Evolution or Intelligent design ?
-
Peace,
Evolution is an intelligent design!
Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?
Your Lord said to the angels, "I am creating a human being from aged mud, like the potter's clay.
He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.
And GOD created every living creature from water. Some of them walk on their bellies, some
walk on two legs, and some walk on four. GOD creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent.Have they not seen how GOD initiates the creation, then repeats it? This is easy for GOD to do
Say, "Roam the earth and find out the origin of life." For GOD will thus initiate the creation in the Hereafter. GOD is Omnipotent
He is the One who created you in stages.
And here I was, thinking we are in the 21st century and the information age. I was soooo wrong! Evolution is NOT goal or result oriented.
-
Life on this planet is carbon based. Not water based. Just because our cells consist more than half of water does not mean we are "created from" water.
-
While humans do consist of some materials also found in clay, we consist of more elements and different elements NOT found in clay. It would be more accurate to state that we were created from squirrel.
-
The next time you bite your lip or wear glasses remember how perfect you are.
-
What happened to creatures walking on 6, 8 or 88 legs? Forgotten? Why mention only 2-legged or 4-legged creatures. Does the Bible mention more legs?
-
No, that unfortunately is the problem nobody has seen it or experienced or has found any kind or type of evidence for it. Sorry. But if we look at nature we find evidence galore. Strange.
-
no data
-
I was created in stages? The 23 Carnegie stages? Or the 3 wrong stages found in Greek medicine?
-
-
Can anybody explain how human beings were created from clay/mud through an evolutionary timeline? Did we become human and accountable the moment Allah gave us recognition? Then how does clay factor in? If we were created from it, so were all of our predecessors...?
In verse , a variation of the last word means Evolution.
http//i.imgur.com/pAqSb.pngThis makes me question Creationism. I still have many doubts, like clay/mud, social darwinism, abiogenesis...
*just seeing StopS's new post, I've been led to wonder if clay could actually mean carbon...
We created man from an extract of clay. (Qur'an, 2312)
but all life is made up of carbon...not just people. hmm -
Can anybody explain how human beings were created from clay/mud through an evolutionary timeline? Did we become human and accountable the moment Allah gave us recognition? Then how does clay factor in? If we were created from it, so were all of our predecessors...?
Almost ALL civilisations had clay as the basis for life.
In the Akkadian (~2000 BCE) epic of Atra-Hasis we find not just another creation story, but details such as the creation of man as coming from clay and the blood and flesh of the god We-ilu. Because the gods had problems with their creation, they wiped them out almost completely and started from scratch. Almost all ancient civilisations, whether
Canaans
Sumerians
Babylonians
Egyptians
African tribes
Incas
Greeks
Burmese
Kumis
Korkus
Maoris
Hopis
.. and many, many others have clay as the basis for life, so it is not surprising for me to find it in the various later scriptures of the Jews, Christians and Muslims as well. -
Why did almost all civilizations believe in a clay creation story?
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
My only issue with the Theory of Evolution (man and ape sharing a common ancestor) is Social Darwinism, which is a racist philosophy. I remember reading excerpts in my Biology class from The Origin of Species then I checked out the book from the library, discovering its full title which is really On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Well, that does not disprove evolution. What it tells us is that we should not be living by Darwinistic means and ideas when it comes to our social life. Having problem accepting "E=mc^2" because it would mean that a gram of dung potentially holds within the same amount of energy as a gram of gold would be funny and comparable to your objection. Having learn't what Einstein discovered, we did not go and start using that as a philosophy and start selling dung jewelry. In the same way, we should not resort to a darwinistic social model. It would be a really bad idea.
