Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Angry again psyah..???
I have nothing against you.. it's just a difference of opinion..!!!!
:) ... Not angry brother ... I have never got angry at you ... just a bit frustrated that you want me adopt a position that I don't and I need to clarify each time.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Peace yazdi
This article is interesting … it not only muddies the water of idealistic allopatric speciation, but it shows how touch and go this “art” of cladistics really is …
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Good to see you exploring with an open mind.. interesting article.
It is being clearly mentioned that human lineage and chimpanzee lineage hybridization may have occurred at some point is based on a hypothesis. I think there is nothing dishonest when things are clearly mentioned in this manner. You have been talking about the fossils are of devoid of DNA, so can not be taken seriously. . Fossils are observed to check anatomical changes like in this case.. upright postures, size of the brains.. humans have 1400 CCs compared to 400 CCs in chimpanzees. There are so many anatomical variations which can be observed from fossils which indicate DNA drifts.. not a very illogical way of doing science I guess..!!!
Read this article as well..
DNA clues to Neanderthals
I do not distrust the web site you have posted because they are Christians.. but because of their objective which is mentioned clearly in the information section of the web site which clearly indicates they are propagandist, and they have nothing to do with promotion of scientific understandings. I distrust people who do science with these kind of objectives or vice versa.. I would never quote anything about science from this kind of web sites..
Answers in Genesis Mission Statement
Goal
To support the church in fulfilling its commission
Vision
Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.
Mission
We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.
Core Values
We resourcefully equip believers to defend their faith with excellence.
We willingly engage society’s challenges with uncompromising integrity.
We sacrificially serve the AiG family and others.
We generously give Christian love.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ Peace yazdi
By posting their mission statement you are effectively avoiding the counter-argument they use in scientific terms. Don't judge me by who I am ... judge me by what I say ... and they are Christians but it does not alter the fact they are engaging in a valid scientific debate and you are not taking it up because of their mission statement.
Regarding exploring with an open mind ... I hope you don't think that I ever did anything otherwise.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
:) ... Not angry brother ... I have never got angry at you ... just a bit frustrated that you want me adopt a position that I don't and I need to clarify each time.
Your current position is:
1) You believe evolution is possible.
2) You believe in genetic drift, but not to the extent that speciation can occur. Although theoretically speaking you believe these drifts can go to the extent of speciation.. but you think current observed evidence is not enough to verify that happening. You can not accept anatomical changes in fossils as indications of these genetical drifts to the extent of speciation.. what will satisfy you is the presence of DNA evidence which is lost due to obvious reasons.
3) Previously you were admitting evolution to be a theory.. but now you think it's a belief system.
4) Previously you thought that fertile hybrids could be considered as an evidence of evolution, but now you think it can not be taken as an evidence of evolution.
5) Previously you thought evolution was all about non humans giving birth to humans.. now you have modified your understanding of evolution.
6) Previously you believed anything which can not be measured/seen can not be scientific, but now you have modified your opinion about these notions.
7) You hold an opinion contrary to every reputable educational institution, nobel laureates, 99.8% of scientists with credible credentials who treat evolution as valid science.. and you claim to be right against their opinion.
Now tell me buddy if I am wrong with all these assumptions../ and how am I frustrating you??
Once for all clarify these points.. I do not intend to frustrate you.. if I am wrong please point my short comings with regard to these points.. Please see my post (600) where I have posted some of your gem quotes from this thread..
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
^ Peace yazdi
Regarding exploring with an open mind ... I hope you don't think that I ever did anything otherwise.
I am sure you are exploring with an open mind. Otherwise you wouldn't have changed your stance so much with the progression of this thread..!!!
You are already half evolutionist yourself now compared to your earlier position !!!
