Darwins theory of Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexJ90
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 146
  • Views Views 26K
Greetings and peace be with you AlexIslam;
I also came across this great video by Abdur Raheem Green. Great response to the theory of evolution by him -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g66o9Pkyq08
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, and I agree that God created Adam in a miraculous and complete way, with no mother or father, I believe that Jesus was born from a virgin. As to the theory of evolution it has little meaning for me, if it happened that way, then God set all things in motion in that way.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
 
I agree with you Eric H.

Evolution is presented as a scientific theory, but it calls for a tremendous leap of faith. The foundation of naturalistic evolution is survival of the fittest through natural selection that exploits genetic variability. The main problem is that this genetic variation is primarily derived from mutations which is a destructive force.

Imagine there are 3 bricks lying on the beach like
_ _ _

Then imagine that you have a high powered rifle and your job is to precisely aim at the first brick and shoot a bullet that strikes the brick and makes it stand up like
|

Next you have to hit the second and third brick just right so that each stacks up on top of the first one like
|
|
|

Assuming that you have an infinite supply of bullets, bricks and time, can you ever make the 3 bricks stack on top of each other. If you came upon 3 bricks stacked on top of each other like this on the beach, would you wonder who it was that came by and placed them so or would you try to come up with a scientific theory for how it might have happened naturally?
 
it's obvious silliness, yes a certain evolution does exist, but not breeding totally different species, otherwise we'd have humans with 3 fingers and 4 legs, and 6 fingers and 1 leg etc, since according to that theory, all beings came out of one micro-organism (not explaining the origin),
if different species came out of each product, there would certainly be different types of humans as some would have found use in more fingers, arms legs etc, and eyes, ears etc, and those would have continued to diversify. we would have humans - not apes - with all sorts of differences since the family continued to split and change slightly.
even so called evolutionists agree that humans came from one common ancestor,
then that ancestor would have had siblings or cousins, uncles, aunts which were slightly different and split into very similar species
- which apes build planes and satellites?

20. Do ye not see that Allah has subjected to your (use) all things in the heavens and on earth,
and has made his bounties flow to you in exceeding measure, (both) seen and unseen?
Yet there are among men those who dispute about Allah, without knowledge and without guidance, and without a Book to enlighten them!
21. When they are told to follow the (Revelation) that Allah has sent down, they say: "Nay, we shall follow the ways that we found our fathers (following).
"What! even if it is Satan beckoning them to the Penalty of the (Blazing) Fire?
Quran 31:20-21


we find that all have certain characteristics and any considerable difference is a deformity.
illnesses, strengths, weaknesses etc can be hereditary, but the main anatomy is constant as a rule.

think about it like this - where did the organism come from, and where did that come from?
you would go on for eternity - and that is impossible - since one would have to be first. chicken or egg? carry on counting - you know that one can't come out of nothing as everything has a law. and unconscious beings don't make laws.

the big bang - where did the particles come from?
we all know that without a law already set for it or without self consciousness, or without an external factor effecting it, anything would continue as it is as there is nothing to make it change it's course.
study newton's law of motion - it provokes a lot of thought.

In linguistics, a causative (abbreviated caus) is a form that indicates that a subject causes someone or something else to do or be something, or causes a change in state of a non-volitional event.

Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

if the particles somehow came into existence and exploded, it would be a constant outward movement, they wouldn't start orbiting each other and working together as the sun, moon and earth do, and unconscious matter wouldn't give rise to conscious matter (humans etc) as that consciousness would have had to come from somewhere.

in Islam - we have an answer - it is all from an All Powerful and Fully Conscious Being who is Eternal, Who gave to each component of creation creation a Law.
our minds cannot comprehend eternity as much as we may try, since everything we can see and touch has a beginning and an end. but we know that unconscious beings don't think to be able to will, and therefore are governed by a Law.
it is almost unanimously accepted by all scientists that this world will end - that even the sun will run out of gas - unless something else sustains it.
yet - if you divide 10 by 3 - you can go on for eternity with the .333333333

now this .3333333 ad infinitum would have no meaning if it is accepted that it ends somewhere, the equation itself would have no meaning.
so it definitely makes it easier to accept that eternity exists somewhere out there - even if the earth doesn't, and even if we can't make sense out of it.

