Evolution theory contradicts the Quran and Hadiths

[ScimitarXEdge]

the difference is I don't claim to have refuted a widely established , peer reviewed evidence backed principle in science ....YOU ARE

if you're so sure of your findings; Publish them, present some research you have done and publish them ....what's stopping you?

[Alchemist]

Again ...douche bag..


What evidence?

Show me the evidence...

[ScimitarXEdge]

I did but you keep denying it like a creationist would.


so why won't you publicly confront evolutionary theory with your findings and research?

[Alchemist]

You did?

No you didn't .. you coward ....liar!

Faker....


More posturing?

More theatrics?


What evidence? Douche bag... Where? Show it?

Wikipedia?

LOL

Get lost ... and stfu

[ScimitarXEdge]

I see what you're trying to do now, you're trying to divert focus away from Being asked why you don't have any Peer Reviewed Research for your Arguments against Evolution

Let this be noted audience.

[faye]

why would one need 'peer reviewed research' to have a belief? what, if the mases of peers don't approve, that means ones belief is invalid? are you suffering from peer pressure or what?

[ScimitarXEdge]

because it isn't a belief faye; it's something observed in science.

[faye]

that is your belief, scimitar.

[faye]

how does quantaum mechanics fit with the qu'ran? would it mean that everything everyone is rampantly debating about is an illusion?

[Afghanistan2010]

Let the twirp fight his own battles

Circular argument again. since you have yet to demonstrate in any published peer reviewed material why Evolution is not scientific

when you present peer reviewed materials publicly challenging evolution and engage in debates with experts which you have successfully refuted, then maybe you MIGHT have some credence on the matter.

For me if something is proven from quran and sunnah it is enough scientific,i see it as the only truth science rather than these monkies who claim things that are already proven and spoken in quran.

Evoultion is just an explanation "how it could be",but is not.

Darwin himself said : there are two things that could "HAVE" happend
i dont know how familiar you are with the English Language.

But this is a part from the conditional sentences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...arnitv51.shtml

He said : Either all was created by a far intellectual ( he was reffering to God),or by Evoultion (how he described it) and there is no God.

So you come up mix these two things together and claim is as the truth that was revealed to you by iblis ibn as shaytan (ar rajeem)

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Thank you both, for admitting that you are ignorant on the subject. And that you are only blindly believing in the narrative of evolution because you have faith in "scientists".

Wrong. Rationalists follow evidence. Which you haven't provided yet.

Here is the irony again, that the two of you know that you know little, but you feel that you have to speak on that which you know not...a lot. And that too on faith. If I haven't contributed anything after page 35 or whatever, it's simply because this has never been a debate on the facts of biology but a political type of campaign for other ideals and issues. And now you two are asking what credentials I have when neither of you have any either?

Since the level of one's qualification in the sciences is the requirement to be the authority on the subject concerned then, if we follow what you say, even what you say or believe is irrelevant because there are tens of thousands of experts who are more qualified than you and have access to better research material (hint: they don't look for Answers in Genesis) and, most importantly, they don't dispute the fact that evolution is a natural phenomena.

Good question, to an Extant ****mitar and Lewanay have asked the same question phrased differently.

I have already gone over the facts with all of you and unfortunately not many remember or even bother to read and understand what I say because they think I am the devil incognito.

And even if Thomas Edison was deemed too stupid for high school, or Einstein only able to work as a patent clerk( you just need a bachelors to be one), Bill Gates didn't even finish college, Gregor Mendal couldn't even pass the teacher's examination let alone have a degree in biology, they still did more than any of you could for...and these morons are asking for my credentials? Why?

Einstein and Mendal have left behind scientific theories upon which we base our understanding of the world today. They weren't all talk and no action. They're remembered because they provided evidence for their research and theories.