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Your current position is:
1) You believe evolution is possible. 2) You believe in genetic drift, but not to the extent that speciation can occur. Although theoretically speaking you believe these drifts can go to the extent of speciation.. but you think current observed evidence is not enough to verify that happening. You can not accept anatomical changes in fossils as indications of these genetical drifts to the extent of speciation.. what will satisfy you is the presence of DNA evidence which is lost due to obvious reasons. 3) Previously you were admitting evolution to be a theory.. but now you think it's a belief system. 4) Previously you thought that fertile hybrids could be considered as an evidence of evolution, but now you think it can not be taken as an evidence of evolution. 5) Previously you thought evolution was all about non humans giving birth to humans.. now you have modified your understanding of evolution. 6) Previously you believed anything which can not be measured/seen can not be scientific, but now you have modified your opinion about these notions. 7) You hold an opinion contrary to every reputable educational institution, nobel laureates, 99.8% of scientists with credible credentials who treat evolution as valid science.. and you claim to be right against their opinion.
Now tell me buddy if I am wrong with all these assumptions../ and how am I frustrating you?? Once for all clarify these points.. I do not intend to frustrate you.. if I am wrong please point my short comings with regard to these points.. Please see my post (600) where I have posted some of your gem quotes from this thread..
Peace yazdi
You have a habit of summing up my position erroneously ... I can say that about 50% of that above is wrong ... yet again ...
My stance has not changed from the beginning but I admit my knowledge in the subject has increased and the more I delve the more it will increase ... but it doesn't mean that my position has changed ... rather your understanding of my position has improved but it is obviously still not perfect ...
Please let me define my position and you define your position on this matter ... Evolution the more you delve the more you realise it is incomplete and new theories are needed to explain the matter further ... but no one asks the question ... perhaps the basic idea of evolution is flawed and hence wrong ...
I say this without any arrogance but I believe you are unable to see the pointers that add to the idea that evolution theory might be flawed ... if you see them then admit it ... lets have something from you shall we ... do you believe Creation is possible? Do you believe that the fossil record can just as easily explain creation as it can evolution?
Don't you agree that the complicated errors that keep popping up on the basis of evolution will not come up if one admits to a creation model instead? Would you agree that to find truth one must look to resolution of problems and conflicts rather than what they would like to be "right" ???
These are critical questions the answers of which make me sceptical about evolution and favour Creation.
In fact ... I just want one answer ... please explain to me how 24 chromosomes of our nearest cousins became 23 in us in the light of genetic drift.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
@psyah /diwana bhai,
1) The reason I showed my displeasure over you giving example of cross breeding is that this very concept is against Allopatric evolution which says the speciation occurs between two distinct lineages pursuing their individual survival pressures in isolation if they don't cross breed.. The genetic drifts which occur due to these survival pressures may lead to speciation between the two distinct lineages from common gene pool over a period of time. I know you don't believe in Allopatric evolution.. In fact you don't believe in evolution at all.. but the idea here was not what you believe.. the idea was to highlight correctly what the concept of evolution means.. which was not honestly highlighted by you when you gave this example, and to criticize the concept of evolution on the basis of these wrong projections of the concept..
P.S. I did not post the definition of Allopatric speciation as a proof of speciation as you have mentioned. I posted the definition to point out the above mentioned anomaly in your post.
2) Both of you believe that the theory of evolution is a belief/faith..
*Absoutely! It is a faith. Nothing more than a faith/belief. * Belief or faith is phenomenon believed to be true without any observed evidence according to the definition of faith/belief.
*No bhai sahab. This is not the definion of faith or belief. It is defnition of pure myth. * Evolution is based on observed evidence (may be not up to your satisfaction). So it's dishonest to equate it with faith/belief.
I think the shear dishonesty is believing something to be a scientific fact when it is not.
After all the nobel laureates, all the reputed educational institutions of the world, 99.8% of scientist with credible credentials who consider evolution as credible science are not dishonest idiots conspiring against people with particular literal religious understandings.
Bhai sahab, you have been told that 99.8% is another false advertisement. I mentioned above 99.8% of only a group of scientists residing in America outrightly believe evolution. Too much noise from them is the reason we have over 30 pages of fun here. ;)
3) Diwana has posted that "Evolution is a faith.
*Yes.....! Will give further detail as to why. * Not science in true terms since it cannot be observed that over time new species develop or go to extinct.".. I this argument is deemed fit for any scientific discussion.. then "Atomic theory" is also a faith. Nobody has seen atoms.. protons, neutrons or electrons or isotopes for that matter.
