Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[Pygoscelis]

Actually, it's not the flaws or lack of flaws that bring down the edifice but the fact that TOE is contradictory to the statements of God. God has told us in the Quran that He created the first man Himself - God says that He created Adam with His Hands. Basically that proves that Adam was created by God directly and not like the rest of us are created or through evolution. We are all the creation of God but only Adam was created directly.

So, since God tells us that, it means that mankind didn't evolve from apes or anything else. Mankind was created as mankind. God's statement is all the proof we need for this. And since we now have proof (from scripture) that man didn't evolve from any other creature, we know that TOE is incorrect and flawed. No amount of scientific evidence can prove it correct because the theory is baseless.

However, we still need to prove this to atheists and other evolutionists and for that, it's important that we see and study the evidence so that we can bring out the flaws and show that the theory is wrong.

This is refreshingly honest and forthright. We have seen a few hints of this throughout the thread but this is the first time I have seen it openly and directly stated. You reach your conclusion through faith and then try to justify it with reason, whereas we start without the answer, and admit we can't be sure, and then use reason and evidence to try to figure it out.

It really does mean an impasse. Because in answer to my question above, you CAN'T admit you don't know for sure. You have based everything on faith that you do.

So what happens when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it does disprove the religious accounts? Do you leave your religion? If we had absolute proof for evolution, would that be the end of Islam?

 

[Independent]

I don't have an issue with what appears from the outside as evolutionary origins for species over time

So, if I understand you correctly, you agree that the history of lifeforms on this planet does indeed take an evolutionary form or appearance - but you disagree about the actual method (ie entirely naturalistic v some degree of divine intervention)?

 

[Pygoscelis]

There's lots of evidence to prove that the Quran is from God. Just reading it will show you that it is. http://www.quran.com . If you haven't read it, then don't say it can't be proved.

Only muslims find that "evidence" convincing, because as you already stated, they need to, so they can be muslims and think it rational.

 

[جوري]

I can't go to the previous pages to quote.. but what is with the concrete thinking and approach to the Quran by lay people and not any lay people non-Muslims!
this means days, this means years not stages. Who are you actually to say what it means or doesn't mean. Furthermore, what does the disparity of our days to the days of God have to do with anything.. where is the connection between that and how much time it took to create the earth- there's no connection in the Quran, so why are you adding your own connection where none exists?

Also the fellow who speaks about AIDS, aside from Sr. Writer's reply to you which was accurate and to the point- these things are caused by mankind:


Abd Allah ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) came to us and said, 'O Muhajirun, you may be afflicted by five things; God forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication should become widespread, you should realise that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forebears never suffered. If people should begin to cheat in weighing out goods, you should realise that this has never happened without drought and famine befalling the people, and their rulers oppressing them. If people should withhold Zakat, you should realise that this has never happened without the rain being stopped from falling; and were it not for the animals' sake, it would never rain again. If people should break their covenant with Allah and His Messenger, you should realise that his has never happened without Allah sending an enemy against them to take some of their possessions by force. If the leaders do not govern according to the Book of Allah, you should realise that this has never happened without Allah making them into groups and making them fight one another." (Ibn Majah).

and we've already been warned in the Quran:
8:25 to top

Sahih International
And fear a trial which will not strike those who have wronged among you exclusively, and know that Allah is severe in penalty.

indeed it is a mercy for some to be taken without the sins of the fathers but make no mistake there will be punishment. So go out there and picket for homos to get married and make it supreme law of the land... don't come complain later when you're taken by all kinds of disasters that have destroyed nations before you for the same exact transgressions- you can do better than the laws of Allah, then taste you the price of your defiance!

​

 

[Muhaba]

Only muslims find that "evidence" convincing, because as you already stated, they need to, so they can be muslims and think it rational.

Actually we don't need to but we do. It's convincing evidence that all can see except those who refuse to.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

You reach your conclusion through faith and then try to justify it with reason,

As before, you repeatedly assume that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. And yet God calls mankind repeatedly to reflect upon the creation and recognise His signs.

