Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@yazdi

Human beings, cats, dogs, elephants exist now.. they did not exist before.. In the same way the species which existed before have become extinct now.. you don’t need to check or get in to a discussion of fossil records to know this certain fact of science..

I am merely trying to draw your attention to this fact .. that the life forms have changed..

How, I don’t know…

I never suggested these changes due to evolution as a fact of science. **I never suggested that the same life forms have changed in to newer versions.. I am merely pointing out to you that we have more complex life forms today compared to the geological historical times.. **why.. I don’t know.. how.. I don’t know.. but they have, and that’s a fact..

Whenever I have referred to evolution.. I have always mentioned it as a possibility. Please read again all my posts from the beginning on this topic from post 431.. never in one post I have posted something which says one specie for certain has changed in to another.. I always presented it as a possibility..

Aha … so you are saying that the life forms available today are DIFFERENT from the life forms available many years ago … Yes, it is all semantics … You see when I see the words “changed” to me it seems you are saying that the species changes - but you are not saying that … what you are saying however is that animals alive today are DIFFERENT from the past …

Yes … yes I can agree with that … In the UK there used to be red squirrels around everywhere and then over the recent 100 years or so grey squirrels that were introduced to compete with the red have totally dominated and taken over … Now with the bones in the soil we will see that the red squirrels came first and then the grey ones … so the thing we know for sure in this case is that the two species are different and competed and didn’t evolve from one another, but with fossils we don’t even know what they are because we can’t analyse their DNA.

We have more complex life forms today that is for sure … but we still have the basic ones as well … and when we look at the new life forms that are being discovered they are not complex they are quite simple … complex life forms feed off simpler ones so it makes sense that simple life forms come first. It would be impossible for a new animal to survive if it didn’t have a food source. Then when there are more complex creatures around they will compete for the same food source and hence some will be wiped out and others will prosper … we can see this happen in front of us … however when it comes to fossils why do we conclude that the story is any different? Why do we say that one animal evolved to another? Just because the fossil record allows this interpretation - what makes that interpretation “highly likely”? Why is it more likely than the non-evolution equivalent.

My point is not argue with you about evolution … but even in the aspects that are “proven” we have multiple reasons for them … there is no reason why my version can’t be true … according to the current level of research and understanding regarding fossils and zoology.

Looking back at your posts I can quote where you have presented a preference for evolution - you have presented it as a probability - highly likely … I’m not being close minded to it … I just need to understand how it all works as a man of science I have a need to understand the theories that are being presented.