Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ Older than any other human - serious answer
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
no really. how long ago they existed?
i tried to find out but i get 8000 or 12000 according to christian belief.
but nothing from islamic sources.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
no really. how long ago they existed? i tried to find out but i get 8000 or 12000 according to christian belief. but nothing from islamic sources.
Peace kaka_in_usa
Perhaps a prophet 1400 years ago knew that we would be asked this question and didn't tell us an answer because it was not important. The fact that they came is enough for us because we are involved in their story of why they came not when.
However being a helpful person inshaAllah I'll try to satisfy your question to the best of my ability.
I believe original Hebrew, Aramaic scriptures carry much the same meaning in their terms as do the terms in Arabic. For example ... the word Yawm - means "day", and is mostly used as "day" because it is the most regular time interval. However using the Qur'an we unlock the meaning that "day" can mean any period of time even into the many thousands of years. I also believe that the Qur'an supports previous scripture especially in areas of weakness like this. It is because the original scripture and language is lost, the Bible is considered to be what today's versions portray in English or other languages.
And the Earth has been made in such periods of time - that refer to "days", "hours", etc ... then these have flexible meanings. Usually they will be used to demarcate eras rather than 24 hour periods. Also we do not believe necessarily that the succession of prophets was as quick as what has been mentioned in the Bible for the same and similar reason.
Furthermore we believe we are physical animal - and that similar creatures were already on the Earth before us. We do not believe that we came from them, but may have replaced them after them being made to die off some way or another ... even this is possible according to Islam ... I hope this helps ... :)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
oh jsut admit you believe the flying carpets and bowing trees.
no where did i say gorillas will evolve into humans.. ROTFL. stop putting words into my mouth (or my posts) you have NO credibility.
and stop quoting wikipedia. please. i don’t even read those parts of your posts.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
oh jsut admit you believe the flying carpets and bowing trees.
no where did i say gorillas will evolve into humans.. ROTFL. stop putting words into my mouth (or my posts) you have NO credibility.
and stop quoting wikipedia. please. i don't even read those parts of your posts.
Peace philosophy
Please "Discuss. Not diss and cuss"
I haven't put words in your mouth, I followed the inference of your suggestion for posting Ambam, why else would you post Ambam, please discuss tell me why you did that? And if I am wrong I shall concede I'll accept but please - speaking to me about flying carpets and bowing trees is not part of this thread and is really a red-herring and a diversion. With all this you feel I have NO credibility. I am sorry you feel that way - I guess there can be no more discussion between us if you seriously feel that :( it is because what could be worse than continually speaking to someone who you don't trust. I mean I trust you entirely I just feel there are some areas where I can present my understanding more clearly. On the other hand if you feel that I have no credit then it would be useless talking with me ... A pointless 17 page journey.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ We know the depth of someone's mind Psyah....winkphilsophywink.
**
Scientific knowledge even today fails to prove this 'theory'.**
And that should be considered the essence of 17 pages so far. :)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I realised a couple of pages ago that its pointless debating with someone who doesn't even know what a scientific theory means.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ Peace GIDSA
Let me put it more pragmatically ... I totally support diwana's viewpoint and agree with it. The idea of a theory stems from certain basic elements, before we go there let's analyse the following ideas.
Presence/Existence - This is equivalent to "nouns" - things/objects. We can all acknowledge when something exists - we see it and subject other senses to it. The data type of this kind is "a record". It does not explain the question "how" it just answers the question "what".
Behaviour/Action/Event - This is the next level up. This is the function of the object that can be observed. It is the verb aspect of scientific observation. In that we look for what the object is doing. Functional data cannot be retrieved from "records", they are reliant on "live" monitoring of behaviour.
Process/Sequence of events/method - This is another level higher still. Again monitoring is required to ascertain this. Other than the live monitoring of behaviour observers need to look at the interfaces between objects and analyse how they interact to justify claims that the "process" exists.
In the case of non-observation of the process, a method can be proposed that could support the behaviour it needs to be able to predict what will happen next. If it can't do that it is not useful and may not be correct. If the proposed method cannot be proven against either such as we can't measure evolution because it takes millions of years to evolve then again it is not falsifiable and by not being falsifiable then it can "never" be proven. Only supported for or against as an when new data comes along.
Some people accept this type of proposal as scientific and others do not.
In ordet to provide a model one has to have a suitable observation of behaviour, in order to propose an idea for the behaviour it has to be suitable for the records.