Oh, and by the way, "Preservation of Favored Races" does not stand in the title of the book as an indication/hint for advocating racism. For example, lets take a country, mmm, lets say, Egypt. If do not allow Egyptians to use modern medicine, health benefits, proper food, shelter, technology, and keep them that way for lets say 3000 years. Wouldn't the Egyptians be in trouble and potentially be inferior when compared to another set of people that were given everything necessary to prosper ? That is the favor Darwin was talking about. If you have 2 variants of the same species in a given environment, one is fit for the environment and the other is not, who do you think will be favored by nature ? Let me dumb it down even more. If you had 2 variants of a species, one that can swim and one that cant. Now if you throw them in water by whatever means, wouldn't the ones who can swim be favored ?
I really don't see why the use of the word "race" has to misunderstood like that.
There is no doubt in my mind that God could guide life through evolution on a massive scale over millions and millions of years leading up to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, but it troubles me that such a model can be and has been used to justify racism through science (go to Apricity or Storm Front forums and browse a bit to see what I mean). My pride does not prevent me from accepting that our ancestors once walked on four limbs, but if I were a black person, I'd be offended to know my race was once considered "less evolved" or as the "missing link"
The socio-cultural implications of macro-evolution does not negate the science but it makes me wonder.
One should not mix up socio-cultural things with the understanding we have of Evolution. There is a good reason for that. Evolution via natural selection is not the only way forward. We do walk around with a lot of evolutionary baggage from our past. A man is expected to look as masculine as he can look. But if you think about it, in today's society, there is no reason for a man to be that strong. Men no longer depend on inefficient tools (stones and bare hand) and have to protect us and other from wild animals. Surely in our past, that feature was favored. But in today's society, success isn't measured that way. Look at Bill gates, he does not have the body of a pro-body builder. Would you consider him less successful in life ? Would you say that he can not provide for and protect his family ? I hope not. But its still deeply rooted within us to expect men to look a certain way. My point is, we are far too complex beings for anyone to dismiss our potentials based on inherently racist claims. Evolution is still going on, and nature is till favoring the best ones. Its just that in case of complex societies (like ours), it is not easy to measure/quantify that.
Peace
------------- Student of Allah
-
Salaam,
There is no evolution in the Qur'an. Variation within species is not evolution, that is a misapplication of a purposely vague term. Evolution as a term that is accepted by secularists is the grand statement that all life has descended with modification from some 'simple' first organism(s) (there are various theories actually).
Micro and macroevolution. If you believe that micro can add up to macro, you are truly lacking in knowledge and intelligence. I am sorry, but I have no mercy for such blatant ignorance on a topic like this. I have studied this topic for ten years now at least and I am sick of liberal Muslims (and many qur'an alone muslim) spouting this complete garbage.
If you want a proper analogy, micro is like jumping and macro is like flying. Jump all you want, you will never fly. There are issues of constrained coding in DNA and morphology which completely destroy this line of reasoning that lots of micro leads to macro.
The Qur'an is very clear on this issue, and I am willing to debate anyone on this topic.
The scientific evidence has completely crushed the grand theory of evolution and now demonstrates the clear design of life. Secular scientists and their muslim/christian lapdogs hold on to the theory of evolution because it is the only politically correct one and because for atheists, there are no allowable alternatives. That is the only reason the theory (more correctly, hypothesis) survives.
To that end I recommend the following links to educate yourself (you can search within them to get copious amounts of data and refutations of evolutionist bs).
http//www.evolutionnews.org
http//www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature
http//darwins-god.blogspot.com/
http//crev.info/ (A Christian creationist website, but this section is an excellent and updated resource on articles and finding)Salaam to all and if you think the Qur'an accepts or allows for evolution, bring it on, I am ready to debate.
-
Salaam,
There is no evolution in the Qur'an. Variation within species is not evolution, that is a misapplication of a purposely vague term. Evolution as a term that is accepted by secularists is the grand statement that all life has descended with modification from some 'simple' first organism(s) (there are various theories actually).
Micro and macroevolution. If you believe that micro can add up to macro, you are truly lacking in knowledge and intelligence. I am sorry, but I have no mercy for such blatant ignorance on a topic like this. I have studied this topic for ten years now at least and I am sick of liberal Muslims (and many qur'an alone muslim) spouting this complete garbage.
