Where did I say I have the ultimate knowledge of Islam and the Quran?
Quite an assumption dont you think?, as of yet I havent seen you explain anything from Islamic sources.
Anyway I said if you think Adam :as: was part of an evoltuionary process than u must provide some evidence. Where and how?
And were talking about evolution of humans, Ive already mentioned twice that it may apply to animals. Humans as far as I know are completely independent and since we all come from Adam :as:, where is the evolution?
The series of coincidence you talk about and his intelligent, doesnt make sense, Allah :swt: gave him wisdom and then tested him in front of the Angels. This was before he was sent down from heaven. Have you read the story of Adam before?, the link has been provided.
So are you saying that Allah :swt: was the missing link?, but there is no mention of him using anything else but clay.
How can Allah :swt: miracles be called evolution. Him creating things from inanimate matter is one of his miracles. He says ‘kun faya kun’, Be and it is. This is not what the theory of evolution tells us how humans came into being.
You just proved me right "stu". Now im sure you have nothing to contribute here. "Islam completely disregards sensible, proven scientific theories like Evolution" Please give me the reasons that made you jump to that conclusion? "M said so" won't work.
"You're made out of mud, and that's final!!! haha" Mind sharing the joke with us?
I for one honestly feel bad for usually normal people who completely make a fool out of themselves. But since you are an idiot to begin with, i dont feel bad for you. And please dont bother posting in this thread again as the last thing i need is for this thread to get locked because of idiots like you. There is a very good discussion going on here and i intend to see it that way.
My own personal view is that I believe in "divinely guided" evolution for everything except man.
There is certainly a lot of convincing evidence for evolution in the animal kingdom. That has me pretty much sold.
From my college education (my degree is in chemistry), I am left in awe of just how biochemically complex and yet perfectly balanced living matter is. I cannot comprehend how such a chemically complex object as a single cell (which Darwinist evolution states everything started from) could have popped into being from a series of purely random chemical reactions that happened in perfectly the right order.
Even in 6 billion years, there must have some higher power that, if not simply creating the cell out of thin air, at least brought together all the right molecules to the right place at the right time.
Because this cell not only had to be created; it also had to be programmed to divide. It had to be programmed to divide with a degree of random mutation. One of these mutations had to leave to multicellular organisms. These had to grow over time. These had to form into logical structures like plants, creatures, etc. It's just so damned complex that I cannot belive things occured randomly. It had to be guided.
Humans, though, humans are something different. Even though we are nearly 100% genetically identical to apes, we are still different (hence human sperm cannot fertilise ape eggs or vice versa). We are sentient, whereas apes are not. We have divine texts indicating that we appeared suddenly on the earth, fashioned from clay. And, critically, the so called "missing link" between ape and man has yet to be found. Even today, it is still debated as to whether Neanderthal man evolved into homo sapien or whether homo sapien is distinct. (As far as I'm aware, evidence for ape -----> Neanderthal man exists, but little for neanderthal ----> homo sapien)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
ms how even bacteria develop new enzymes to neutralise the antibiotics
so there is some power that even gives bactria chance to survive
and multilply.
[/QUOTE]
Of course God's hand is in everything, but simply through following the random mutation process that He created this is probably. No 2 bacteria are physically 100% alike.
And antiobiotic might kill 4,967,342,456,789,134 of the bacteria in your body, but the 4,967,342,,456,789,135th in a tiny minority of cases may be producing a very slightly different enzyme that neutralises the antibiotic. When you have that enormous number of bacteria random luck has a tiny chance of occasionally striking out. When this bacteria multiplies almost all of the new bacteria will produce the same enzyme.
the bacteria example for antibiotics resistence is a non-issue. Of course genetic mutation allow for the bacterium to be resistant to some drug, however after the mutation the bacteria is still the same type of bacterium.
You will never see that after administration of various drugs the Staphylococcus will emerge as a Streptococcus
Anyway, for the question about combining evolution with islam, first the question shud be answered whether darwinian evolution is 'true'. David Berlinski has written quite some good critiques on evolution and the probability that it is false.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sahar02: *
Sir Galahad -- Sure, Adam was the first human. No way to know what came before. An "ancestor" need not have been human, in the way we are today.
