Evolution theory contradicts the Quran and Hadiths

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is already obvious to almost every biology student. We all know that evolution is a theory full of gaps and holes and it is treated only as a narrative.

Really? Please show proof of mainstream biology PhD holders that refute the theory of evolution if it is full of gaps and holes and treated only as a narrative.

[Alchemist]

deja vu...

After posting countless articles and arguments this buffoon is still back paddling to square one...


look ****mitar...I could sit here and quote you this and that but your tact won't change... you posted what you deemed "evidence" and I've shown you how flawed it is. Your basic understanding of evolution, nay biology, is nill. So I recommend that you make a $15 investment in a book that makes all the arguments clear ...instead of having me here paraphrase and teach you biology 101...my time is too precious ...I go at a rate of $100 an hour now and I am a very very busy busy bee :D


Amazon.com: What Darwin Got Wrong (9780374288792): Jerry Fodor, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: Books

[ScimitarXEdge]

It took you three days to come up with just this? and it doesn't even say they reject the theory of evolution!


look at what your amazon page says

The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution,

Overall, the scientific evidence and philosophical analyses the authors proffer are murky and underwhelming.

Hmmm so guys who believe in evolution is your proof of PhD's in the science who reject evolution? The best that this demonstrates is they believe that a different set of mechanisms (the text suggested lemarckianism- acquired traits) is responsible for Evolution.

It took you 3 days to conjure something that contradicts what you claim that and I QUOTE

This is already obvious to ALMOST EVERY BIOLOGY STUDENT. We ALL KNOW that evolution is a theory full of gaps and holes and it is treated only as a narrative.

Given your example FAILS to demonstrate PhD's who believe evolutionary theory itself is full of gaps and holes

I'll ask again, this time more precisely so you don't think I'll let you get away with showing merely a few "stray examples" (which you haven't anyways)

Please show that ALMOST ALL PhD's in Biology refute the theory of evolution (lemarckian/darwinian or otherwise).

[Alchemist]

You know ..

I just knew you'd do this...

instead of reading the book...the jack ass reads the review written by other jack asses like himself... isn't this called quote mining?

How pathetic.

Too stupid to chew on the meat, so he nibbles on the crumbs on the floor.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Alchemist .....you dont even have the book yourself if you did you'd scan pages of it that highlight your argument (if it does) instead of a link to amazon.com

You're the one who supplied the link; so it's your own fault if I use the material therein.

The fact remains however that your Book does not argue against evolution; but the mechanisms (lemarckian vs. natural selection). Not exactly a refutation of evolution

now will you stop pissing your pants and respond to my challenge in having you debate an actual Expert on Evolutionary Biology

I'd like to see how you guys exchange arguments and evidence since you have clearly supplanted mine (sarcasm).

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

C'mon Alchemist, for all that huffing and puffing, the best you could come up with with regards to a scientific work rejecting evolution was a highly-criticized book (and not a peer-reviewed scientific report) written by a philosopher?

It'll be more dignified for you if you just admit that most of the critics of evolution and science that you follow are Christian preachers. Your "arguments" scream out Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort, even if you're not aware of it.

[Alchemist]

Alchemist .....you dont even have the book yourself if you did you'd scan pages of it that highlight your argument (if it does) instead of a link to amazon.com

You're the one who supplied the link; so it's your own fault if I use the material therein.

The fact remains however that your Book does not argue against evolution; but the mechanisms (lemarckian vs. natural selection). Not exactly a refutation of evolution

now will you stop pissing your pants and respond to my challenge in having you debate an actual Expert on Evolutionary Biology

I'd like to see how you guys exchange arguments and evidence since you have clearly supplanted mine (sarcasm).

umm .. Actually son

I do have the book so I am well aware of what the arguments in it are.
Typical of a douche bag like you to assume everything ..and judge a book by it's cover. (and no lewanay ...the authors are staunch atheists and one of the is a philosopher the other has a double degree, one in biochemistry.)


pissing my pant? your challenge?

What do you want me to do? Sign a contract?

Go ahead bitch... bring who every you want. I am here...waiting

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

You said it your self. You are a lay person who has no idea what evolution is but that you only believe in because you have faith in science. The popularity of a belief hardly makes it the litmus test for its truth. Evolution does not have the same level of influence it used to have a century ago when governmental and economical systems were inspired by Darwin's book "descent of Man". Just google darwin and imperialism or Social Darwinism if you didn't know of this. Darwin's own original writing is evidence of his theory's sexism...mr.****mitar makes similar remarks often. You can google that too son. Your example is of sangar..as if reality is defined by what goes on in this forum?

Three things:

1) Science = evidence = rationality. The theory of evolution is accepted as fact by 95%-99% of the scientific community whereas in the US, barely 40% of the public accepts it not because it is not sound but because it goes against Christian dogma. Scientific consensus differs from that in the public domain.

2) If we are to ignore "lay persons", then let's just follow the scientific consensus.

3) The implementation of institutionalized racism has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. In fact, more people have never understood evolution better than today and we see that at least in the West, racism is scorned.

Whether humans and dinosaurs co existed will never be known accurately and scientifically. It is anyone's guess if dragons were dinosaurs or if the ancient artefacts depicting dinosaurs are real or not. What we can be sure of is that the ancients believed in the existence of monstrous creatures that most resemble the fossils we find.

But what is the evidence? And where is it found?