If you want a proper analogy, micro is like jumping and macro is like flying. Jump all you want, you will never fly. There are issues of constrained coding in DNA and morphology which completely destroy this line of reasoning that lots of micro leads to macro.
The Qur'an is very clear on this issue, and I am willing to debate anyone on this topic.
The scientific evidence has completely crushed the grand theory of evolution and now demonstrates the clear design of life. Secular scientists and their muslim/christian lapdogs hold on to the theory of evolution because it is the only politically correct one and because for atheists, there are no allowable alternatives. That is the only reason the theory (more correctly, hypothesis) survives.
To that end I recommend the following links to educate yourself (you can search within them to get copious amounts of data and refutations of evolutionist bs).
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But when it comes to having a conversation about a specific topic, I think some definitions are in order.
Evolution what exactly is your definition?
Secularism what exactly is your definition?
Micro-Evolution what exactly is your definition?
constrained coding in DNA what exactly is your definition?
Secular scientists what exactly is your definition?
constrained coding in morphology what exactly is your definition?
atheist what exactly is your definition?
theory vs hypothesis what exactly is your definition?
What is the difference between the "Theory of Evolution and the "grand theory of evolution"?What is your proof for your claim "there are various theories actually"
What is your proof for your claim "all life has descended with modification from some 'simple' first organism"
What is your proof for your claim "scientific evidence has completely crushed the grand theory of evolution"
"atheists, there are no allowable alternatives" what do atheists have to do with evolution? Would atheists all stop being atheists because the theory of evolution turns out to be wrong?
What is an "evolutionist"? Is that similar to a "gravitationalist"? Or an "atomist"?Have you, in your 10 years of study, ever bothered to look for evidence for what you propose here or what your links propose? Have you ever bothered to look for evidence and not just doubts?
Do you see all scientific theories as giant conspiracies which are actually based on a hunch? Or are all other scientific theories valid and based on facts - just evolution is not?
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Only, if you are of the opinion you can fly it might lead to a painful awakening to reality. Maybe it's time you checked whether your opinion is based on wishful thinking or facts. It remains your choice.
-
Peace pshorg.
Quote Salaam to all and if you think the Qur'an accepts or allows for evolution, bring it on, I am ready to debate.Evolution is Divinely Controlled
We learn from the Quran that evolution is a divinely designed fact
Life began in water "From water we initiated all living things."
Humans are not descendants of monkeys,however they had to undergo an evolution process "He started the creation of man from mud."
Man created from "aged" mud "I am creating the human being from 'aged' clay."
Evolution is possible only within a given same species.
Peace.
-
Shalom Aleikhem,
Well, that does not disprove evolution.
No it doesn't, but my problem was how could God model life in a way that justifies racism?
Oh, and by the way, "Preservation of Favored Races" does not stand in the title of the book as an indication/hint for advocating racism.
"favored races" is interchangeable with "white" in this context
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1887156).
Salaam,
I am sorry, but I have no mercy for such blatant ignorance on a topic like this. I have studied this topic for ten years now at least and I am sick of liberal Muslims (and many qur'an alone muslim) spouting this complete garbagelib?er?al
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's garbage. I can see how someone may interpret the Qur'an to support evolution, or creationism, or both. The religious community has long been in the shadows of holy men, muslims are now breaking free from the status quo. That means we will have to listen to (not necessarily agree with) ideas that make us uncomfortable.
-
May I ask where you get all this from?
Evolution is Divinely Controlled
Proof?
We learn from the Quran that evolution is a divinely designed fact Life began in water "From water we initiated all living things."
If life started in water, it is not proof of evolution by random mutation and natural selection.
Humans are not descendants of monkeys,however they had to undergo an evolution process "He started the creation of man from mud."
The existence of mud does not prove the existence of monkeys or apes.
Man created from "aged" mud "I am creating the human being from 'aged' clay."
Proof? Process?
Evolution is possible only within a given same species.
