If incest is prohibited, how did the human race populate from Adam?
-
Darwin's theory of evolution is a myth. IKts also been proven unscientific. It is an atheistic dogma hiding behind science. There has NEVER been any evidence for species evolving to other species nor has there been any scientific evidence to show how can that be.
Muslims developed evolution theory and Intelligent design people also make real real big big mistakes. PLUS, intelligent design does acknowledge development from species to species, but as a result of a designed plan and not by blind change as Darwinists claim it to be.
What you promote is more Creationism, something that is not supported at all by the Quran.
BOTH the Darwinsts AND the Intelligent Designers are wrong on many things as they both neglect to acknowledge that it is the LAWS of the Universe that layout the results.
God does not tinker with His Design as His Design is always perfect. He created the Universe in such a way that intelligent Life would emerge. This is a designed outcome, an outcome calculated as the enviroment and the laws were pre-designed in such a way, that life could only evolve towards intelligence and higher species.
Thus blind change is not involved as Darwinists claim as they neglect to see that the enviroments and laws involved will determine the outcome of life, and the Intelligent Designers are wrong as God does not intervene in the Universe as it is some sort of faulty design that needs upgrading.
God's Design is always perfect from the start.
506 Do they not look at the sky above them how We have built it and beautified it, and there are no flaws therein? 507 And the earth. We have spread it out, and set mountains standing firm on it, and produced therein every kind of beautiful plants in pairs.
You can only claim there are no flaws in it when you do not need to fix it....
I believe in God, the Designer of Laws, which carry out His Will in which His Plan comes out gradually phase by phase untill it reaches its completion. He programmed the Universe in such a way, Life would emerge out of it on its own without need for interferring or fixing up time by time.
-
Muslims developed evolution theory and Intelligent design people also make real real big big mistakes. PLUS, intelligent design does acknowledge development from species to species, but as a result of a designed plan and not by blind change as Darwinists claim it to be.
What you promote is more Creationism, something that is not supported at all by the Quran.
BOTH the Darwinsts AND the Intelligent Designers are wrong on many things as they both neglect to acknowledge that it is the LAWS of the Universe that layout the results.
God does not tinker with His Design as His Design is always perfect. He created the Universe in such a way that intelligent Life would emerge. This is a designed outcome, an outcome calculated as the enviroment and the laws were pre-designed in such a way, that life could only evolve towards intelligence and higher species.
Thus blind change is not involved as Darwinists claim as they neglect to see that the enviroments and laws involved will determine the outcome of life, and the Intelligent Designers are wrong as God does not intervene in the Universe as it is some sort of faulty design that needs upgrading.
God's Design is always perfect from the start.
506 Do they not look at the sky above them how We have built it and beautified it, and there are no flaws therein? 507 And the earth. We have spread it out, and set mountains standing firm on it, and produced therein every kind of beautiful plants in pairs.
You can only claim there are no flaws in it when you do not need to fix it....
I believe in God, the Designer of Laws, which carry out His Will in which His Plan comes out gradually phase by phase untill it reaches its completion. He programmed the Universe in such a way, Life would emerge out of it on its own without need for interferring or fixing up time by time.
There is no scientific evidence to what you are saying. Michael Behe is the only on among the IDers who believes in common descent but even he acknowledges that there is no scientific evidence for that.
Most IDers reject the common descent argument as there is no scientific mechanism to explain it even though the Darwinist keep saying that random mutation and natural selection makes it happen. Since when does random and natural explain science? What you believe is your problem however there is nothing scientific to what you are saying.
-
Well well, that is a hard through the corner conclusion. No discussion even possible it seems and neglects the rest of the post.
Peace
-
"Adam" would start from the first sapient man/woman.
First means the ?one? which all others originated from, right?
http//www.veoh.com/videos/v415763FER9hC4c
All males have DNA signature or Y chromosome which trace back to one original Adam.
Adam in Arabic means Intelligent man, this is exactly the meaning of Homo Sapiens, Thinking Man...