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding. Those who remember Allah standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and think deeply about the creation of the heavens and the earth, (saying): "Our Lord! You have not created (all) this without purpose, glory to You! (Exalted are You above all that they associate with You as partners). Give us salvation from the torment of the Fire.
[Aal 'Imran 3:190-191]

whereas we start without the answer, and admit we can't be sure, and then use reason and evidence to try to figure it out.

If you admit that you can't be sure, should you not at least be agnostic rather than atheist? In the posts that I've been reading, I see bitterness and refusal to reason regarding the concept of God.

So what happens when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it does disprove the religious accounts?

Logically it can't happen because the same Creator of the universe is the One Who revealed the religious accounts.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Many theist I know are also agnostic. They rely on faith and don't claim to have actual knowledge that Gods exist.

I could not do the voluntary work of being a Street Pastor, if I did not have faith and trust in God. we shall be out tonight until 4 am, we can come into contact with large groups of drunks, angry people, suicidal, and troubled people, homeless and lots of wonderful people too. We do not go out to preach, but just to see if we can spread a bit of kindness in the community.

We give thanks to God for all the good things that happen and of course we do pray.

I shall now be away for a week, no time to add anything further, I hope you all keep well.

In the spirit of trusting in God

Eric
]

 

[Independent]

we can come into contact with large groups of drunks, angry people, suicidal, and troubled people, homeless and lots of wonderful people to

Difficult work, good luck with it. My sister in law was a vicar in a deprived inner London borough for many years and I sometimes felt she was picking up the pieces of social services as much as anything else.

 

[MustafaMc]

Indeed we do, and would you say that the majority of biologists and geneticists support or oppose the theory of evolution?

I know plenty of scientists, but I don't know any who are atheists. Maybe some of them are closet atheists though and keep it to themselves. I don't discuss evolution with them as religion would surely come in to play. Politics, religion and sexual orientation are not discussed at work.

 

[MustafaMc]

So, if I understand you correctly, you agree that the history of lifeforms on this planet does indeed take an evolutionary form or appearance - but you disagree about the actual method (ie entirely naturalistic v some degree of divine intervention)?

No, I don't agree that it 'does' merely that it 'appears' to be based on some of the fossil, biologic similarity and apparent phyologenic evidence. I don't know one way or the other, but I personally lean more towards an act of relatively instantaneous creation rather than a gradual evolution over eons of time. If it was the later, then, yes, I disagree about the actual method and see an entirely naturalistic approach is entirely illogical, but that Divine design and direct but gradual implementation through seemingly evolutionary means is possible.

 

[Gator]

I know plenty of scientists, but I don't know any who are atheists.

Maybe you should get out more.

 

[Muhaba]

I know plenty of scientists, but I don't know any who are atheists. Maybe some of them are closet atheists though and keep it to themselves. I don't discuss evolution with them as religion would surely come in to play. Politics, religion and sexual orientation are not discussed at work.

I heard in an Abu Ameena Bilal Philips video that most scientists believe in God. Those that don't are related to social sciences and not practical sciences. Also, the video stated that most people in Europe believe in God.

 

[جوري]

I heard in an Abu Ameena Bilal Philips video that most scientists believe in God. Those that don't are related to social sciences and not practical sciences. Also, the video stated that most people in Europe believe in God.

you're correct and there are research studies on that although I think these types of studies are useless - in other words what's the point of a survey of this nature? Should people base their beliefs on some logical fallacy? Abrahaem was the only believer along with his nephew during his time and described as an ummah by :Allah: it's true that there are folks who will come on the day of judgement blaming their leaders and sages and seek that they be twice punished but didn't :Allah: equip us with reason and brains of our own? How sad that one should feel 'wise or smart' by proxy? Someone else did the thinking for them and there was no thought whether deep or superficial to investigate if there were any truth on what they're being taught and from a very early hour!
The problem also is that their society stratifies them in a caste system just like that of India but far more sinister because it's subtle and not in your face. They associate words together and ingrain them on people's minds to be liberal is to be progressive to be an atheist is to be a free thinker etc etc. when nothing could be further from the truth
They even have a study that atheists have a .06 IQ higher point than their Christian counter parts and I remember one atheist here now long gone well aside from changing his status after citing said study lol couldn't do basic math on his head - there was a very basic calculation about the lunar calendar as I'd a discussion with him and he seemed stumped by what should otherwise be considered fifth grade basic math!