Proof?
Why do people simply assert without proof when discussing science on a religious forum?
-
Peace,
When the Quran says that all life came from water, it absolutely true.
It is not for God to prove himself to science but for science to find out how
and why God is correct.There are many points of view on the subject but the one that agrees
with Quran is the correct answer.Scientist suggests life began in freshwater pond, not the ocean
February 14, 2012 by Bob Yirka(PhysOrg.com) -- For most everyone alive today, it's almost a fundamental fact. Life began in the ocean and evolved into all of the different organisms that exist today. The idea that this could be wrong causes great discomfort, like discovering as an adult that you were adopted as a child. Nonetheless, a team of diverse scientists led by Armen Mulkidjanian is suggesting that very thing; instead of life beginning in deep thermal vents in the ocean, the prevailing view, they say it perhaps instead started in landlocked freshwater pools created by thermal vapor. Their theory is based, as they explain in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, mostly on the idea that the sea is just too salty to provide the ideal conditions necessary to spur life into existence.
Water Filter Solutions - The Best Water Filters Are From Culligan! Call & Inquire Today. - Commercial.YourWater.Net
Mulkidjanian and his colleagues argue that in looking at the way cells are made today, it?s hard to imagine they got their start in water that was far saltier than it is now. They point out that cells in all living organisms have a much higher proportion of potassium to sodium, whereas the ocean is the reverse. Such high levels of salt would have made it difficult for cells to synthesize proteins, they say, making it extremely difficult for them the form into the molecular machines with strong walls seen today. Such thick walls would not have existed when cells were just starting to form, making it almost impossible for them to get started, grow and mature.
In contrast, they say, the conditions found on land during the time period when life is believed to have started, was likely far more conducive. In addition to the existing pools of fresh water created by the condensation and cooling of geothermal vapor, there were the higher temperatures that are believed to have existed worldwide. In addition, they say that those pools of water, or mud, likely had many of the same ingredients found in modern cells phosphate ions, zinc, manganese and especially potassium. Thus the newly forming original cells would not have had to work hard to keep out harmful sodium ions. Also, to counter arguments that newly developing cells on land would be stopped in their tracks by harmful UV radiation from the sun, the team notes that both RNA and DNA have been shown to be stable under such exposure.
Despite the team?s compelling arguments, there are likely to be many doubters, and rather than converting most in the scientific community, this new idea is likely to spark debate that will almost certainly continue for many years to come.
Peace
O0
-
Peace StopS.
Quote Why do people simply assert without proof when discussing science on a religious forum?
Because "Qoran" is the ultimate proof. What Qoran says is also the absolute truth.
Everything should be measured/checked by "Qoran" including Science.
Peace.
-
THERE IS NO DICHOTOMY BETWEEN ISLAM AND SCIENCE
There is no dichotomy between Islam and science because God is the creator of all things.
If you were to ask a person that believes God exists "who created horses" they who reply,
"God created horses." Therefore since biology is the science of life then all living things are created
by God. Therefore if humans were created by God, therefore all of the human attributes were given
to us by God therefore everything that a human can do or think was given to us by God.There are those who in the name of science attempt to prove that reality occured
without God. These folks are basically non-believers using their faulty intellect to deny the
existence of God.The problem of both science and religion has been the inability to understand the nature of existence.
The answer to this DICHOTOMY is the marriage between the two and the Quran is the best
source to bring the two together.(don't freak out when I use the term religion, it is a convient word denoting body of beliefs)
Peace
O0
-
Peace StopS.
Quote Why do people simply assert without proof when discussing science on a religious forum?
Because "Qoran" is the ultimate proof. What Qoran says is also the absolute truth.
Everything should be measured/checked by "Qoran" including Science.
Peace.
So how do YOU reconcile the differences between the descriptions in the Koran and reality?
-
Peace StopS.
If you are seeing differences, then your reality is a " mirage". Wishful thinking.
True reality is as described in Qoran.
Peace.