then we come to the prophecies of the Prophets of Almighty God, how would they prophecy future events that would take place thousands of years later with stunning accuracy if the process is random selection?
prophecies are different from predictions in that predictions are based on trends and probability.
prophecies are otherwise unexplainable - which is why the deniers attempt to hide it under the carpet (purposefully) - since they can't explain it. that in itself is unscientific and deceptive.

so the question is - who's theory makes sense?
that of the one who can't explain where the chain begins, and how it decides to change - without consciousness, and without a causative factor?
or that of the one who accepts that there is an Eternal Fully Conscious All Powerful Force out there which is able to give Laws of governance?
your choice.


189. To Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth; and Allah hath power over all things.
190. Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,
- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-
191. Those who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.
192. "Our Lord! any whom Thou dost admit to the Fire, Truly Thou coverest with shame, and never will wrong-doers Find any helpers!
193. "Our Lord! we have heard the call of one calling (Us) to Faith, 'Believe ye in the Lord,' and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, blot out from us our iniquities, and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the righteous.
194. "Our Lord! Grant us what Thou didst promise unto us through Thine apostles, and save us from shame on the Day of Judgment: For Thou never breakest Thy promise."
195. And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards."
Quran 3:189-195

 
Last edited:
Evolution within the species may occur, like adaptation to the environments, that is micro evolution.
 
Another thing is that so-called evolution has taken place by leaps and bounds with the sudden appearance and disappearance of species as opposed to the gradual transition from one to the other suggested by natural selection and change over an extended period of time.
 
the ones who make it up know it to be false, yet seem to cling on to it for dear life, think about it like this, if you stood in front of an international audience and claimed that you could throw a handful of dust and there was a probability of the particles beginning to orbit each other and grow suns and moons and precipitation and life, and planes and ships and submarines, they'd laugh you out of the audience with guffaws, they'd even call you mad, any betting company wouldn't need to do a probability calculation - knowing it's zero and would offer you the world and everything in it, they'd even sign mars over to you just to get your dime.
yet in essence, that's what these so called "scientists" claim happened.

let's look into the background a little:
erasmus darwin was the one who actually developed the "theory" which his grandson charles darwin was to later receive immense political support for expounding.
if you look into erasmus, you find that he was a freemason at "the lodge of time immemorial" (ironic).

ERASMUS DARWIN
December 12, 1731 - April 18, 1802
Best known as the grandfather of the biologist Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin was a philosopher, poet, scientist and physician. Well informed on all aspects of late 18th-century science and medicine, he had advanced ideas on cosmology and evolution which he recorded in verse of a high quality.
"Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland.
"Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason."
As author of Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life in 1794, he proposed the gradual evolution of animals and plants

Initiated: 1754
St. David’s Lodge No. 36, Edinburgh
Charles Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist" and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."





(and he obviously would have denied the creation of Adam).

let's look into it in a little more detail to understand if there could be an agenda here.

if you look into the history of the freemasons, you find that they have had a deep intertwining relationship with satanism and the occult.

The first Freemasonic Grand Lodge,
the Grand Lodge of England (GLE), was founded on 24 June 1717,

The Hellfire Club was a name for several exclusive clubs for high society rakes established in Britain and Ireland in the 18th century, and was more formally or cautiously known as the "Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe".These clubs were rumoured to be the meeting places of "persons of quality" who wished to take part in immoral acts, and the members were often very involved in politics. Neither the activities nor membership of the club are easy to ascertain.
The very first Hellfire Club was founded in London in 1719,
by Philip, Duke of Wharton and a handful of other high society friends.
The club motto was Fais ce que tu voudras (Do what thou wilt),
a philosophy of life associated with François Rabelais' fictional abbey at Thélème and later used by Aleister Crowley the famous freemason and satanist.
images
B000172L8601_SCLZZZZZZZ_-1.jpg
PerseveranceLodgeHongKong-1.gif

Lord Wharton, made a Duke by George I, was a prominent politician with two separate lives: the first, "a...man of letters"
and the second, "...a drunkard, a rioter, an infidel and a rake".The members of Wharton's club are largely unknown. Blackett-Ordassumes that members included Wharton's immediate friends:
Earl of Hillsborough, cousin - the Earl of Lichfield and Sir Ed. O'Brien. Aside from these names, other members are not revealed.
At the time of the "London's gentlemen's club", where there was a meeting place for every interest, including poetry, philosophy and politics,
Philip, Duke of Wharton's Hell-Fire Club was, according to Blackett-Ord,
the satirical "gentlemans club" which was known to ridicule religion and morality. The supposed president of this club was the Devil, although the members themselves did not apparently worship demons or the Devil, but called themselves devils. (Members of the church of Satan in California don't claim to worship Satan either, the believe themselves to be "gods").