**Wrong analogy. There is nothing major in atomic theory which has not been proven by experiment as of TODAY. Even sub-atomic particles have been detected by many means.
Evolution theory is based on "millions of years ago" phenomenon or "maybe in millions of years" qualifier. I see that one of the biggest hadicap in this theory or let's just say a *scientific hypothesis *not yet proven.
What we see today is mere adaptation or mutation or whatever. (Please do not come with defintion which says adaptation is part of evolution! )**
Both evolution and atomic theory are taught as science in every reputed educational institution of the world .. in spite of the absence of evidence of visual observation as per the liking of diwana.
**There are observations of even sub-atomic particles like electrons, positrons, alpha partcles etc. What does evolution have? Assumptions of something "might have happened" or "may happen"? That's it!
**Genetic drifts have been observed, indications of speciations have been observed, extinctions have been observed, and with every passing day more and more observed evidence are coming forward in support of evolution.. and if diwana and psyah like it or not evolution is treated as valid science by overwhelming majority of scientist and educationist..
**Not enough to say evolution is valid science. Like in E-coli, I have said, the bacteria remains bacteria. Like in fish in lake argument, I said, the fish remained fish for hunfred of years. In example of Lahore food intolerance, no human being has ever been seen to become something other than human no matter how much adaptation that person has.
A strong muscular guy still does bring non-muscular babies. Some traits are inherited. Like heart diease, color of skin/eye ec. but all adaptation traits are not ALWAYS inherited. **
4) Your post yesterday about the genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans are derived from a Christian faith based web site with the sole purpose of supporting genesis.. and has nothing to do with the promotion of scientific understandings. I justifiably suspect these kind of web sites because they are more propagandist in nature, rather than promotion of science as a motivation. Please post some link from a reputed science promotion/educational web site to verify the authenticity of the article. Moreover if this article is believed to be true (which I really suspect), it does nothing but highlight that genetic drift/variance between chimpanzees and humans is more than previously believed. So what ???
5) Psyah has admitted that he stands nowhere in the global scientific community with his present stand.. but knows he is right. Right against whom.. Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Oxford. Berkeley.. and nobel laureates.. and more than 99.8% of scientific community with reputed credentials.. Our own Pakistani origin self proclaimed science scholar with unknown credentials.. with a record of back tracking from his previously held positions.. buddy you are fighting a lost cause..!!!
Anyway I can see you changing your positions gradually. I have seen some of your posts initially in this thread which depicted no understanding of the concept of evolution at all, very limited understanding of science, little understanding of the word "theory" in scientific terms, .. at least over the progression of this thread your understanding of the concept has increased which I consider a positive outcome from this discussion..
Now,
I can flood the thread with counter arguments from google and cut and paste them with the names of scientists who oppose this theory.
But that anyone can do.
**The fundamental problem is that while someone may feel good about believing evolution as a vaid science, other person can very well believe creation as a valid (religious) concept.
**I am not arguing FOR OR AGAINST creation theory but the reason I said Evolution is a faith is the same reason why creationists believe it to be true.
No difference at all. Religious people bring scripture and religious places as arguments for religion being true. These evolutionists do the same thing.
If relgion is faith then Evolution is faith as well. Full of assumption on little little evidences.
Yazdi bhai said many times about 99.8% scientists, Harvard, Nobel prize winners etc. etc. discrediting people by saying **they know evolution but you do not know! A Pakistani guy against Harvard people!
**Isn't it the same argument in reverse that when religious scholars get together and bring a relgious decree or fatwa, a lot of us jump up an down and criticize the fatwa despite not having a clue of the religion itself?
Yazdi bhai, having a degree from Harvard does not mean all is said by the person will be absolutely true. A lot of high credentialed scientists have committed mistakes and still are.
Let me give few conter argument.
All of the scientists cannot cure a simple and so common disease like Essential Hypertension! All we have is meds to control hypertension bt cannot eliminate it.
Can they stop aging?