-
Peace StopS.
If you are seeing differences, then your reality is a " mirage". Wishful thinking.
True reality is as described in Qoran.
Peace.
So let's talk about what I understand to be examples for inaccurate descriptions in the Koran
- Women are the default and men are generated from the female form. 41, 7189
- Mountains are not pegs and don't stabilise anything. 1615, 786-7
- There are no barriers between seas or salt and sweet water. 5519-20, 2553
- Thunder requires lightning. 1313
- Birds use Bernoulli and don't require super-natural help. 1679
Please show me where I obviously have misconceptions or where I need to re-translate my translation of the Koran.
If it is easier, consider a one-by-one approach. -
Peace,
There is a natural barrier between salt and fresh water if still because salt water is heavier.
Why do you constantly do this? Why don't you ask?
There is something called Google on your computer somewhere. Look for it and use it, as it saves you constantly being embarrassed by posting unresearched opinions of yours, which are mindless.The underground boundary that separates the fresh water layer from the salt water is not a sharp boundary line. In reality, this boundary is a transition zone of brackish water (fresh/salt mixture). This is caused by seasonal fluctuations in rainfall, tidal action, and the amount of water being withdrawn either by humans or by natural discharge.
Fresh water has a density of 1.0 while salt water has a density of 1.025. From this, you can see that salt water is slightly heavier than fresh water. The ratio between the two is 4140. The formation of the Ghyben-Herzberg lens has a profound effect upon the availability of fresh water on an island. This principle essentially states that for every foot of ground water above sea level there are forty feet of fresh water below sea level! The mathematical formula for the fresh to salt water relationship is
hs = hf / es - ef
where hs is the depth of fresh water below sea level, hf is the depth of fresh water above sea level, es is the density of salt water, and ef is the density of fresh water. Using the common density figures for fresh and salt water the formula can thus be simplified into
hs = hf / .025
Understand that this applies only to fresh ground water that is sitting directly on an intruded body of salt water. It has no meaning on a large island where an inland body of ground water may be confined by layers and dikes of lava rock. On islands that are largely composed of dense lava rock, little if any salt water intrudes very far into the underlying rock structure. It is generally only in shoreline regions that salt water intrudes into the cracks, crevices, and loose rock spaces.
http//geography.about.com/library/misc/ucghyben.htm
http//www.scribd.com/doc/41653228/Refuting-Debunking-the-claim-made-in-Quran-that-Fresh-and-Salt-Water-do-not-mixConclusion
No, there is no barrier between salt water and fresh water.
There is nothing in the real world water masses which is forbidden to be passed.
The Koran in 2553 does NOT mention vertically stratified, still water. If I missed a verse mentioning a barrier in vertically stratified, still water, please let me know. -
Peace,
Why do you constantly do this? Why don't you ask?
There is something called Google on your computer somewhere. Look for it and use it, as it saves you constantly being embarrassed by posting unresearched opinions of yours, which are mindless.Wrong again! You my friend are a liar, on that same google page you find the truth
but you choose to ignore it. I want an opology or I will put you in a cyber-headlock! )The research was done by Dr. C.
Please watch video even tho you would never admit that you are wrong.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx3yNjd7jE0
Saltwater Stratification
We can even make layers out of salty water and freshwater! Salty water is more dense than fresh water because it has bits of salt in it.If we take some salt water and colour it blue with food colouring, and also some non-coloured freshwater, we can combine them to make layers.
We have to be very careful not to let the layers mix! Put the freshwater in a clear thin glass container (a test tube is ideal). Take a drinking straw and suck up the salt water so the straw is filled. cover the straw top with your thumb so no water escapes. Push the straw to the bottom of the test tube and then take your thumb off. You may want to carefully slowly and gently do this a few more times.
Earth Sciences
Is salt water heavier than fresh water?
Answer Yes, it is the reason is the salinity in the salt water makes it heavier. It makes it so heavy that it sinks and the fresh water gets pushed to the top.
Peace
O0