Wharton's club came to an end in 1721 when George I put forward a Bill "against 'horrid impieties'" (or immorality), aimed at the Hellfire Club. and removing him from parliament.
After his Club was disbanded, Wharton became a Freemason,
and in 1722 he became the Grandmaster of England.
Sir Francis's club was never originally known as a Hellfire Club; it was given this name much later. His club in fact used a number of other names, such as
the Brotherhood of St. Francis of Wycombe,
Order of Knights of West Wycombe,
The Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe.

one thing which points to either a great coincidence - or an intertwining group is the fact that the mi5 and great seal of the united states and the one dollar bill use the logo associated with freemasonry ie, the left eye floating above an unfinished pyramid:
_albums_qq109_darnellglover_eye_pyramid-1.jpg
mi5logo-1.gif

  • Ali was reported to have said:
His right eye will be punctured, and his (dajjal's) left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star.
Only the believers will be able to read the word ‘Kufr’ [disbelief], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead.

Secularism is the separation of a government, organization or institution from religion and/or religious beliefs.

kafir is one who rejects the authority of God

The Latin phrase in saecula saeculorum expresses the idea of eternity. It is biblical, taken from the Vulgate translation of the New Testament, rendering Greek εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. The usual English translation is "for ever and ever",

The phrase Novus ordo seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages") appears on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, first designed in 1782 and printed on the back of the United States one-dollar bill since 1935.

Annuit Cœptis (the lettering which forms a semi-circle around an illuminated left eye) is translated by the U.S. State Department, The U.S. Mint,[SUP][7][/SUP] and the U.S. Treasury[SUP][8][/SUP] as "He (God) has favored our undertakings." (brackets in original).

Narrated Ibn Umar:
Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved.
Then, mentioning Dajjal, he said, "I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal)
and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him
but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me.
You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed."

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger said: There is never a prophet who has not warned the Ummah of that one-eyed liar; behold he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead are the letters KA FA RA (Kafir). OR HE REJECTED/HE DENIED.

MY REASON FOR DELVING INTO ALL THIS INFO IS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST A VESTED INTEREST IN THE DENIAL OF THE CREATION "THEORY".​
 
Last edited:
SFatima said:
Evolution within the species may occur, like adaptation to the environments, that is micro evolution.
Click to expand...

:sl:

This was Darwin's original theory, that living things can and do adapt to their environment, either by changing their behavior, or in extreme cases modifying themselves genetically.

The whole "man from ape" thing came later I believe, and is more a product of Social Darwinism. It was first used to justify the attitudes of racism toward minorities in English society.

I read something somewhere that close to 99% of all species that have ever existed in earth's history have become extinct, many of them because of changes in their environment that they could not adapt to. This is why I believe that evolution does exist in some context, because this is incredibly wasteful if these species were all created, and Allah does not waste.

But man was created by God and not from apes. Now that being said, there may have been some lesser species of ape-man that evolved naturally and then died out. But those are not us and we are not them.
 
Last edited:
i agree that darwin did not break the nut in one go with this human animal thing, but it was seized, supported, and pushed by very influential people at the very top to destroy the barrier that was holding them back from becoming "gods" in the eyes of the people,
once that was broken - they were able to change opinions like the wind.
the term "fundamentalist" is not used as a derogatory form of expression without cause, they are fully aware that those who hold onto well grounded never changing principles (fundamentals) are the hardest to sway and lead around and buffet like sheep,
a doctor who is well versed in the fundamentals in his field is more difficult to deceive than one who only knows the outer things.
a clear example is sodomy - they couldn't easily have pushed it as commendable if people held onto their "fundamental" understanding of right and wrong.
the same could be said for incest - what is to say they can't manufacture a majority opinion in future and make it "bigoted" to say it's wrong?
it's about shaking the foundations of faith.
since the Quran clearly specifies the people you can't marry, the type of commerce which is usury, the type of behaviour which is deplorable, it gives people a foundation to work from.
i believe the financial issue is the main reason why it is so bitterly opposed in the corridors of the "elite" - since the devil uses wealth and power to control it's servants.
so if they can't shake the foundations, they try to work it with allurements and base instincts,
"you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals........."
but again - that feeling of dignity which comes from knowing you are the species which is chosen to be the vicegerent of God, given power over all creation, able to make decisions for all species, tends to make you sit up and reflect.