Blood vessel hardening as one becomes older?
As to evolution theory...
Please do not put all weight on people's credentials. Rather read what they say.
Can they show what is the future of human race in hundreds or millions of years?
The question was very valid and T1000 did finally get it. :)
I say Human will be Human. Human have always been Human from beginning.
Life did not begin from single cell organism.
Each organism has its own complex function.
Species do not develop downward from one cell structure like Amoeba to Human.
If survival of fittest is true then Amoeba is the most fit to have survived so long. ;)
Some genetic or phenotypic change does occur or even get transmitted horizontally as mentioned in video above.
But beyond that, ALL is assumptions. (Like in video the letters were created in such a way that beginning letters were changed altogether. That is bogus without having any solid proof)
Arguments are present against this theory all over the internet. They get debunked in the name of religious orthodoxy or being from those who are creationists. Even those scientists who question this theory get mocked at as being "religious"! What does that prove?
Well then evolutionusts are just bunch of atheists or anti-religious?
It is interesting to see evolutionists working to get religion to be on board to gain support.
Finally: It is up to an individual to accept one set of argument or the other. Like different faiths or religions. :)
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I fully agree with you that you should define your own position. My frustration is you are not doing it. You selectively answer the questions raised according to your convenience and the purposely avoid where you have no explanation.. for example point (4).. I have asked you at least 7 times to explain your previous and present position.. but you conveniently avoided to touch that point. It’s not about point (4) only.. please explain your position from point (1) to point (7).. and clarify your present position once for all.. instead of just accusing me that I got it all wrong without giving any reason to your notion.. show me where I am 50% wrong about your current position..
If I got your position wrong.. please explain what is your position in your own words because you have the habit of conveniently skipping the points raised.
I already answered it.. you don’t read carefully..
I don’t trust the article. I requested you to back the source from some reputed science exploring/educational web site with some credentials. The article does not show where and how this study was conducted.. who verified the results.. how widely this study is accepted..
Even if the study is credible (which I doubt).. It shows the genetic drift between humans and chimpanzees is more than it was previously assumed. 23 or 24 chromosomes can indicate this wider drift which caused this speciation. How does it negate the idea of evolution from common ancestors.. what do you really want to prove from this unverifiable study.. I really fail to understand… HUH
Regarding your question about creationism..
Don’t try to fool the readers that it is a religious idea.. it is the interpretation of certain literal religionist from a particular branch of religious understandings. (Vatican church, Arch Bishop of Canterbury, and a lot of muslims religious scholars are not a part of this particular branch).. Don’t equate them with science or science of evolutionary biology.. there is too much observed evidence against these history deniers of various degrees some of whom still believe that universe is geocentric, and human beings and all the life forms just arrived from somewhere less than 10,000 years ago (after the agriculture revolution).. some of the sophisticated type, and I suspect you are one of them, believe in Noah’s flood which occurred less than last 100.000 years.. certainly after the arrival of human beings which can not be more than 100,000 years tops.. which is conclusively proven to be wrong by scientific observations.. there was no global flood in the recent geological history of our planet. More rationale non literal religious followers believe in a regional flood… contrary to these history deniers.. the literal religionist..!!!
You see pointers that evolutionary biology is wrong.. nobel laureates are wrong.. MIT, Harvard, Oxford are wrong.. show me those pointers..
You can get next nobel prize if you can show those pointers..
Read this to find out why all the reputable educational institutions consider evolutionary biology as valid science:
P.S.
Harvard.edu uses this link to answer the validity of evolutionary biology as a valid science.. something you should know to determine the authenticity of the contents of this web site.. unlike the unverifiable propagandist link you have posted..
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
@ diwana
It’s useless discussing with you. You have no concept of science, evolution, genetic drifts, definitions.. Evolution is not only about speciation or formation of complex life forms. A vast majority of life forms are microbial which populate our planet today. They have also gone through genetical drifts. In fact their genetical drifts are far more observable than complex life forms. It’s all about the survival of genes/modification of the bodies in which they reside as parasites for their survival,.. not the flesh and bones.. and complexities only..