You've to pity that not argue with it!

 

[Independent]

No, I don't agree that it 'does' merely that it 'appears' to be based on some of the fossil, biologic similarity and apparent phyologenic evidence

So to summarise your view (again if I understand correctly):

1. The overall fossil evidence is consistent with what one would expect of an evolutionary progress, but you think this is simply a matter of appearance, not the result of actual evolution/mutation/speciation etc.

2. You don't accept any ancestral or family link between individual fossils and you believe the apparent similarities are instead the result of entirely separate one-off divine creations, in a process repeated billions of times through history.

3. Therefore, new species are created by divine fiat but new individuals within a species are the result of the ordinary processes of reproduction.

4. You believe that DNA and other genetic process/systems are present only to allow a species to keep its form, as well as allowing limited change in response to the environment (ie what is termed 'micro evolution') - but not to permit or enable 'macro evolution' (ie speciation).

Assuming I have all that right I have a couple of other questions....why would God create lifeforms one by one roughly according to an evolutionary progress, rather than simply creating the means for evolution and letting it run? Why is this the only part of creation which seems to need continual acts of God? Would it not be more logical for God to treat this like the rest of Creation and make it self sustaining?

And is the anti TOE criticism really justified, seeing as the fossil record does have the appearance of an evolutionary progress, even if you don't agree it is the result of a naturalistic process?

 

[جوري]

Lol here we go again!

Mutations have names!
Want to use a mutation to speciate please?
Want you to mention one mutation that gives us anything other than a disease state- I will let br. Mustafa answer the rest but since you like the point system so much I wanna see
Day one frameshift mutation as am example caused a fish to sprout lungs and walk on land- can you do that pal pls? Otherwise don't use 'fossil record' to name names that are inconsistent with what we know of a science but only science fiction within the confines of an atheist mind that only desires the shell but not the core of the matter!

 

[جوري]

excellent article even though from a christian perspective I enjoyed the way he reasoned just the same:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=273

 

[Muhaba]

So to summarise your view (again if I understand correctly):

1. The overall fossil evidence is consistent with what one would expect of an evolutionary progress, but you think this is simply a matter of appearance, not the result of actual evolution/mutation/speciation etc.

2. You don't accept any ancestral or family link between individual fossils and you believe the apparent similarities are instead the result of entirely separate one-off divine creations, in a process repeated billions of times through history.

3. Therefore, new species are created by divine fiat but new individuals within a species are the result of the ordinary processes of reproduction.

4. You believe that DNA and other genetic process/systems are present only to allow a species to keep its form, as well as allowing limited change in response to the environment (ie what is termed 'micro evolution') - but not to permit or enable 'macro evolution' (ie speciation).

Assuming I have all that right I have a couple of other questions....why would God create lifeforms one by one roughly according to an evolutionary progress, rather than simply creating the means for evolution and letting it run? Why is this the only part of creation which seems to need continual acts of God? Would it not be more logical for God to treat this like the rest of Creation and make it self sustaining?

And is the anti TOE criticism really justified, seeing as the fossil record does have the appearance of an evolutionary progress, even if you don't agree it is the result of a naturalistic process?

This is basically a useless discussion. Our only problem with evolution is when it contradicts religious texts. When God says He created Adam Himself and not just created him but also that Adam was in heaven before being sent to earth, then this is something we're going to believe. As for other organisms, we don't know how God created them. Did He create them one by one? Or did he allow organisms to evolve into other species? Was the process of evolution ingrained in each organism's system or did God cause the evolution of each organism or evolution of one organism into a different species? What does the Quran and Hadith say about other life forms? What information is available in the Quran / hadith to negate or support any one theory? I do not know but I do know that there is a verse in the Quran that made me wonder what it meant when I read it: "Say (O Muhammad): 'Travel through the earth and see how the creation began.'" (29:20)

The verse before this states: Have they not considered how Allah begins creation and then repeats it? Indeed that, for Allah , is easy.