i sincerely believe that it is due to that "certain eternal principles which never change" acknowledgement people have in their very nature (fitrah), that they attempt to subjugate people by making them feel like helpless animals, and that darwin's theory and survival of the fittest was pushed so heavily for that reason, the "top of the chain" awe does not have the same effect on people well grounded in Islam, since there's not even a priesthood and even the previously worst can become the leader if his actions become the best. wealth power and influence cannot faze these people so easily - any child can lead the prayer if he has more knowledge.

consider this - the creation theory has (for argument's sake) the same validity and debatable nature as the evolution from a single micro-organism theory - (extensive scientific debates are available in the open source field).
why is it that these arguments are not to be found in schools, and the pros and cons are never discussed, but rather the evolution of monkeys theory is taught as "unanimously accepted" fact and heavily drilled into children from an early age?

 
Last edited:
they've also begun to attack the u.s constitution which they themselves put above the laws of God:

The rise of constitutional fundamentalism
star tribune

A number of Minnesota Republicans, following Gov. Tim Pawlenty's lead, have taken to calling themselves “constitutional conservatives.” A more fitting label may be “constitutional fundamentalists.” Like the religious kind, these fundamentalists are highly suspicious of latter-day interpretations and adaptations of an ancient text.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/92550314.html


“To Destroy a People You Must First Sever Their Roots.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn a well-known and respected Russian dissident, who served time in the Gulag,
wrote this to warn people everywhere of the dangers of powerful people in leadership positions.
It is a strong and sobering warning that all free men should think about. What do we mean by that?

Well let’s examine just one statement made in 1997 by then President Clinton .
"We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning."


Just what does that mean redefining the immutable ideals? Well in general terms that which can't be changed, they are! Evidently they are proud of this and they are proud of making that change. They seem to forget pride always comes before the fall.

So, were not these the immutable ideals those that this nation was founded on ? Rhetorically, why do "they" when he says "we" seem to think they need to be changed ? Have they not served us and the world as the model to have since our revolution and one people long to live in?

Well I do think it behooves us to examine just where we are as a nation now since they are saying and doing exactly what they said they will do. Based on the signs and symbols of this day I do not feel it is wrong to question just what they, whoever they are or we are doing?


the parables:


24. Seest thou not how Allah sets forth a parable?
- A goodly word like a goodly tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches (reach) to the heavens,
25. It brings forth its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord.
So Allah sets forth parables for men, in order that they may receive admonition.
26. And the parable of an evil Word is that of an evil tree: It is torn up by the root from the surface of the earth: it has no stability.
27. Allah will establish in strength those who believe, with the word that stands firm, in this world and in the Hereafter;
but Allah will leave, to stray, those who do wrong: Allah doeth what He willeth.
Quran 14:24-27


24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not:
for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell:
and great was the fall of it.
Matthew






 
Last edited:
abz2000 said:
consider this - the creation theory has (for argument's sake) the same validity and debatable nature as the evolution from a single micro-organism theory - (extensive scientific debates are available in the open source field).
why is it that these arguments are not to be found in schools, and the pros and cons are never discussed, but rather the evolution of monkeys theory is taught as "unanimously accepted" fact and heavily drilled into children from an early age?
Click to expand...

Because adding 'for arguments sake' to a claim doesn't make it true. Flaws and all, evolution by natural selection is the scientific theory best supported by empirical evidence, to the extent it is the only one considered seriously. There is no empirical evidence for creationism WHATSOEVER, and it has ZERO scientific credibility. It is not science, and therefore is not discussed as science.
 
