how do you explain the existence of fossils :rotato:
don’t tell me you think, god created the earth 6000 years ago and then placed fossils all over the earth just to lead us astray. Is this another test:( Do fossils represent temptation ??? oh no.
Such imagination.
Re: Creationists
Everything is created by Allah. :@:
Creationists
How do fossils clash with the existence of god, philosophy?
Re: Creationists
wohi to mai poch rahe hon :(
they suggest the earth is billionssssssssss of years old.
we weren't the first form of life.
We can't possibly be specially designed....
Tree of life
Re: Creationists
How do fossils clash with the existence of god, philosophy?
They clash with the 6000 yr old earth theory of god, doesnt it?
Re: Creationists
wohi to mai poch rahe hon :(
they suggest the earth is billionssssssssss of years old.
we weren't the first form of life.
We can't possibly be specially designed....
Tree of life
Islam never suggested that universe creation and Adam's creation happened at the same time, so yes, earth can be and is billions of years old.
Islam never suggested that we were the first form of life.
Even philosophically speaking, the fact that you as human asking these questions while no other creature (animals, insects, plants) ever pondered over their existence, suggests that we are special form of life. We can think, argue and rationalize.
What about the tree of life?
They clash with the 6000 yr old earth theory of god, doesnt it?
Islam does not have 6000 years old earth theory.
Re: Creationists
I believe the 6000 year old Earth is from the Bible.
Re: Creationists
That’s what Christians and Jews believe in…and most Muslims too. However this is what the Holy Quran has to say about it.
TLK, It’s not about what Islam tells us, but what the so called followers of Islam understand. And believe me there are just too many Muslims who believe in the 6000 years old world. Or even that Hazrat Adam was the first human being etc. Which are Jewish and Christian concepts.
That my dear is EVOLUTION.
Ahmadis are probably the only Musllims who wholeheartedly believe in evolution. Not Darwinism, but an evolution where everything is guided by Allah SWT.
Re: Creationists
Zapatista … this post shows that you know nothing about Islam and what Muslims believe, nor anything about evolution … If Allah (SWT) made every living thing from water - this obviously doesn’t say that He makes every living thing from other types of living things … go figure … All forms of life require water to live that is what it means … rather require aqueous conditions to become alive - such as a seed in the ground will not sprout without water … the sexual meeting of man and woman involves bodily fluids much of which is water … in fact every living things requires this …
Also we believe in the whole Qur’an …
Surat Al-Ma`arij [70:4] - The Noble Qur’an - ??? ???
**The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years.
**
From verses like this we can draw the natural conclusion that “Day” in Arabic means “a period of time” that fits one general pattern of events. Also Ahmadis cannot wholeheartedly believe in evolution - because in finer details they too will differ from the evolutionists …
Re: Creationists
I’m a Creationist and I believe fossils are remnants of creatures and plant life and other organic activities that have been sealed through time either in ice or rock formations to be revealed as we find them today … According to citations by various Muslim scholars the humans from the family of Adam (AS) have lived on this earth in excess of 40,000 years … It is not Islamic belief that the Earth and mankind came to existence together …
Here is the proof …
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.” They said, “Will You place upon itone who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?” Allah said, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.”
This verse shows that not only were the angels aware of Earth before the creation of Adam (AS), but also they knew of creatures that looked similar to Adam (AS) the likes of which they referred to as ones who cause mischief and bloodshed … And truly the animal kingdom is definable that way too.
Do not confuse the Muslims to be like Christians and Jews - as we have a very clear scripture - The Qur’an.
Re: Creationists
Yes yes Master, you know everything and I know nothing.
Creatures who looked like Adam. LOL Nice way to put it. Just avoid calling them humans.
Re: Creationists
Yes yes Master, you know everything and I know nothing.
Creatures who looked like Adam. LOL Nice way to put it. Just avoid calling them humans.
I'm sorry Zapatista ... even evolutionists don't call the creatures that resembled humans - humans ... they call them something else ... Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, etc ... but not Homo Sapiens ... Not that I am saying that I entirely agree with the way evolutionists classify the life forms they discover ... but you should have not problem in the idea that creatures living before Adam (AS) were human-like but not in themselves human ...
If you attempt to refute my theories at least make sure your refutation doesn't throw your own theories out at the same time !!!
Re: Creationists
I'm sorry Zapatista ... even evolutionists don't call the creatures that resembled humans - humans ... they call them something else ... Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, etc ... but not Homo Sapiens ...
I don't believe that Adam (PBUH) was the first human being. That one is for the Christians and Jews to believe, and some Muslims if they want to.
"And certainly We created you, THEN We fashioned you, THEN told the angels: Fall ye prostrate before Adam! And they fell prostrate, all save Iblis, who was not of those who make prostration." [7/11]
First Creation, then the process goes on, and then there is Adam PBUH.
"What ails you, that you look not for majesty in God, seeing HE CREATED YOU BY STAGES?"
If there is no evolution, where did all the Human races come from? People didn't evolve Mr Creationist? Humans evolved from other species, and then people evolved from other people and people are STILL evolving. It seems like you don't know what Evolution is yourself and think that it's Humans came from Monkey or something along this line. It's an ongoing process.
Re: Creationists
I don't believe that Adam (PBUH) was the first human being. That one is for the Christians and Jews to believe, and some Muslims if they want to.
"And certainly We created you, THEN We fashioned you, THEN told the angels: Fall ye prostrate before Adam! And they fell prostrate, all save Iblis, who was not of those who make prostration." [7/11]
First Creation, then the process goes on, and then there is Adam PBUH.
"What ails you, that you look not for majesty in God, seeing HE CREATED YOU BY STAGES?"