The Quran says clearly we developed from lower species
6133 Your Lord is Absolute, the Lord of Mercy. He could replace you with whomever He Will, like He RAISED YOU FROM THE GENERATIONS OF OTHER FOLK.
7628 (Who gave them the mind and body to behave the way they choose?)We it is Who have created them, and strengthened their frame. And if We Will, We can replace them entirely with other nations.
7114 Knowing that He has created you in successive stages.
7117 And Allah has caused you to grow as a growth from the earth/as a (geneological) tree.
The stages you interpret as germ thingy-fish-people can also mean nothing (i.e. dust)-embryo-baby-child-adult.
Yes, I was raised from generations of other folk or "people" who were my ancestors not germ thingy or fish.
Define exactly "intelligent thinking man" to distinguish the idiot brutes still walking the earth today?
God does not tinker with His Design as His Design is always perfect. He created the Universe in such a way that intelligent Life would emerge. This is a designed outcome, an outcome calculated as the enviroment and the laws were pre-designed in such a way, that life could only evolve towards intelligence and higher species.
I believe in God, the Designer of Laws, which carry out His Will in which His Plan comes out gradually phase by phase untill it reaches its completion. He programmed the Universe in such a way, Life would emerge out of it on its own without need for interferring or fixing up time by time.
How do you know God does not tinker?
If everything was set up like dominoes and flicked in motion then why pray or bother to ask forgiveness?
How can anyone be responsible in life for thinking and acting the way they do?
Peace
-
How do you know God does not tinker?
If everything was set up like dominoes and flicked in motion then why pray or bother to ask forgiveness?
How can anyone be responsible in life for thinking and acting the way they do?
It's all determinism ;D
Really, use the "God is a computer, we are the program" analogy. As you say, why pray or ask for forgiveness? Does praying to something invisible or asking for forgiveness work at all? Answer
853 - This is because Allah has never changed a favor which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition; and because Allah is Hearing, Knowing;
Again, a case of determinism, no change can happen unless someone changes themselves. "God" has/uses no powers of intervention (tricky thing to say) but still has full control.
First means the one which all others originated from, right?
Funny you should say that but quranic verses can have more than one truth. For instance, take 2130 (Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?). That could hold true for many occasions - nebulas, the "big bang" theory in the case of earth, and for humans, chemical composition is derived mostly from hydrocarbons , or just the sheer fact that we are around 80% water as we speak.
Obviously we're well out of our boots to comment on human origins, but a guess with evidence is better than "Poof! There it is!".
The stages you interpret as germ thingy-fish-people can also mean nothing (i.e. dust)-embryo-baby-child-adult.
And why not both?
Quranic verses have a lot of double meanings and every one of them happen to be true. Elegant...
-
Peace Br. OPF, Pazuzu,
I think my explanation have been very sparse. What I am implying is I accept that man was/is created in stages. But those stages are fairly obvious, aren't they? Like you said, Br. Pazuzu
You hit the nail on the head when you yourself identified the stages of "biological evolution" above from inception to perfection. That is a downright verifiable biological fact. Now if you say, that Adam was a product of a slow process of evolution which may have taken place over thousands of year, then, please explain why 359, when Jesus is being compared to Adam, doesn't go something like this
"The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.... in stages....eventually."
This verse is as simple and straightforward as it can be. and the second half of the verse is referring to Adam. "Be" and he was. Period.
As for 1529
By your point of view, Adam was perfected BECAUSE God breathed his Ruuh in him, not before. So 1529 would be understood as "So when I perfect him, by blowing My Spirit in him, you shall yield to him."
Please try to understand this from my point of view. It seems like the theory of evolution is being forced in the Book. I'll just put a simple scenario. Wipe your mind clear of any theory of evolution and then, when you read about the stages, what would be the obvious interpretation that you would arrive at?
Just consider this point from 37.