Definition of faith:
“belief that is not based on proof”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
A scientific theory:
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
My advise:
Please learn some basic science/definitions before indulging in a complicated discussion like this..
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
I fully agree with you that you should define your own position. My frustration is you are not doing it.
If I got your position wrong.. please explain what is your position in your own words because you have the habit of conveniently skipping the points raised.
Okay I shall oblige I'll answer those 7 points (see at the bottom of this post)
But before I do that you have NOT answered MY 24 and 23 chromosome problem you THINK it was from the article you wrote this:
**{2) Even if the study is credible (which I doubt).. It shows the genetic drift between humans and chimpanzees is more than it was previously assumed. 23 or 24 chromosomes can indicate this wider drift which caused this speciation}
**... but my problem is asking about this:
*{Please explain in terms genetic drift that how 24 chromosome creatures gradually become 23 chromosome creautres ... } *
I would like the mechanism by which this change happened and I want you to explain it without a sudden change that in a one generation change you have 24 chromosome and then in the next you have 23 ... you cannot use that because that betrays the idea od genetic drift, or alternatively use genetic drift and explain why my reasoning is wrong.
**Now for those 7 points:
yazdi on psyah: 1) You believe evolution is possible.
psyah on psyah: 1) I believe evolution has to be proven to be acceptable to me although as a scientist I must treat it as possible because of the uncertainty principle I do not feel it is correct and the more I engage in this conversation the less appealing it is to me a viable concept. You take on me here was correct but missing essential qualifying information.
yazdi on psyah: 2) You believe in genetic drift, but not to the extent that speciation can occur. Although theoretically speaking you believe these drifts can go to the extent of speciation.. but you think current observed evidence is not enough to verify that happening. You can not accept anatomical changes in fossils as indications of these genetical drifts to the extent of speciation.. what will satisfy you is the presence of DNA evidence which is lost due to obvious reasons.
psyah on psyah: 2) I can see genetic drift and can experiment with it ... I don't care as a scientist whether it should be believed in or not. Since genetic drift has been proposed as the mechanism that determines speciation as well and there is no proof of this I reserve judgement. I personally feel that I need to be convinced that speciation can occur through the genetic drift argument so I don't believe it, but it doesn't mean I'm close minded to it and it doesn't mean that I won't change my mind if I see it. I don't believe it is correct to use the phrase "anatomical changes in fossils" I don't see them as changes (because that is a presumptuous statement) I see them as different fossils that some have proposed to be a sequence of changes from a lineage of a single ancestor. The different fossils I agree with ... but I need more evidence than "appearance" to except that the creatures to which the fossils belong are related through parentage. However you think that my reason for asking for DNA is "genetical drifts to the extent of speciation" - no I don't except that the fossils show genetic drifts unless you show me DNA evidence - which you cannot. Supporting my argument that evolution theory is a belief system - a faith. The question of speciation is far off ... first you need to show that they are even related and by how much.
yazdi on psyah: 3) Previously you were admitting evolution to be a theory.. but now you think it's a belief system.
psyah on psyah: 3) The theory of evolution is proposed as a scientific theory, but because I don't accept it to be a valid scientific theory (and I know many modern scientists have disagreed with this point, but this is my stance nonetheless) I called it a belief system and only because people who build on evolution have not only failed to make it falsifiable but have also systematically started teaching this theory as though it is fact I prefer to call it a belief system - like a faith. They are less concerned with proving it scientifically and more concerned in gaining converts to the idea. So my admittance of it being a theory is purely that is what it is called "the theory of evolution" not a "law" ... so scientists should treat it as that, not a law and not something that must be believed in either. You think I have changed my stance but I never have ... your grammatical construction above is effectively saying theory and belief can't both be true in some context at the same time, over the same concept ... but they can.
yazdi on psyah: 4) Previously you thought that fertile hybrids could be considered as an evidence of evolution, but now you think it can not be taken as an evidence of evolution.