If there is no evolution, where did all the Human races come from? People didn't evolve Mr Creationist? People evolved from other people and still are evolving. It seems like you don't know what Evolution is yourself and think that it's Humans came from Monkey or something alont this line. It's an ongoing process.
Again you are showing your ignorance ... Adam in places represents the whole of mankind in the Qur'an and this verse in particular is a sign of that ... Adam (AS) as the father of mankind represents all of us ... It is the belief of orthodox Muslims that the fashioned form of Adam was not the prophet Adam (AS) alone but the whole of mankind held within it's form.
Stages here can refer to the embryonic stages ...
Human races - from Adam (AS) ... variation within a species is observable within every living organism ... an akita inu can copulate with a chow chow and still have offspring just like a black man can have offspring with a white woman ... never have humans in human history become so divergent that we can no longer procreate with one another (evolutionists disagree but either way it cannot be proven or disproven yet)... nor has this been the case with any organism. We can't call natural variation within a species evidence for the "whole theory of neo-darwinian evolution" - yes the theory is built up using a number of building blocks which in themselves hold water ... but when assembled together to paint the overall picture of evolution it falls apart.
Re: Creationists
variation within a species is a cornerstone of evolution.
Humans have not existed long enough to diverge so they can no longer procreate. Divergence is not the only way to speciate.
Before constantly pointing out others ignorance and how little they know, people really need to grasp what evolution is.
Re: Creationists
variation within a species is a cornerstone of evolution.
Humans have not existed long enough to diverge so they can no longer procreate. Divergence is not the only way to speciate.
As I said "the whole of neo-darwinian evolution" attempts to utilise separate phenomena to build the bigger pitcure ... I have no problem with variation within a species because it is evident scientifically ... speciation is not ... You can surround speciation with as many things as you like ... In my opinion evolutionists have hijacked the concept of variation within a species and made it the cornerstone for evolution ... the pity is speciation is the heart of the theory and that heart doesn't have a pulse.
Re: Creationists
My favorite creationist is this character on YOUTUBE named Shawn aka VenomFangx.
According to him, all things in the universe support the creation in 6000 years belief, and can be proven scientifically. The sun for example, according to him and those he follows is in concordance with this time line. He supports this with his own science, claiming that the sun consumes, and has consumed X amount of Hydrogen over its existence. If you do the math according to him, it shows the sun couldn’t be older then 6000 years!
How then does he explain how light could have traveled from millions of Light years away in only 6000 years? Well in that case God must have SPED up the light so it could reach here in just a few thousand years!
so everything can be explained by science, except when it isn’t, in which case you have to cite divine intervention!
These creationists are completely ludicrous.
None the less, we have to keep in mind that Islam does not make any claim as regards the exact age of the universe, and infact neither do most schools of thought in the Christian world. The Catholic Church from what I know, actually acknowledge that Evolution is a fact.
Re: Creationists
As I said "the whole of neo-darwinian evolution" attempts to utilise separate phenomena to build the bigger pitcure ... I have no problem with variation within a species because it is evident scientifically ... speciation is not ... You can surround speciation with as many things as you like ... In my opinion evolutionists have hijacked the concept of variation within a species and made it the cornerstone for evolution ... the pity is speciation is the heart of the theory and that heart doesn't have a pulse.
We have discussed this topic to death. But i still cannot understand how you can believe that variation does NOT ultimately lead to speciation. The only thing separating one species from another is the vast amount of variation in their genome. If you add enough variation on top of variation, how can you NOT get an entirely new species? And there is no reason to assume this variation upon variation is going to stop unless there is some grand catastrophe as befell the dinosaurs; so barring something as major as a meteor strike, there is no reason to believe that the species existing today will not continue to add variation to their genome until inevitabley branching into various different species.
We know the genome is not static, it is constantly changing. Not believing that these changes will ultimate produce a new species is as though you don't believe that inches add up to miles.
Re: Creationists
We have discussed this topic to death. But i still cannot understand how you can believe that variation does NOT ultimately lead to speciation. The only thing separating one species from another is the vast amount of variation in their genome. If you add enough variation on top of variation, how can you NOT get an entirely new species? And there is no reason to assume this variation upon variation is going to stop unless there is some grand catastrophe as befell the dinosaurs; so barring something as major as a meteor strike, there is no reason to believe that the species existing today will not continue to add variation to their genome until inevitabley branching into various different species.
We know the genome is not static, it is constantly changing. Not believing that these changes will ultimate produce a new species is as though you don't believe that inches add up to miles.
Variation is about switching genes on or off ... Speciation is about getting entirely new switches in the relay ... It does not matter how many switches you switch on or off ... You won't get new ones forming as a result.
Re: Creationists
Variation is about switching genes on or off ... Speciation is about getting entirely new switches in the relay ... It does not matter how many switches you switch on or off ... You won't get new ones forming as a result.
Is MUTATION, in all its varieties not a mechanism through which we attain Genetic Variation among a population?
Does mutation not introduce NEW genetic information into a population?
Would the addition of new genetic information not produce enough variation over time to constitute an entirely new species?
As far as turning genes of or on, birds contain genes for teeth, a remnant perhaps of their dinosaur ancestors. Thus the presence of genes, now switched of, demonstrates that there is an evolutionary link between birds and dinos... Similarly, Snakes possess genes for limbs, as do Whales. So this demonstrates a linkage to a limbed ancestor to snakes and whales. So switching of genes does result in speciation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but switches are controlled by promoter. Promoters lie upstream of regulator genes. The loss of a promoter or a regulator through mutation would mean a loss of a protein. This loss would be passed down the line too ancestors. That snakes have genes for limbs, but those genes are turned off means they lost the promoter segment of their genome and hence those genes remain silent. Or did I miss something?