37 - "He is the One who sent down to you the Scripture, from which there are firm verses; they are the essence of the Scripture; and others which are allegorical. As for those who have disease in their hearts, they will follow what is similar from it seeking to confuse, and seeking to derive an interpretation. But none know its original interpretation except God and those who are well founded in knowledge, they Say "We believe in it, all is from our Lord." And none will remember except the people of understanding."
The Allegorical verses... people will tend to follow writings/sayings SIMILAR TO the allegorical verses, not the allegorical verses themselves. So, when you read the theory of evolution, you related it to the allegorical verses in the sense that, "yes, the Book alludes to something similar to this theory. Therefore, the theory must be the interpretation of those verses." That is exactly the trap that we should be avoiding.
Although, I am sure that most will not agree with my point of view in this regard, but I truly hope that you will understand where I am coming from. Because I feel that I have not been successful in getting my point across.
You will have to excuse me, if I have written anything irrelevant in the post. I am not as proficient as most in this forum.
Peace
bravoI agree 100% and believe me that's rare in me handshake
-
What's the relation between creation and the main question of the thread?
Peace. God's system never changes. Incest is prohibited. Brothers can't marry sisters. How then did we multiply?
What do societal laws have to do with God's system? God changes his civic/societal/moral laws according to the evolution and need of mankind. I do not think marrying a sister, for example, is "naturally" an incest. Nor is killing for food "naturally" a crime. God's laws made them so. If not for God's laws we would have been practicing them "innocently" until now.
-
Oh and we have "evolved" http//www.terradaily.com/reports/Evolutionary_Comparison_Finds_New_Human_Genes_999.html
-
Peace Samia, all
What's the relation between creation and the main question of the thread?
What do societal laws have to do with God's system? God changes his civic/societal/moral laws according to the evolution and need of mankind. I do not think marrying a sister, for example, is "naturally" an incest. Nor is killing for food "naturally" a crime. God's laws made them so. If not for God's laws we would have been practicing them "innocently" until now.
Very good points.
Peace
-
Peace, quran doesnt tell us of any sisters that the two sons of adam had. Also if adam refers to mankind as a whole, why did God describe the episode where one brother killed the other and the bird showed him what to do with the body? It only means that they were the first humans, who didn't know much of earth. If they evolved from 'spiritless' humanoid, surely they would have instinctively known how to dispose of a dead body. Even a bird knew that.
-
What's the relation between creation and the main question of the thread?
What do societal laws have to do with God's system? God changes his civic/societal/moral laws according to the evolution and need of mankind. I do not think marrying a sister, for example, is "naturally" an incest. Nor is killing for food "naturally" a crime. God's laws made them so. If not for God's laws we would have been practicing them "innocently" until now.
Good point.
-
Oh and we have "evolved" http//www.terradaily.com/reports/Evolutionary_Comparison_Finds_New_Human_Genes_999.html
Be careful about these Darwinist. They always find ways to justify evolution. Just because genes are similar it does not mean they are common descent. Its all assumptions and speculation. Just ask them how do species acquire new DNA. Look at what happened when Richard Dawkins was asked this very question
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3629149464864042088&q=dawkins&total=3719&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
-
Be careful about these Darwinist. They always find ways to justify evolution. Just because genes are similar it does not mean they are common descent. Its all assumptions and speculation. Just ask them how do species acquire new DNA. Look at what happened when Richard Dawkins was asked this very question
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3629149464864042088&q=dawkins&total=3719&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
Sorry but that was a bullshit hoax of the highest order. Nothing more than a lie.
http//www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
-
I think that Darwin, rather than as a scientist, was an ideologist, and an imperial ideologist at that. His voyages, descriptions and guesses served to give a "scientific" appearance to a world view of each against all and survival of the fitest, which so conveniently came to ratify the social, economic and imperial needs of the powerful of his time. His evolutionary ideas were not even his, but borrowed at least from Lamarck, who really was indeed a scientist. What is now known as darwinism, as I gather, doesn't come from Darwin but from later scientists who did put the science where Darwin hat just put ideology (of the worst species -no pun intended- that later scientes also attempted to withdraw) and speculation. Indeed we seem to have got stuck with the name of this chap just for nothing, but with the negative side that his "darwinism" precisely confers respectability on a conception of existence which is competition ad nauseam.