Trumble said:
Flaws and all, evolution by natural selection is the scientific theory best supported by empirical evidence,
Click to expand...

Sure.
However, evolution from fish to human is not supported by empirical evidence.
 
empirical evidence is not suppressing the facts staring you in the face with threats of prison terms.

5 days no post and a post after it turns up on google news front page?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools

maybe you can now admit that democracy is dumb after all huh?

In 2009, an Ipsos Mori survey found that more than half of British adults
think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.

it's their own children, if a certain religion says snakes are gods and parents teach it to their children, the government claims it's freedom of belief,
if more than half of parents say that creationism should be taught side by side for the child to have an open mind - just who is the government? do you know what a public servant is? a servant does what he's told.

i can see many people are in a 1984 and brave new world trance.

btw - i said "for the sake of argument" just to give evolution from non-existence some flesh to stand on in order to allow a balanced debate, otherwise i would have just said it's nonsense because i know from personal experience that it's nonsense - so do bush, blair, cameron and obama. (let's not go down that road - you may need to find a cause for implausible denial).

if a fully explained prophecy which has no statistical probability of happening and no data to base predictions on - is described down to the minutest detail to the extent that you can almost envision it and hear the exact words to be said at an accidental future meeting, takes place exactly as told - would you not as a scientist stop to think why and how it's possible? what if it keeps happening? would a scientist then start calling it "magic"? or would he say that this is an anomaly which can't be explained via random selection, and therefore it's supportive arguments should also be mentioned?
or would he say let's threaten them with prison if they talk about it?

if he did - i wouldn't call it science...........i'd call it a pseudo-scientific dictatorship.


A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."
But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.

So much for them standing up and singing "God save the queen"!
 
Last edited:
For the question in the title....

Darwins Theory of Evolution?
He has Good Imagination.. Would have been better If he had proved it with few Practical live examples.
OR may be he was clever that since he need not give anything practical to prove it.. he came-up with this theory ??

After-all we humans dont beleive unless there are sufficient proofs... witness... do we ?
 
To think that Darwin probably killed (did kill) perfectly live species of finches for his personal studies, si enough to disgust me beyond reason. In some way or another it makes sense, when it comes to the adaptation of animals etc but this human and ape thing is just ridiculous.

Why call it the theory of evolution if people want to pass it off as facts?
 
Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

evolution by natural selection is the scientific theory best supported by empirical evidence,
Click to expand...

That troubles me a little for a number of reasons, ten billion years ago there was no life at all, according to the theory of evolution. It appears that life started out in the water, but I am wondering what tools the TOE has to create complex life.

There were currents in the seas to move chemicals around, there was sun light and darkness, heat coming up through the seabed to alter chemicals a little. And of course there was time, up to four billion years as I understand.
What other tools did the TOE have to create life with 200 hundred bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments, and a thousand tendons.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric
 
'natural selections' by the same token also enables tandem repeats to opt detrimental & anomalous genetic patterns in, made worse with each successive generation. I don't know why these 'naturalists' don't account for the other side of what they preach? Shouldn't every religion not based on factual science share all its tenets?
 
ßlµêßêll said:
'natural selections' by the same token also enables tandem repeats to opt detrimental & anomalous genetic patterns in, made worse with each successive generation. I don't know why these 'naturalists' don't account for the other side of what they preach? Shouldn't every religion not based on factual science share all its tenets?
Click to expand...
You make a good point that genetic mutations and changes are rarely advantageous to the point they give one an enhanced chance for survival and the carriers of these mutations a selective advantage in subsequent generations. If I remember correctly, Charles Darwin's TOE (Theory of Evolution, thanks EricH) didn't really take hold until after the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance. They used genetics to contribute a mechanism for genetic variability for natural selection to act upon for species evolution over time. The problem is that naturalistic evolutionists don't really understand genetics, particularly on the molecular level, and they make gigantic leaps of faith in their theory that they subsequently present as scientific fact. I wholehearedly agree with you that TOE is an atheistic religion with the basic assumption that there is No God and they try to use their twisted science to explain what I believe is unexplainable without the existence of a Creator. I am a scientist and I admit there are limits to what science and the human mind can explain and understand.
 
salaam

to even question evolution today is like heresy.

peace
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top