psyah on psyah: 4) Hybridization has to have a context to prove evolution ... If we take two strains of flies and cross-breed them and they produce offspring that are fertile how do we know that we have not just taken 2 races of flies? According to the experiment they did just that ... they separated two gene pools and created two races from them by genetic drift and then they mated them together this is like a Pakistani have offspring with an Egyptian ... they are just races ... but then to conclude that they prefer to mate with their own kind and if the experiment went on further we would reach speciation bla bla is insincere. The proper way to use hybridzation to prove evolution is this:
Take a specimen and call it Strain 0, Take a sample of Strain 0, call that Strain 1 and put the rest in cryo, subject Strain 1 to muliple generation cycles in altered conditions and selectively breed them by colour or size ... After a while take a sample of Strain 0 out of cryo call that Strain 0.1 and revive the specimens. Split Strain 0.1 in to two groups call them Strain 0.1.1 and 0.1.2 allow Strain 0.1.2 to interbreed with each other to prove that the cryo has not damaged them and to prove that they are fertile with each other. Take Strain 1 and take out a portion call it Strain 1.1 and mix these with Strain 0.1.1 and see if they breed. If they do produce offspring then we name them Strain 2 and we know that Strain 1 will be either one of two things a new race of flies or a new species ... to test which one we have to take Strain 2 and test them ... If Strain 2 are infertile then we can say Strain 1 is a new species because the offspring are true hybrids which are infertile. If Strain 2 are fertile with each other and with both Strain 0 and Strain 1 then we have only created a race of flies in Strain 1 and Strain 2 would be a mixed race of flies of Strain 0 and Strain 1.
Then what we do is continue the experiment all Strain 1 to continue in generation cycles and do the above process again and again ... even then it does not explain evolution because evolution requires true hybrids to go one step further which is to be sexually incompatible with their own ancestor which we can test because they are in cryo and at the same time sexually rife with each other. The experiments on the fruit fly were laced in technical jargon but they failed to produce a solid test for evolution according to my scientific opinion.
yazdi on psyah: 5) Previously you thought evolution was all about non humans giving birth to humans.. now you have modified your understanding of evolution.
psyah on psyah: 5) Evolution was about non-humans giving birth to humans and then some smarty came along and evolved the theory of Darwin to the neo-Darwinian variant and that has been happening since this theory was coined they now invoke genetic drift to remove one layer of complication which is so they can't be asked to show one animal giving birth to another they ridicule and say that people who ask for this test are ignorant of evolution in terms of genetic drift ... but even if we use the argument of genetic drift say there is a creature at the very edge of giving birth to something that is slightly different but enough so that its offspring is not the same species ... there will come a point on delta change where you can't call the child the same as the mother ... that is what I meant as non-human giving birth to a human ... I didn't mean a cow giving birth to a dog and assert that is your fallacy together with the fallacy of pro-evolutionists. Now I did back down for a while and assumed that genetic drift may be the answer ... but then I tried to reconcile the 24 chromosome pairs of chimps with 23 of humans ... and I can't explain that to myself using the idea of genetic drift ... to me the jump from 24 to 23 makes it impossible to enterain genetic drift as the answer to speciation ... but that is where I need you to educate me.
yazdi on psyah: 6) Previously you believed anything which can not be measured/seen can not be scientific, but now you have modified your opinion about these notions.
psyah on psyah: 6) This is the same point about theory and faith and proof and valid science ... I have never changed my position on this ... to me a true scientific theory must be falsifiable - in which case we can experiment over it and test it ... the arguments raised by people who claim astronomy to be similar to evolution that it is not testable and erroneously use the sun that we can't grab it as an argument are wrong ... in astronomy in which I am an amature enthusiast much more than this subject that I take no real interest in we have real observations ... real time data processing and then we extend that with exraploative methods ... Evolution is pure extrapolation and no base measurement. However they will disagree and say genetic drift within a species is their base measurement ... I say that is a belief of theirs.
yazdi on psyah: 7) You hold an opinion contrary to every reputable educational institution, nobel laureates, 99.8% of scientists with credible credentials who treat evolution as valid science.. and you claim to be right against their opinion.
psyah on psyah: 7) Without any arrogance ... yes (But I don't think you can qualify 99.8% of scientists ... I think you may mean 99.8% of biological scientists of a given region or demographic and who are also mostly atheists) ... There are doctors and medical professional of other kinds on this forum ... Muslims ones ... and they don't accept evolution, may be because of their religion or it may be because they are better scientists who look for the truth of a matter ... I am curious about atheistic scientists especially those with a mission in mind ... they have everything to gain to enforce their belief of evolution and alas it may not contradict God, as they claim, but it does undermine scripture which is from God ... they have a hold on you and The Word of God has a hold on me ... is that fair? Yes I think it is ...