Also there seems to be a rebirth of "lamarckism", which is an interesting development and we may still have great margin to explore in different directions for heredity and acquisition.
Salaam
-
Sorry but that was a bulls*** hoax of the highest order. Nothing more than a lie.
http//www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
He went on and on and on but nerver answers a very simple question. Darwinist are philosophers who hide behind science. He didn't answer the question because he couldn't and then started giving us all these long and boring and complicated answer when he could have just said no.
-
He went on and on and on but nerver answers a very simple question. Darwinist are philosophers who hide behind science. He didn't answer the question because he couldn't and then started giving us all these long and boring and complicated answer when he could have just said no.
You're correct, he dodges the question
The best we can do is probably to forget about the genome itself and look at its product, the "phenotype", the working body of the animal or plant itself. In 1951, J W S Pringle, who later became my Professor at Oxford, suggested using a Shannon-type information measure to estimate "complexity". Pringle wanted to express complexity mathematically in bits, but I have long found the following verbal form helpful in explaining his idea to students.
The point being, that the "11 second pause" was a hoax.
-
Peace "sharp001,"
I noticed that you are in denial of the Darwinian theory of evolution which has infact MUCH MORE EVIDENCE to support it than the big bang theory and is more probable than the probability given at the end of most DNA parent tests(~ 99.9996... %). Most reasonable people accept that they are the parent after such tests and even sunnis accept the big bang. Here are some of the latest evidences for evolution
http//youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http//youtube.com/watch?v=tk2jQgLhHnE
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
And finally A HUGE LIST OF EVIDENCES FROM DIVERSE BRANCHES ALL SUPPORTING EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE
http//talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (Take a careful look at how almost every step has a "confirmation" and a "POTENTIAL FALSFICATION" part exactly like its supposed to be in science. Also consider the predictions made in certain parts which confirmed the theory)
99.9% of all scientists who are experts in the area ALL independently came to the conclusion that evolution occurred i.e. common decent eith modifications including humans evolving from apelike creatures. GOD Bless! -
Astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book The Goldilocks Enigma
There is no doubt that, even in the crude form, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer applied to the laws of nature is far superior then the designer considered in the previous section (of his book red.), who violates the laws of nature from time to time by working miracles in evolutionary history. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than design-by-miracles.
If I were an omnipotent being who wanted to make an inhabited universe like ours, and I could achieve this simply by conjuring up what I wanted when I wanted it, I wouldnt regard my activities as very clever. But to select a set of laws that, without nay periodic fixing up and micromanagment, can bring a universe into being and bring about self-organisation, self-complexification and self-assembly of life and conciousness-well, that looks very clever indeed!
So the intelligentdesign beloved of the Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a designer of laws of nature which by themselves have such astonishing creative ability without the need for intervention and miracles. Intelligent design of the laws does not conflict with science, because it accepts that the whole universe runs itself according to physical laws, and that everything that happens in the universe has a natural explanation.
There are no miracles other than the miracle of nature itself. You dont even need a miracle to bring the universe into existence in the first place, because the big bang may be brought within to explain the origin of the universe from nothing, or by assuming something like eternal inflation. The designer-of-laws is responsible for the universe, and might be thought of as upholding its existence at every moment, but does not tinker with its day to day operation. The type of God I am describing comes close, I think, to what many scholarly theologians-and for that quite a few scientists-profess to believe in.
-
Peace "DArgento",
The evidence is so overwhelming that even the pope believes in evolution
JK- Yep thats correct the pope did acknowledge evolution and so have many other even protestant christians like "kabane52" on youtube for example. That should really tell those something who still deny it. GOD Bless!