That's why we want you to be remembered just like them and we want you to be the one who undoes the last 200 years of science. What are you afraid of? If you have definite proof that evolution does not satisfactorily explain the diversity of life on earth and your evidence points towards a better explanation, then let's see it. When Darwin came along, creationism was the mainstream belief. Then he provided an alternative understanding of biology and it fits in with the evidence. Now if you have something that defeats and makes null his theory, then let's see it. I'm not confronting or challenging you, I'm genuinely seeking answers here.

Let me break this down to you lay people one more time.
Science is not an omnipotent being, nor is it a purely objective subject, contrary to the popular beliefs. Science has it's short comings.
It is not the function of Science to explain the big Questions, i.e, where did we come from? Where are we going to? What is the meaning of life? What is life? Why do we die? Can we live forever? What is good and what is evil?

Hmm I don't remember disputing that..

The object of science is merely to "DESCRIBE" - this is what it is, NOW and right here, and this is what we expect it to be tomorrow. Four hundred years ago when "the enlightened" ones of europe spoke against the domination of church and it's superstitious beliefs, the question of the soul, the make up of reality was purported to be non existent so that the power would be swayed from the clergy and people could live secularly (worldly). Two hundred years later scientists had to admit that such a thing as a soul could exist, and other worlds that were beyound our perceptions can exist and may exist and that the nature of the world is not as mechanistic as they supposed. The claims of religion were validated! And now we have these new age type believers who are quasi religious, like ****mitar for example, because the science allows for it. But science can't tell you what your life purpose is.

Much in the same way that marshmallow men could exist on the planet Trion-Zb/25. Can you prove to me that they can't exist?

Science works by parsing and reducing matter into smaller and smaller pieces, it becomes more accurate as the the smallest unit of it's subjects becomes more and more determined. But it cannot piece the bigger picture with as much accuracy. And some things exist only as a whole and cannot be reduced, and others exist differently as a whole than from its units. And so the debates between cosmologists continue...and some scientists would even tell you that the narrative of the big bang it self is semi religious and dogmatic, and that these computer simulations that are run by big shot professors are inherently subjective and not scientific at all.

Despite all of that, they're still working very hard to find out each and every thing about these millionth of different seconds right after the Big Bang to give us, you and me, a better understanding of the world. To say "God Dun'it" and then leave it at that is not science and is against the curious nature of human beings.

Like wise the narrative of evolution is simply put a mythology rehashed to fit with the modern language of today's culture, which is "western". Since the language of the Church had to be squashed out, such a narrative as evolution was born of necessity. The scientific community does not "believe" in evolution, but only uses it as a modal of communication. The assumption is that whatever exists has come to exist over millions of years, gradually, and randomly by trial and error without any Will of a Creator or any sort of direction, planning or design. This is why these two lay people are "regurgitating" a western dialogue for me. He rightly believes that evolution is the winning side of the debate in the western world. But we are talking about Islam. We are not talking about the Church and how they screwed up europe and how rationalism and secularism saved them and made them the dominant power in the world. This buffoon believes that if we adopt that same narrative then we too will become the dominator. How absurd is that?

Mythology never provided any evidence for its stands. Science does.

Whether or not evolution infers atheism is another debate altogether and is tangential to the discussion at hand.

Then levanay says that I should give an alternative to evolution. Why? To what end would that serve a purpose.

Because if you were to tell me that it's not gravity but something else that's keeping us from floating in the air, I'd ask you to tell me what that "something else" was and ask for supporting evidence. Now you're saying that evolution does not explain the diversity of life on earth then I ask you again, what does and where is your supporting evidence?

It's a matter of common sense, really.

The funny thing is that most atheists don't even know how to be atheists. Especially immigrant atheists who are the most comical of all and most awkward at emulating this century old western trend. The westerners learned a long time ago not to question why things exist, but to merely accept that they do exist. This is what it is, and it is beyound the mind of the philosopher to say why it exists, and if he were to dabble in that, he would loose his mind (e.g Nietzsche). So you think "god is dead" and now man is god. Man will produce life in a laboratory and change the nature of matter, turn lead into gold, a monkey into a human.

hehe sumra jzab khkaray che kala ta zma pa zay angeranay kayy.