[/QUOTE]
I hope i am not tried for the following crime against humanity, but i am going to attempt mix evolution and religion. Homo sapiens sapienses are by far the only dominant species on the planet. However they weren’t always. You had in the following order:
[quote]
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens
[/quote]
Now Homo Habilis are seen as the first true ancestor of Humans. Thus the latin phrase homo in front of the classification. Now if we mix religion with evolution, where would one place Adam? Was he an Ardipithicus Ramidus? Or was he a Homo-Sapien Sapien? If we take the claim that all men are descendants of Adam, then either one can be true. However it is assumed by all religions Adam was a homo sapien sapien and thus neither habilis nor any of the other sub-species. It is assumed there is has been no evolution.
Now i am neither versed nor knowledgeable on the Quran or Islamic scriptures. But if you believe that humans evolved and believe in creationism as well, then I guess the monkeys will come to rule all over the Earth. I wonder who will be the one lamenting:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
the bacteria example for antibiotics resistence is a non-issue. Of course genetic mutation allow for the bacterium to be resistant to some drug, however after the mutation the bacteria is still the same type of bacterium.
You will never see that after administration of various drugs the Staphylococcus will emerge as a Streptococcus
Anyway, for the question about combining evolution with islam, first the question shud be answered whether darwinian evolution is 'true'. David Berlinski has written quite some good critiques on evolution and the probability that it is false.
[/QUOTE]
are you saying giraffe is put on the earth as whole giraffe and monkeys
and frogs s a whole finished product not evolve from other species?
every living thing has own adam and eve?
rvikz: im not saying, nor implying it. Again, I'll state Berlinski's thoughts that evolution and creationism aren't the only two possible ways out. There might even be a third (yet to be discovered), a fourth (yet to be thought of), fifth etc etc etc
both evolution and creationism are theories, and as such both are not perfect and have their limitations and their specific situations where they fit in well. It's just a matter of taste really which one you choose
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
rvikz: im not saying, nor implying it. Again, I'll state Berlinski's thoughts that evolution and creationism aren't the only two possible ways out. There might even be a third (yet to be discovered), a fourth (yet to be thought of), fifth etc etc etc
both evolution and creationism are theories, and as such both are not perfect and have their limitations and their specific situations where they fit in well. It's just a matter of taste really which one you choose
[/QUOTE]
religen comes in where scientist cant explain why one celled bacteria
evoloved in to an elephant.
While all of you are arguing about whether the theory of evolution is evident or not, let me TELL YOU A QUICK FACT. It's a little fact that has a great effect on how you think about the evolution vs. creation.
THE PHYLOGENETIC TREE FOR HUMAN IS BROKEN IN SOME PARTS LEAVING US TO WONDER, "WHO THE HELL BELONGS TO THESE BROKEN PLACES AND TIMES?" MAY BE ADAM AND EVE CAME AROUND AFTERWARDS. IT COULD BE THAT OUR VERY HUMAN-EXISTENCE BEGAN FROM THAT TIME.
IT MAY SOUND IDIOTIC, BUT IT'S JUST AN EDUCATED GUESS.
Do any of the religious texts (Quran, Bible, etc.) that talk about Adam also provide us with 'time frames'. When we tell a story, we start off with 'Four hundred years ago...' I presume then that there could be some mention of 'time'. Am I right?
I'm a little late in the discussion, but as some others pointed out, the theory of natural selection or "survival of the fittest" as some call it is also a part of the theory of evolution. There have been some very interesting articles of scientists discrediting this theory of natural selection with recent research. They can be found in major science journals. There are also scientists that postulate that things did not start from one micro-organism and grow from there. Just depends on who you read, and the research involved.
We are talking about mainstream science here, because thats the most reliable (most, not completely). Lets not get into pseudo-science cuz its filled with mess and then you also have idiots who think earth was populated by aliens from niburu or something. Fun to read but not reliable.
^so what do you adhere to?
I've come across scientists who critisize the biologists that the research they're doing to prove evolution isn't scientific at all, but it more speculative history than methodologically infallible
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cscraja: *
Do any of the religious texts (Quran, Bible, etc.) that talk about Adam also provide us with 'time frames'. When we tell a story, we start off with 'Four hundred years ago...' I presume then that there could be some mention of 'time'. Am I right?
Can somebody help me with this please?
[/QUOTE]
relgens say earth was orginated few thousand years ago?