**
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
You posted the definition of fath/belief before in which you said lack of observed evidence. This one has word like lack of fact.
Anyhow we all know what faith/belief means people believe on something for some form of evidence and they think it is a fact!
Similarly, people from different religions believe on their religons for some reasons too.
Don’t take an offense if I said evolution is also a belief. That’s what it is!
Some events are observed, most of them according to theory have occured (never been seen) or will occur in future, (you and I will never see that, let alone even the evolutionists).
Relying on some scientists 100% or thinkng that all what is said by them is a true fact, is where the problem lies. These videos and lectures and cartoons in powerpoint presentations may be overwhelming but fact remains, **these are assumptions **and nothing more.
When you are ready to look things from reality glasses and not put your faith on these scientists altogether, you will get the point.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Coming back to the thread question ... Why are Muslims against evolution ...
Answer: We already have a faith that we are following ... end of discussion.
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
Coming back to the thread question ... Why are Muslims against evolution ...
Answer: We already have a faith that we are following ... end of discussion.
No discussion on how science theories are constructed.. on the fact that no matter how hard you try to disprove them you are not able to.. the difference between mathematics and science.. no discussion on the link I sent you with 29 possible falsifications against evolution with explanations.. no discussion on any observed evidence..
You tried to convert this debate in to a debate between creationism against evolution.. and there is so much observed evidence against the literal concept of creationism.. which I was deliberately trying to avoid while you were trying to equate literal creationism (which can be disproved with observed evidence easily) with evolution (which can not be falsified no matter how much you try).. as I wanted to discuss evolution on it's merits..
You tried to give "talk less" call sometimes openly while I tried to encourage talking for the sake of learning.. and now finally your call for end of talking.. Okay I am speechless.. end of discussion..!!!
For me it was great while we were talking.. it has been a great learning experience for me as I studied a lot on the subject during the course of discussion. You admit it or not but I can tell you that from the beginning of your postings in this thread till the last post your level of knowledge also increased tremendously.
My ending conclusion:
I am a muslim.. and I am not against evolution..!!!
Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?
No discussion on how science theories are constructed.. on the fact that no matter how hard you try to disprove them you are not able to.. the difference between mathematics and science.. no discussion on the link I sent you with 29 possible falsifications against evolution with explanations.. no discussion on any observed evidence..
You tried to convert this debate in to a debate between creationism against evolution.. and there is so much observed evidence against the literal concept of creationism.. which I was deliberately trying to avoid while you were trying to equate literal creationism (which can be disproved with observed evidence easily) with evolution (which can not be falsified no matter how much you try).. as I wanted to discuss evolution on it's merits..
You tried to give "talk less" call sometimes openly while I tried to encourage talking for the sake of learning.. and now finally your call for end of talking.. Okay I am speechless.. end of discussion..!!!
For me it was great while we were talking.. it has been a great learning experience for me as I studied a lot on the subject during the course of discussion. You admit it or not but I can tell you that from the beginning of your postings in this thread till the last post your level of knowledge also increased tremendously.
My ending conclusion:
I am a muslim.. and I am not against evolution..!!!
Peace yazdi
It has been nice talking as you say ... but it has been a struggle and I have life to get on with ... Part of wisdom is knowing when to quit ... You are a Muslim and you are not against evolution - that is good when I first came into this thread I was not against it either ... now however it seems that I might be going against it. And if by learning more about evolution has led me more against it then ... well then it speaks for itself ... Allah (SWT) Guides Whom He Wills ...