The fossil record shows things existed at different times - it does not show one creature became another. It took a person to propose that as an idea. To prove it one would have to see something evolve, until that point it remains a theory. However since it is impossible to falsify that claim it cannot be considered a fact of nature that creatures of one type become creatures of another unless it can be shown that other alternative reasons are definitely false. This cannot be shown. The idea that creatures are made to live, made to die and replaced with other creatures, is not contrary to the fossil record. Rather the fossil record supports it more than it supports evolution because the record shows what would otherwise be large jumps of evolution steps. It causes the proposers of the theory to pursue an ongoing search of the missing links. This is not necessary in the alternative idea and hence it is inferior to it.
Evolution however extends itself to explain all life and hence there is further proof required that the behaviour of the objects that it is based on is a fact. Rather the unproven assumption is built on further with the sophisticated theory doubly compounding the problem. Not only is not proven that even one thing undergoes speciation it states that everything undergoes speciation. If this is scientific then many religious beliefs are also scientific. If religious beliefs are unscientific then the same rules that those beliefs are subejcted to HAVE to be subjected to the proposed ideas of scientists or else one could be accused of bias - that "just" because a theory may contain the mention of Deity that it becomes relegated to belief and if a theory avoids the mention of Deity then it qualifies as scientific.
Let's use the same rules for theistic and atheistic ideas and then we can argue whether evolution is scientific or a belief.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
According to this Hadeeth adam was 90 feet tall.
It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah said: “Allaah created Adam in his form, sixty cubits tall… and everyone who enters Paradise will be in the form of Adam, sixty cubits tall…”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5873; Muslim, 7092
This does not sound like modern human that we all know of...
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace bebo
Exactly ... So it will be futile to ask how old Adam and Eve were, because their bodies will not be found. Any creatures found to be human are either their descendants or some other primate creature. The descendants of Adam must have been around for many more years longer than what the Bible indicates because of the references Islam gives on the heights of some of the historical persons.
Sixty cubits - would be about 24 times the height of an average man today. About 10 times taller than the tribe of Aad. And they were in proportion, which makes their shoulder lengths about 15 cubits wide, which is as wide as a detached house.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
So humans (like us) are not the desendent of Adam?
If we are how do you explian the change from then to now.
And I am sure height can't be the only difference because a 90 feet tall organic body will have different needs and functions than a 6 feet tall body.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
i know some dinosaurs were almost that tall.....................
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Someone in 1880 died with his wild imagination which he could not prove and neither his followers.
And same goes to this thread, OP brought the idea 285 posts ago and could not prove a single point including making religion go hand in hand with evolution theory.
Dont we all accept Islam without any proof? At least with evolution there is evidence. But here you are telling me you expect proof when your whole belief system is based on blind faith?!?!
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Dont we all accept Islam without any proof? At least with evolution there is evidence. But here you are telling me you expect proof when your whole belief system is based on blind faith?!?!
Very good question.
The comparison you are making is between what is scientific and what is belief.
If evolutionists say it is a belief like religious beliefs then there is no problem.
Religious people never claim to prove their beliefs like scientists do.
I think this point was covered earlier where somewhere I said the 'fight' should not be between religion and science over this so called scientific theory.
Basically religious beliefs ARE different than scientific rules, theories or facts.
In several posts in past I have said religions cannot be compared with science.
Moreover neither of these should be used to refute or confirm other. :)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Just watched History channel and dinosaurs/evolution discussion briefly. Someone said, we have 'books' written on fossil record, but still many pages are missing. :D
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^yes. that’s science for you. 
what do you do? i think you’re a hakeem.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Why you ask we who call ourselves Muslims; do not believe in evolution?
it is simple................
We firmly believe Allah SWT when he wished to create life he proclaimed "Kun" that means "be" and it was!
also like the Soofi Bulleh Shah said so nicely.........
Kun fa ya Koon Farmayo Jadaan assanh kol tuhaaday hasay
When thou uttered "Kun" and it happened we were all there with you Oh Lord!
Need I explain More?
end of discussion :)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
If adam was indeed 60 ft tall then we cannot be his decedents , not even khali the great.
either that or we "Evolved" :) in to shorter form :D
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
i know some dinosaurs were almost that tall.....................
Adamasauraus ?
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Very good question. The comparison you are making is between what is scientific and what is belief.
If evolutionists say it is a belief like religious beliefs then there is no problem.
Religious people never claim to prove their beliefs like scientists do.
I think this point was covered earlier where somewhere I said the 'fight' should not be between religion and science over this so called scientific theory.
Basically religious beliefs ARE different than scientific rules, theories or facts.
In several posts in past I have said religions cannot be compared with science.
Moreover neither of these should be used to refute or confirm other. :)
They are still both belief's. Only one belief is based on no evidence and the other is based on real evidence that has not been refuted.
All things being equal, what would you consider more probable, something based on evidence, or something based on absolutely no evidence.
To be religious and ask for no proof, while demanding extraordinary evidence to proove a science, is being intellectually dishonest