All fossils are found in Sedimentary rock which is formed by water. In fact 95% of fossils found are marine invertebrates. Simply because the only preserved fossils we can find are found where water used to be, doesn't mean that life predominantly existed in water!
We find fossils of dinosaures in mass graves and this indicates that they died violently and they died quickly. The story that you believe in is that some asteroid struck the surface of the planet, which kicked dirt into the air, blocked out the sun and killed off the dinosaurs by starvation. The "creationists" which you hark on say that the dinosaures died during the great deluge when only certain creatures were lifted on to Noah's arc. No impact site have been found to be strong enough to cause such mass extinction, but evidence of a great deluge exists in the geology of the earth. Personally I don't entertain either assumptions since there isn't compelling evidence for either scenario. Only ignorant people like your self feel confident to take one side over the other and fail to see other explanations.
Every dinosaur bone that has been tested for C-14 have had some trace of it. This is fascinating since C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years.
Uranium 238 and 235 as well as Potassium 40 are isotopes with half lives in the millions of years...but these elements are not found in fossils themselves, and they usually exist in igneous rocks (cooled magma), not sedimentary rocks. Fossils are never found in igneous rock because they would melt away in the magma.
More importantly, the geological column only exists in text books. It is suppose to be 100 miles deep, layered chronologically and distinctly and the ten strata ...however in reality, on the deepest holes ever dug by man has been 5 miles so it has been verified and such uniformity of strata is inconsistent with the geological data, where at most three stratum are found except 2 or 3 places 10 and nor are they to be found in the same order depicted by geologist. Such circular thinking where evolution is assumed true first then the data "fitted" to the supposition allows the palentologist to say about the fossil found in the "Wrong" era that due to soil erosion it has either worked up or leaked down. Furthermore, cases of human artefacts at different "supposed" geological columns have been consistently found.

As I suspected, humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the earth is 6,000 years old and carbondating is fake, the scientists are fooling you!

Creationists never cease to amaze us.

I am sure you will respond with another moronic post about how your personal experience and feelings that compel you to believe that you are on the winning side and that whatever I said could not possibly be true...some stereotyping of "creationists" and some cliches that effect the likes of ****mitar and your self to conform to popular culture. Like sheep...

Popular culture = creationism
Scientific consensus based on the evidence = evolution

[ScimitarXEdge]

umm .. Actually son

I do have the book so I am well aware of what the arguments in it are.
Typical of a douche bag like you to assume everything ..and judge a book by it's cover. (and no lewanay ...the authors are staunch atheists and one of the is a philosopher the other has a double degree, one in biochemistry.)


pissing my pant? your challenge?

What do you want me to do? Sign a contract?

Go ahead bitch... bring who every you want. I am here...waiting

Then please scan pages from the book which support your argument


show where they deny the Theory of Evolution in Total?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Man, Scimitar you are hella bemused. You don't know what to belief, in Quran or Evolution. Their is no Quran and Evolution theory, they don't go hand to hand. It's pathetic to see you attempt to connect the two.


Also, look at the people who support your arguments, Their all Atheist.


Science=an attempt to bring some information about the world around you.

God= the creator of everything you see around you.

Your understanding = hundreds of years of brainwashing by HUMANS , deciding FOR YOU what they think God meant in the Qur'an.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Kirk Cameron And Bananas - YouTube

Alchemist models himself after this guy.

[کیش]

Your understanding = hundreds of years of brainwashing by HUMANS , deciding FOR YOU what they think God meant in the Qur'an.

Sorry buddy, I do not look to others to educate me. You have no idea evolution is a fact, you haven't don't any researches on it yourself.

You should see how Evolution is taught at universities. If i say something against it, I fear I would get attack by the professor and the brainwashed students.

So for once stop looking like a hypocrite. Its getting embarrassing.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Sorry buddy, I do not look to others to educate me. You have no idea evolution is a fact, you haven't don't any researches on it yourself.

You should see how Evolution is taught at universities. If i say something against it, I fear I would get attack by the professor and the brainwashed students.

So for once stop looking like a hypocrite. Its getting embarrassing.

LOL oh yeah show us a single University professor who "attacked" you.

You don't look to others to teach you? Then why is it you were using Biblical references to prove your point, clearly learning from others.

Maybe if you weren't a self admitted dope smoker you could accuse others of hypocrisy. But your ignorance and the fact you dont even understand the langauge of the Qur'an but claim you understand it shows hypocrisy is your forte

[ScimitarXEdge]

don't you claim to be part sayyid? Desert Boy? I guess you hate your ancestors then.

So you're intimidated by your professor. LOL

I don't know evolution as well as he does; but I know the Qur'an better than YOU do.

يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ أَنْ يُخَفِّفَ عَنْكُمْ وَخُلِقَ الْإِنْسَانُ ضَعِيفًا ﴿4:28

(tr. Allah only wants to ease your budens, He created man to be WEAK)

Whatever the professor says may contradict Christianity; but it doesn't contradict the Qur'an.

but you wouldn't know that would you? Since you're a lazy, pot smoking self hating fraud who doesn't even study or read the Qur'an.

Jahil

[ScimitarXEdge]

first you attack and degrade an ethnicity even, like an ethnic bigot and then you accuse others for 'arab supremacy" so you can make a cowardly excuse for the ignorance of the qur'an; even though the Qur'an was revealed IN Arabic, and thus by simple logic would require Arabic to understand it....i





since you're on the topic of Uncle tom

I'm sure you remember this

Am thinking of ways where its legal, and I can pay taxes

I've done these small hustles, sell crack, Marijiana, other goods, they never last. I end up smoking up all the weed, crack its not worth it, the people you buy it from are shady, the people you sell it to are shady. I also used to sell model cards to girls, $1 for each write up, I bought alot of fresh clothes with this hustle.

Maybe a website, or something.

Selling crack and using drugs is as Uncle Tom as it gets, not to mention it puts you outside the fold of Islam

so glad this forum makes sure the entire post history of a member stays. HYPOCRITE