Whatever, the method of creation, it didn't happen by itself but because God made it happen. As for human's creation, God directly created the first man and then from him, created his wife. humans didn't evolve from apes.

 

[جوري]

This is basically a useless discussion.

Indeed as most discussions of this nature involve more verbiage than necessary in fact if you'd cut all these pages down to two words it would come down to what he said above in a word:

mutation

and prior to that in chromosomal translocation or fusion or acrocentric breaks etc. as the mechanism by which said evolutionary processes take place.. and we all know from molecular bio and genetics that said methods don't produce speciation or evolution but a disease state, the rest of the crap and that's literally what it is, and I am not going to apologize if that offends man or beast can be binned.
If you can't discuss the details but wish to classify this as science then be prepared to answer the hard questions.

 

[MustafaMc]

1. The overall fossil evidence is consistent with what one would expect of an evolutionary progress, but you think this is simply a matter of appearance, not the result of actual evolution/mutation/speciation etc.

The fossil record is an extremely thin line of evidence on which evolutionists depend for support of their theory. For you to have any credibility for serious consideration, you will need to understand molecular genetics and statistical probabilities and present a credible theory for how the species evolved unassisted and unguided by a Higher Power. You can begin with a simple case of the domestic horse and a zebra and show the details of how they evolved from a common ancestor. As the sister said above, "If you can't discuss the details but wish to classify this as science then be prepared to answer the hard questions." The reliance upon a theory based on broad generalities despite tremendous advances in biological understanding is most telling about the weakness of ToE.

The evidence I see in the similarity in molecular biology and genetics of closely related species that becomes more dissimilar as a hypothetical phylogenic tree ascends to a hypothetical Common Ancestor can be seen to support ToE. My work actually entails cross-species transfer of genes, but given my scientific understanding, I see that these transfers would never have taken place without the direct involvement of men. I see this as analogous to God creating the species through whatever means befits His majesty.

2. You don't accept any ancestral or family link between individual fossils and you believe the apparent similarities are instead the result of entirely separate one-off divine creations, in a process repeated billions of times through history.

... again fossils don't do much for me, but if you substitute 'molecular genetic' for 'fossils', then I would say, "Yes, I believe the later except I do accept apparent co-ancestry of related species." The issue I have is the reliance upon random mutation as the basic 'creative process' for genetic variation among individuals for natural selection to act upon. If instead the genetic variation can be proposed as having been created by a multitude of Divine fiats over time, then I can begin to become more comfortable with apparent evolution, but then again ToE would never allow for that as not being based on evidence.

3. Therefore, new species are created by divine fiat but new individuals within a species are the result of the ordinary processes of reproduction.

Yes.

4. You believe that DNA and other genetic process/systems are present only to allow a species to keep its form, as well as allowing limited change in response to the environment (ie what is termed 'micro evolution') - but not to permit or enable 'macro evolution' (ie speciation).

Yes, I do not see the speciating genetic changes as being possible without the direct involvement and redirection by a creative, intelligent being - God.

Assuming I have all that right I have a couple of other questions....why would God create lifeforms one by one roughly according to an evolutionary progress, rather than simply creating the means for evolution and letting it run? Why is this the only part of creation which seems to need continual acts of God? Would it not be more logical for God to treat this like the rest of Creation and make it self sustaining?

I don't know the answers to these questions and outside of the Qur'an I have no answer for a more basic question, "Why did God create us?" for which I find, {And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.} 51:56 and {That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.} 6:152

And is the anti TOE criticism really justified, seeing as the fossil record does have the appearance of an evolutionary progress, even if you don't agree it is the result of a naturalistic process?

Yes, it is justified because it is being presented as scientifically based and I disagree with the 'science' behind it. As a scientist I see that ToE is a pseudo-science that has a cult-like following even among some who are scientists themselves.

 

[MustafaMc]

Whatever, the method of creation, it didn't happen by itself but because God made it happen. As for human's creation, God directly created the first man and then from him, created his wife humans didn't evolve from apes.

... or an 'apelike' common ancestor. I personally believe the same as what you stated.

we all know from molecular bio and genetics that said methods don't produce speciation or evolution but a disease state

... and how this escapes proponents of ToE escapes me.