[quote]
First we came from apes, we were more advanced than apes, then we found fossils of less advanced creatures occurring later and more advanced creatures earlier,
[/quote]
no fossils have ever been in found from the period in which they were not supposed to be found. your assertion is misleading? would you mind coming up with an example. the theory of evolution never claimed that men evolved from apes. it is what has been propogated by the people who are against it.
I am not going to quote your whole post here but I am going to say that you do not have the slightest idea what the theory of evolution is. and you have never tried to read the original text about it. instead your information comes from those opposers who are misinformed themselves. you might want to do soem readings before arguing about it.
because Darwin’s theory of evolution is one that throws God out of the scheme of life, and proves beyond doubt that no intelligent design was involved in life formation.
no fossils have ever been in found from the period in which they were not supposed to be found. your assertion is misleading? would you mind coming up with an example. the theory of evolution never claimed that men evolved from apes. it is what has been propogated by the people who are against it.
I am not going to quote your whole post here but I am going to say that you do not have the slightest idea what the theory of evolution is. and you have never tried to read the original text about it. instead your information comes from those opposers who are misinformed themselves. you might want to do soem readings before arguing about it.
Peace jaanaan
The version of the Darwinian theory of evolution made popular in the mid-1900s suggested that apes are less advanced than us and we came from them, the explanation given to why the Apes did not evolve further was because they had become "fit" for their environment and did not require further speciation. In fact, even today the evolutionists still dip in to this idea/explanation.
Later the Neo-Darwinian theory came about because to explain that we did not evolve from apes but both modern apes and modern man evolved from something that predated both ... This theory was more immune to the criticisms that the previous one had - some involving compatibility and others regarding racist elements.
In the past the evolution moved from black people to white people ...
Modern theory conflicts with that to suggest Neanderthal and Homo Erectus heritage explains the advent of current human features across the globe ... So it still accepts that earliest man came from Africa, but also suggests that Europeans have more Neanderthal lineage ...
Common ancestry is unapproachable for criticism because not only are the ancestors "that may have existed" well and gone - but there are no specimens that represent the break away point of each descendant ... we merely have some candidate that appears very far in the past the critical break away point has no sample specimens and then we have a sudden ending of the "ancestor" and a sudden appearance of the "two or more descendent" candidates.
You see I was explaining how evolution has changed through the years ... The theory is evolving ... and something only evolves if it is not fit for purpose ... so if the theory is not fit for purpose then how can it be a fact?
because Darwin's theory of evolution is one that throws God out of the scheme of life, and proves beyond doubt that no intelligent design was involved in life formation.
Evolution proves diddly squat ... in fact it only proves how hell bent people are to dismiss the presence of the Divine
Evolution proves diddly squat ... in fact it only proves how hell bent people are to dismiss the presence of the Divine
Evolution proves that people have enough common sense to take evidence as it is presented and draw logical conclusions from them.
The dismissal of the divine isn't the intent, except in the minds of Biblical/Koranic literalsts , for whom seven days is exactly seven days, and a pile of mud is exactly that. Science does not attempt to answer questions of the divine, philosophers do.
For religious scientists however, and the logic minded, evolution is the nuts and bolts of gods grand design. But there intent still was not to prove or disprove God.
For atheists, there is no divine regardless of whether there is evolution or not.
Evolution proves that people have enough common sense to take evidence as it is presented and draw logical conclusions from them.
The dismissal of the divine isn't the intent, except in the minds of Biblical/Koranic literalsts , for whom seven days is exactly seven days, and a pile of mud is exactly that. Science does not attempt to answer questions of the divine, philosophers do.
For religious scientists however, and the logic minded, evolution is the nuts and bolts of gods grand design. But there intent still was not to prove or disprove God.
For atheists, there is no divine regardless of whether there is evolution or not.
Evolution is evidence that the science domain has been hijacked by an atheist agenda. As I said evolution is not proof for diddly squat ...
You are not talking to a literalist so why do keep bringing that decaying argument?
anyone here out to disprove the existence of god. raise your hands? no one, right. no one propogates to rid of the idea of god in science. they are just advocating for what their is experimentation and evidence for. that is science. a religious book is not science who wouldnt like to know that the invisible man theyre told to believe in actually exists AND there is evidence for it?
Evolution is evidence that the science domain has been hijacked by an atheist agenda. As I said evolution is not proof for diddly squat ...
You are not talking to a literalist so why do keep bringing that decaying argument?
