfection arose from the impurity and imperfections of a haywan (animal)? Just as ludicrous as a chaotic explosion resulting in the harmonious arrangement of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify the mainstream perspective of Islam on Darwinian evolution:

Quote

Despite not being entirely explicit, the apparent meanings of the verses dealing with the creation of Adam ((عليه السلام).) mostly tend to revolve around the concept of independent creation; but with regards to the other living beings, the Noble Qur’an remains silent.5

https://www.al-Islam.org/180-questions-about-Islam-vol-2-various-issues-makarim-shirazi/17-theory-evolution-species

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is not compatible with Islam. If it was everyone would accept it like the Qur'an and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Quote

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.

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 1:01 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 10:35 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 5/21/2019 at 11:08 PM, 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...