The day humans stop asking questions is the day they cease to become humans. We will always ask why, when, what, where, how and who. You can't stop that, not even with the burning stakes of the Pope or the gallows of the Caliphs.

Such buffoons should not bother to debate with me on a subject matter that they themselves have admitted to be completely ignorant of!
It is is slanderous for you to say that I am this or that when in fact you don't even know the first thing about me. It's easy to say that I don't know...when I could write easily a book for you, so profound you would get a head ache from reading it, as you get a heart ache from reading this.

Then what's stopping you from getting a Nobel Prize and worldwide fame? Or is it one of those mystical pseudo-religious things because of which you don't want fame and fortune?

Secondly, neither I nor Scimitar ever said we are ignorant of what we are taking about. Speaking for myself, I follow the evidence, which has been very systematically and simply presented in a very convincing way by the scientific community of the world. We accept that because nothing in our knowledge disputes that. Now you dispute that on the basis of your expert knowledge. Then let's see that knowledge. Let's see your evidence.

Out dated? Buffoons par excellence! A Journal article has an expiry date on it that 16 years is too late? Wouldn't the theory of evolution as espoused by Darwin be the most out dated of all?! 150 years old...and remodelled and disfigured a hundred times over and still useless! I already gave a list of famous scientists who are against the theory of evolution when I debated that goat. But that is hardly the issue...evolution is only a narrative that allows for a secular perspective on life.

You can't go there because all the great scientific minds of the world are in agreement over gravity, evolution, thermodynamics, the other laws of physics, etc, etc.

Firstly, viewing existence from an evolutionary perspective, gives one the feeling that the function of one's life is merely to reproduce. Sex becomes the central and dominant drive and imaginary sex becomes the opiate of the people. When the basic nature of a man is believed to be inscribed in his genes, and his DNA is translated to be his soul, then procreation is winning. A man must mate with as many woman as possible, and a woman must secure the most resourceful man. Beauty and youth become the most obsessed over features and the value of one's worth will measured as such. This is nothing short of giving into one's carnal desires. The objectification of man...and ****mitar is already convinced that he is a hairless monkey, and that he must secure a beautiful mate.

lol so supporting science and evolution makes you a polygamist? Hold on a second...

We had another Mullah on these forums (Sangar) and we just couldn't stop him from bringing sex into everything.

Secondly, one changes their behaviour such that they would gain the most for themselves alone and put their interest before the rest. This creates the type of machismo and chauvinism that ****mitar sometimes displays. We start to think that whites and chinese and africans are totally different from us, as if another species that have evolved from another line of old world prime apes. As such people love more those who look and act like themselves, believing that they share more similar genes, and thus a more similar soul, so we become more sheepish and more willing to conform and adapt to a herd like mentality. The driving force in evolution theory is competition, and as such the current economical modal is created to weed out the weak and we feel that the weak are deservedly weak and disenfranchised. A concept of fairness does not exist in this modal. Charity is allowed only when it is in favour of one's own survival. A type of predatory and prey violence is to be accepted, be it emotional or physical, but without any reason or understood purpose. Competition it self is valued ...the ritual of sports encapsulates this concepts...the olympics and etc. Like wise, this douchebag is trying to compete with me here ...so he keeps calling me a pork vendor as if that has something to do with evolution. Even though he doesn't know how a nucleotide relates to an amino acid he still makes a stupid request like "Detail the amino acids for EACH nucleotide" (three nucleotides code for one amino acide, there are 64 combinations of ACTG and 22 amino acides, grade 10 biology, buffoon!!)

Firstly, it goes against our understanding of human evolution to believe that Africans, Asians and Caucasians evolved from different primitive apes. As suspected, you have very little understanding of the theory of evolution except from the information you get through non-scientific and creationist material.