There is nothing in Evolution for anyone to assume any kind of agenda, let alone an "atheist" agenda. Except ofcourse for those who believe we were created literally, from mud, and exactly as we are. What is it off evolution that tells you its an atheist agenda? I see evolution as something that compliments my understanding of the divine. It tells me how the divine works. I don't see why your so hostile to something that doesn't even challenge your religious view, especially since your not a literalist and so have an open mind.
Your objection to evolution as i understand it is that you refuse to believe something you can't see happening directly. Suddenly you object to it on religious grounds?
There is nothing in Evolution for anyone to assume any kind of agenda, let alone an "atheist" agenda. Except ofcourse for those who believe we were created literally, from mud, and exactly as we are. What is it off evolution that tells you its an atheist agenda? I see evolution as something that compliments my understanding of the divine. It tells me how the divine works. I don't see why your so hostile to something that doesn't even challenge your religious view, especially since your not a literalist and so have an open mind.
Your objection to evolution as i understand it is that you refuse to believe something you can't see happening directly. Suddenly you object to it on religious grounds?
This is a breakthrough post Med911 ... So I thank you for that ... Please see the new thread about evolution and Islam
You can't disprove the existence of God ... Just like you can't disprove evolution ... You can't prove them either ... It's all about faith
There is one difference between faith and evolution. Our understanding of Evolution is based on multiple sources of cooroberating evidence, while religion is based on absolutely nothing but our collective need to believe.
Evolution certainly can be disproven, assuming there is something to disprove it, just as any science can be potentially disproven. Many people have tried to disprove it, however, each has failed. So that it hasn't been disproven, adds to it validity.
Gods existence however is some thing which cannot be proven or disproven since our concept of God is not based on any sort of evidence. We believe in God without evidence, and disbelieve without evidence.
This is a breakthrough post Med911 ... So I thank you for that ... Please see the new thread about evolution and Islam
Break through? I knew this has always been your objection. However your objection is one that is unreasonable and ignores a mountain of evidence that supports this science.
There is one difference between faith and evolution. Our understanding of Evolution is based on multiple sources of cooroberating evidence, while religion is based on absolutely nothing but our collective need to believe.
Evolution certainly can be disproven, assuming there is something to disprove it, just as any science can be potentially disproven. Many people have tried to disprove it, however, each has failed. So that it hasn't been disproven, adds to it validity.
Gods existence however is some thing which cannot be proven or disproven since our concept of God is not based on any sort of evidence. We believe in God without evidence, and disbelieve without evidence.
Did you know the Sahih Hadith were compiled on that basis ... In fact in English you need the whole sentence ... But in Arabic it is called ...."mutawaatir" ... A Hadith that has multiple sources of corroborating evidence. Quran is also mutawaatir ...Consensus in science community resulting from peer review is also present in the fatwa process ... And right to transmit ... Called ijma and ijaza, respectively.
Break through? I knew this has always been your objection. However your objection is one that is unreasonable and ignores a mountain of evidence that supports this science.
Breakthrough because you latest summation of my take is getting more accurate now.
Did you know the Sahih Hadith were compiled on that basis ... In fact in English you need the whole sentence ... But in Arabic it is called ...."mutawaatir" ... A Hadith that has multiple sources of corroborating evidence. Quran is also mutawaatir ...Consensus in science community resulting from peer review is also present in the fatwa process ... And right to transmit ... Called ijma and ijaza, respectively.
so because you think hadith was compiled that way-- it's valid
but evolution compiled that way, no wayyyyyyy. it's atheist agenda
well.. peer review system or not - muslims can't even seem to agree on should they brush their teeth during ramzaan or not. forget real issues such as talking about evolution, or even the process of establishing what is acceptable at face value, and what isn't.
Did you know the Sahih Hadith were compiled on that basis ... In fact in English you need the whole sentence ... But in Arabic it is called ...."mutawaatir" ... A Hadith that has multiple sources of corroborating evidence. Quran is also mutawaatir ...Consensus in science community resulting from peer review is also present in the fatwa process ... And right to transmit ... Called ijma and ijaza, respectively.
I respect that point, I don't question that there is a framework in Islam for scholarly endeavors.
However, whatever it is the are trying to prove, starts with presupposition that God exists and that Islam is a true and revealed religion by THE God. And that initial assumption is what makes it a faith and not a Science. Scientists don't draw a conclusion before they find evidence for it.
who wouldnt like to know that the invisible man theyre told to believe in actually exists AND there is evidence for it?