And people from different "races" have more genes in common with each other than they have with their own "race". The theory of evolution has only shown mankind how it is related to one another.

Simply put, evolution is materialism. If you believe in evolution, you believe in materialism. If you believe in materialism you don't believe in Allah, and thus ****mitar is "Agnostic theist" and Levanay murtad.

Again, evolution does not lead to materialism and/or atheism. That's just your perspective.

Both buffoons have posted nonsense. Nothing of value for me to actually debate on. I don't care enough for ****mitar to tell my life story and shouldn't even matter what I do. Rather there responses demonstrate the fact that they are brainwashed. They don't have a mind of their own to weigh on the merit of evolution, so they go by what "experts" tell them to...then he has the galls to tell decent muslims not to follow an Imam or a sheikh in matter's of deen. What sophistry!

You start off and then even end on untrue statements. I follow evidence. I've seen the evidence and arguments provided by the scientific community of the world. Now I'm waiting for your evidence. I'm all open to ideas. My beliefs are not dogmatic at all. I'll go wherever the evidence is and if that makes me a slave to facts and the truth then so be it.

We're still waiting for your ground-breaking and life-changing work that will explain the diversity of life on earth and debunk the scientific theory of evolution once and for all.

Pa akhira ke ze bus dumra wayam che daa da pakhtano hujra da. Dalta mung pa yo bal tor na lagaw ao yo bal ta numuna na akhlu. Daa khabara zmung da kaltor khilaf da. Lag da khpal zaan ao izat khayal ham osata ao zmunga ham osata. Manana.

[Alchemist]

Make a note everyone...

the two clowns, ****mitar and levanay still haven't provided evidence...

because they don't know what the "evidence" is...

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Make a note everyone...

the two clowns, ****mitar and levanay still haven't provided evidence...

because they don't know what the "evidence" is...

lol you want me to post the evidence for evolution here? It's massive. And you know that.

Hmm and I thought that since I was arguing from the default position, you would provide evidence for your beliefs that evolution is unscientific.

Anyway, here's an easy one for you:

If all living beings were created at one single point in time then why is it that we don't find fossils of modern day camels, horses and rabbits along with the fossilized remains of dinosaurs? After all, we would've had a world full of T-rexes running around with bunny rabbits if what you creationists say is correct.

Why are the remains of monkey-like apes older and why are the remains of more human-like apes newer in a generally straight-line progression? This is evidence for human evolution.

Why are fossils found from the Cambrian period so simple and why are fossils from the Permian era so advanced? This is evidence of evolution from "simpler" organisms into advanced animals.

As we study the fossil record, we see that every fossil we find in every layer of the earth only confirms the theory of evolution in the sense that the primitive creatures are found at the bottom, amongst the oldest rocks, then we have the less primitive ones and so on and so forth. To this day, the remains of humanoids have not been dated back to the dinosaur era and viceversa.

Now let's see how you go through Answers in Genesis and then try to convince everyone here that radiocarbon dating and radiometric dating are not science. And this is just a gist of only the fossil evidence for evolution.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Alchemist we have nearly 4 threads of Evidence which you just say "no no no lala la la lala la not true ..it's all a lie ...jewish conspiracy".

let me demonstrate what you'll do.

here is evidence of evolutionary relationship with other primates and evidence for the existence of common ancestor for modern primates.

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model

these are your predictable counter responses

a.) "what? a stochastic model? this is ad-hoc guess work"

( commentary :this one is the most absurd one I have heard from you, as a mathematician stochastic models are used in every day life, for example percentage of electrical charge transferring in a current, is modeled stochastically, and works, and uncertainty is much greater than these genetic models, yet it's all guess work after the fact?)

b.) "It's a conspiracy, the Zionists are manufacturing this evidence to attack religion"

c.) "baaah that's not evidence.....show me an actual transition!!! (changing goal posts)

You will deny evidence no matter what I show you.

[ScimitarXEdge]

that is your belief, scimitar.

then why are they showing observed examples of it happening?

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli