Is human evolution compatible with the quran?

[Scimitar]

This doesn't really refute my statement, as astrology is not science, no matter how one pretties it up with calculations. Simply being a scientist, or mostly logical or skeptical person doesn't inherently make someone immune to an irrational or unscientific points of view or belief.

Wait lol.

Brother, Ptolemy was attempting to formulate the science of ASTRONOMY, and not Astrology, yet he used Astrology to explain some rather weird things, which led to shirk - the rest of the world had no problem with this - until Ibn Al Haythm looked at his work, saw the fundamental flaw within and corrected it with INFERENCE FROM QUR'AN that there is only on Creator and this is why everything exists. Study Ibn Al Haythm's scientifc method and see for yourself how you are holding the wrong end of the stick.

You was wrong bro.

Yes, the mechanics behind the origin of life is unknown. We have some ideas about it, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim with certainty that science knows how life began. This is irrelevent to evolution, however, which is the topic at hand. Evolution deals with life changing, adapting, and forming new species over time. It does not deal with the origin of life.

Which is why Science can never adequately convince me of anything to do with my theological grounding in Islam. It is still taking large stabe in the dark.

You speak of evolution, yet ignore the fundamental flaw of probability within Protein Isomer and Peptide bonds, a massive acchiles heel for the evolutionary scientist.

With a probability which remains so improbable that mathematicians have calculated the chance of probability is smaller than the number of seconds elapsed since the big bang to our current time. And scientists ignorantly claim, "it happened once and repeated itself so many times that we have "Life" in various forms.

Philosophically there are arguments as well, which evo scientists run away from, what I am demonstrating to you is the fact that evo science is a one trick pony, whereas we who have inference from God, have many ways to prove the foolishness of evo science.

Let me continue. As for science, that one trick pony I mentioned, is "observation" - so if it can't be witnessed, it can't be believed - yet who saw the big bang? Claiming to use deductive method to prove the universe came from a common point of origin, contradicts the well trodden idea of science which claims "observation".

At least in Islam, we count observation as only one type of proof and know there are other ways to prove a statement.

As for scientific theories, a scientific theory is an explanation based upon a collection of facts and data obtained from both observation and testing. It is not the same as the generic, non-scientific notion of a theory, which can basically be used to describe a random idea. The defintion of the two uses of the word "theory" are different from one another. People often to like to incorrectly equate them as one and the same in order to try and disregard scientific evidence they don't like or agree with for philosophical or ideological reasons.

Which is the only true method of inqury evo scientists have - and it's a one trick pony evo scientists claim is "fact" in their hubris. I see it as a theory, which is entertaining, and hardly worth losing sleep over

While, obviously, I cannot have done extensive research on the topic in a day or so, from what I have seen, both from secular and Islamic sites, when referring to Ibn Al Haythm and the scientific method, is that it was based on pretty much the same things as the modern scientific method, no mention of God being required for it. Do you have any links or references that you can direct me to to show me where he infers God for his scientific methodology (beyond the idea of God being behind all things, as that implies God as the designer, but does nothing for explaining the mechanics of things).

Ibn Al Haythm is responsible for formulating the scientific method which evo scientists utilise (abuse) in a very dishonest way, as I explained in my previous post.

Ibn Al Haythm, championed scientific inquiry.

Evo Scientists champion Neo Darwinism to get ahead in their careers.

Your own statement sort of refutes itself, as it was scientists that refuted the Piltdown Man fraud. Besides, the fraud of Piltdown Man doesn't change the truth behind finds like Lucy or Ardi. When fraudulent claims are made in science, it is the work of other scientists that tend to refute it and clear the air. Science is always expanding, and is self-correcting. Sometimes that correction can be slow going, and some people can be resistant to it, even in the scientific community, sure, but it happens.

Are you attempting to claim that I beleive all scientists are liars? Because that's not what I said - in fact I know it was sicentists who made the discovery that piltdown man was a hoax - but hey - those scientists didn't want to be lied to - I can accept their honesty in this regard... btw none of those scientists who discovered the hoax stayed with evolution after discovering the hoax.

What does that tell you?

As for evolution, you've already shown your bias against it, shown that you won't accept the mountains of evidence that support and show it to be true when you said;

What mountains of evidence? I used to be an atheist when I apostated many moons ago. What evidence? the type where i lay down and just take it like a drip feed? That type of ridiculous evidence which remains improbable as in protein isomer and peptide bonds which are necessary for life to form?

Which?

Please do enlighten me lol

So I'll drop some links that detail evolution, and some of the evidence for it, though you've already made it clear it will be irrelevant to the conversation.

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

And then I'll add these, to get your thoughts on them;

Muslim thought on evolution takes a step forward

And I'm trying to post a link to another link, but the board keeps editing the address, making it unlinkable. The post is called "Evolution in Islam" from the Answering Islamic Skeptics page.

None of these are what I call authoritatively convincing, rather, they remind me of when I tried to play darts in the dark, I thought I was hitting triple20's each time, but I accidently broke the window.

You claim you are Muslim?

When Allah wills a thing into being, how does it happen? Please tell me how?

And now tell me how the Qur'an describes the creation of Adam pbuh?

Now repeat your evo drivel, and try not to feel silly



Scimi

 

[Zeal]

If we see at games today. We know that map-making takes a lot of skill. and to implement the physics, does too. It requires creativity, knowledge, and comprehensive knowledge.

It is nearly Impossible for 1 man alone to make a game like BF1 or any real-life-like game.

So what about this world??

Allahu alam.

https://youtu.be/wmhWQnAQR5M

 

[Eric H]

Greetings nd peace be with you MisterK;

It would not change whether or not all things were designed by an unseen hand, even if designed in such a way as to appear to not need a designer.

I believe God wants us to look at his creation in awe, because this would prove that God exists. We are not created by a process of natural events, we were created purposely by God to do his will.

Evolution could not happen without God, life is too complex, and when we look at the scripture given to us by our creator, it says that Adam was created by God.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

 

[Scimitar]

MisterK,

You make claims to authority, while ignoring or remaining unaware of the following Scientists who rejected Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

24 pages full of signatories, and all these scientists were authorities in their respective fields.

Here is just one page as an example:

24 pages of it to go.

You should study their reasons for denying evolution. I fail to see how you justify this evolution as a fact given the number of signatories from authority

Scimi

 

[TDWT]

No, it is not compatible.

When Adam came down to earth according to scholars, was he a fully grown man?

 

[Scimitar]

When Adam came down to earth according to scholars, was he a fully grown man?

Not only was he a fully grown man - he was a giant of 60 cubits tall (90 feet tall)

I ask - which ape did he evolve from?

KING KONG?



Do you now see, TWDT, why this evolution is bogus?

Scimi

 

[TDWT]

Not only was he a fully grown man - he was a giant of 60 cubits tall (90 feet tall)

I ask - which ape did he evolve from?

KING KONG?



Do you now see, TWDT, why this evolution is bogus?

Scimi

No you just don't understand it. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them.

 

[Scimitar]

No you just don't understand it. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with them.

I do understand it. One side of the argument is evolution from ape to man, with the claim of common ancestor/progenitor. That one has failed.

The other is common ancestor, in which case where is DNA evidence of King Kong? Smithsonian have already made all the bones of giant humans disappear. Also fail.

You're still young, given time and research in sha Allah, you will be able to follow a line of inquiry which lets you see through the bogus scientific theory. Seems you are set on believing in evolution but have no claim except "it seems to make sense"... so does killing the only other person on an island because he is the one with the water. Doesn't make it right.

These experts and voices of authority in the Sciences claim "evolution does not make sense" http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

You should reserve your judgement until you've researched why.

Simple things you can grasp right away are things like how improbable it is to have protein, isomer and peptide bonds form on their own, by chance - the improbability is so ridiculous, to entertain it is in my honest opinion a sign of madness. But until you can understand this, what's the point?

My advice - click the link, and follow up on those authority voices, find out and understand what they are disagreeing with, you will find there are MANY issues with evo theory, each one requires a HUGE amount of faith to believe, and the inferences are all unjustified.

Scimi

 

[TDWT]

I do understand it. One side of the argument is evolution from ape to man, with the claim of common ancestor/progenitor. That one has failed.

The other is common ancestor, in which case where is DNA evidence of King Kong? Smithsonian have already made all the bones of giant humans disappear. Also fail.

You're still young, given time and research in sha Allah, you will be able to follow a line of inquiry which lets you see through the bogus scientific theory. Seems you are set on believing in evolution but have no claim except "it seems to make sense"... so does killing the only other person on an island because he is the one with the water. Doesn't make it right.

Scimi

No you do not understand it at all. We did did not say we evolved from apes,we have a common ancestor. If you actually did research instead of relying on fake conspiracy theories, you would be able to. I'm not going to force but it's up to you if you choose to remain ignorant. Honestly, the reasons you have presented are just......no, just no, ok. Actually do research

 

[Scimitar]

No you do not understand it at all. We did did not say we evolved from apes,we have a common ancestor. If you actually did research instead of relying on fake conspiracy theories, you would be able to. I'm not going to force but it's up to you if you choose to remain ignorant. Honestly, the reasons you have presented are just......no, just no, ok. Actually do research

You can't make such claims when you've clearly not checked the edit I just did above (what you left unquoted)

For brevity,

These experts and voices of authority in the Sciences claim "evolution does not make sense" http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...oad.php?id=660 which is better than the "i think it makes sense" coming from you, a nobody in the scientific circles like me

You should reserve your judgement until you've researched why they've not taken evolution as viable explanation for humanity.

Simple things you can grasp right away are things like how improbable it is to have protein, isomer and peptide bonds form on their own, by chance - the improbability is so ridiculous, to entertain it is in my honest opinion a sign of madness. But until you can understand this, what's the point?

My advice - click the link, and follow up on those authority voices, find out and understand what they are disagreeing with, you will find there are MANY issues with evo theory, each one requires a HUGE amount of faith to believe, and the inferences are all unjustified.

it seems you are the one making blanket claims and are unable to prove them, and you'v not actually done any research from the other side of the scientific camp either - which shows exactly how you do not know how to research critically click the link, follow from there.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

TWDT, I'll ask you the same questions I asked MisterK:

You claim you are Muslim?

When Allah wills a thing into being, how does it happen? Please tell me how?

And now tell me how the Qur'an describes the creation of Adam pbuh?

Try answering these while not getting confused

Allah is NOT the author of confusion

Scimi

 

[Abz2000]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;



I think there are mountains of assumptions regarding the ToE, the real evidence and detail seems to be lacking. For instance the evolution of the eye, and the full skeletal system

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

The eye is a sensory organ and since humans have already reached the stage where we make lenses that zoom further than can be imagined by the eye and see better than the eye in terms of light sensitivity, colour depth recognition, and image enhancement, there is much room for pondering.

I am aware that the book of genesis may make it difficult for you to accept anything further than 6, 000-10, 000 years due to the lineage lines, and the writings of some Islamic historians who relied heavily on what remains of previous scripture to fill in the blanks, but anybody who goes directly to the Quran and compares the information we have from recent research and findings and thinks from a fresh perspective instead of basing their conclusions on scholarly works of the past few centuries realizes that there's a lot more to the story and the Quran has hints scattered all over it.

Ok, Allah tells us in the Quran that it was all essential vapour at one time, then liquid ("maa-" ), with the heavens and earth being "cloven asunder/separated" somewhere down the line and drawn together again at some point.
We see cells divide and replicate and we see the process of evolution as described by scientists appear to be repeated in living creatures within the womb or egg in relatively short span of time. Slimy bacteria using cell division, worms, maggots etc in open air, slithering serpents, legged serpents, dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, birds, poultry etc using the more protective egg incubation method, and the more advanced and capable mammals using the even more protective "carry it around with you wherever you go" method, from at least serpents onwards we notice that the fetus starts off looking almost identical, a process which continues to diverge and advance as we move up the line till humans and elephants which take ages to give birth and reach maturity.
Another thing we notice is that the male species of mammals use bacteria like sperm whereas the females use eggs and wombs, notice also that just as with humans, the elephant female matures faster than the male as pick up different traits as they grow, go to a secondary school or college if you don't believe me. Notice also that the fetus of a female has what loooks like a pebis until it is later absorbed, all this indicates that females contain latter data and are to an extent utilised as vessels and means of support by males, the male cat just does it's thing and goes off galavanting while the female is left to carry the burdens and nurture at risk of own life, human males are (usually) a little more civilized and disciplined, and therefore work and sacrifice more.
Allah clearly indicates this too in the Quran and the ahadith state that hawwa /"eve" came from Adam's shortest rib.
The evolutionary theory and observations also indicate that the female came into the picture later on an only received necessary data from the later stages, the x y chromosomes in males and yy in females also indicates this.
The births of jesus and adam however appear to be unique in relation to the normal cloning/replicating process.

It is not at all difficult to imagine the eyes, ears, nose, etc coming out of one highly sensitive organ which initially combined all the sensory qualities in a more primitive and less specialized fashion such as "hunch", some creatures do combine some of these senses and some have more power in some organs yet completely miss other organs, notice that some still grope about blind whilst others see infrared with fuzzy vision.
Carnivourous plants are a good example of sensory perception without other developed specialized organs present in even serpents - let alone mammals.
Brain scans and dna testing of mammals amply demonstrates a very close relationship in contrast to other critters and plants, although the relationship of humans to plants is there all the way down to soil, water and bacteria (as seen in cell division and multiplication.

Think about it like this, if there was no evolution, we would all be carbon copies of each other and different nations based wouldn'' exist. There would be no "half-cast" kids.

And Allah knows best.

Bro Eric, consider the fact that dinosaurs have existed a long time before humans (at least tens of millenia) and follow the trail from bacteria to man at the pinnacle of creation.
It takes humility to accept, but the signs are there.

 

[MisterK]

MisterK,

You make claims to authority, while ignoring or remaining unaware of the following Scientists who rejected Evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

24 pages full of signatories, and all these scientists were authorities in their respective fields.

Here is just one page as an example:

24 pages of it to go.

You should study their reasons for denying evolution. I fail to see how you justify this evolution as a fact given the number of signatories from authority

Scimi

I'll give a more complete reply when I have more time, I just wanted to point out that the probability of life forming from non-life is irrelevant to this conversation as the thread is about evolution, not the origin of all life. The origin of life on Earth and evolution are two different things.

Besides, even if the origin of life on Earth were relevent to evolution, the probability of life forming from non-life would be at a 100% chance of happening if it was the design/method of how God brought forth life.

Also, regarding the list of scientists, first thing I noticed is most of them are not any sort of life scientist, so their opinion is basically irrelevant on evolution (just like a geneticist's opinion would likely be irrelevent on how structurally sound a bridge was). And second, it is only an incredibly small number of scientists who signed it, and since you presented a list of scientists who apear to deny the evidence supporting evolution, I'll go ahead and counter with a list of nearly 1500 scientists with variations of the name Steve that support evolution;

https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

And again, a more complete reply later, when time allows.

 

[Simple_Person]

No you do not understand it at all. We did did not say we evolved from apes,we have a common ancestor. If you actually did research instead of relying on fake conspiracy theories, you would be able to. I'm not going to force but it's up to you if you choose to remain ignorant. Honestly, the reasons you have presented are just......no, just no, ok. Actually do research

I felt compelled to respond to this topic as an ex-atheist. Bro, evolution theory is a very big hoax. These so called evidences are mostly based on assumptions and desires not real evidence.

There is no common ancestor with the apes. Or well you could say there is..(everything is created from water) . This is still the so called missing link, based on a ASSUMPTION. Science does not go by assumptions but by FACTS. However a believe is based on what exists already with that you make a conclusion. Atheist is like this [Beginning]- ---- - - - --- - [End], While investigating in this case Islam it becomes like this [Beginning]-----------------[End]. What i mean by this example is that atheism misses A LOT of connections between the different kind of species found. To give a more down to earth example.

Skull and bone findings of a so called prehistoric human being of certain build etc are found in part X of the world, however of this same species are not found ANY where else on the planet. Another skull and bones are found in another part of the world but there is absolutely NO connection between either one of them. In those atheist magazines these so called skull and bones are brought fourth, but instead of seeing a skull and bones you see a full "prehistoric human being". However through science it is possible to determine how the face looks like, but the color of his eyes? color of his hair? The amount of body hair? Amount of muscles? Clothes?..all these things are being made up to fulfill the desire of peoples hearts of evolution theory to be a fact. So the "[Beginning]- ---- - - - --- - [End]" that i was talking about are being filled with lies by filling those missing lines with assumptions and coloring by giving some skull, color eyes, hair and amount of hair and clothes ..muscles you name it. In science you do NOT do that and also are prohibited to do such a thing.

So when you see a house with 5 pillars but you expected to see and wanted to be 6 pillars instead, you do not say well the house is missing 1 pillar. No you say this house has 5 pillars and based on that the conclusion is drawn.

The biggest question however isn't even evolution-theory, it is rather what came before the big bang or what started all of this. Atheists LOVE to talk about whole skull findings and bones, but the most essential part is missing..which is the beginning of all of this. When you try to have a discussion about what started all of this, they are rather kind of quite. They have no explanation and are just trying to shoot arrows but they themselves know they are not seeing a target to shoot at.

Qur'an gives this a PERFECT explaining to all of it.

So far that i have heard is that big bang theory is being branded as a fact. Why? The universe is expanding, this is a fact what expands, is equal to like a explosion. So if something explodes it expands to everywhere from the starting point. What i also have heard is that time and space began with the start of the big bang. So before there was not space and before there was no time.

Scimitar already posted some comments about time, however for us human beings, it is rather unimaginable to say there is no time. The concept of time is i believe impossible to understand. The difference in time dimensions also exist and a good example is dreaming. In our dreams we witness DAYS, when we wake up see that just 30 minutes have gone by.

So the question is what can you "imagine" what was before the big bang WITHOUT time and space? Well that is still if you ask me impossible, because saying there is no time it is already hard to grasp also there is not space, matter etc..just NOTHING..but nothing is still something. Vacuum is still something.

The big bang itself by logic must have a cause as mathematics 0+0=0. So something must be the cause to give it a 1 (big bang). If you ask atheist, they come with a multiverse, however my question also to that, what came before a multiverse? So this also does not give a explanation. A atheist girl mentioned once a theory that something can come out of nothing, (causing of the big bang), however atheism doesn't believe in such a thing, as their sole BELIEVE is based on 1+1=2 (although they say that), but follow rather 1+0=2.

Islam btw, confirms something coming out of nothing.

"...."Be," and it is...." Qur'an 6:73

So logic, rationality and reason on this cannot give a good explanation as those are solely based on something and not nothing. So what we can resort is philosophy. To give a philosophical argument that something must already have existed or else the big bang cannot become a fact, we can agree on this. Big bang of it self is a beginning and everything that has a beginning has a end. You are born and you will die, a tree comes to life and will die one day. The life span of things might differ but everything that has a beginning has also a end. So the philosophical argument of SOMETHING must have already existed doesn't apply to the argument of "beginning and end" as it is outside this universe which everything has a beginning and a end.

Qur'an answers this question.

"Allah , the Eternal Refuge." Qur'an 112:2
"He neither begets nor is born," Qur'an 112:3

Something that is eternal and has no beginning, has also no end. So the philosophical "theory" of something must have already existed is being answered by these ayaat and confirmed.

Then you also have people that want to know well who is this Creator and how is He and what is He etc.?

Also the Qur'an answers this question. I already said that outside this universe of no time and space. So to imagine something, we tend to compare it with. So for example saying i have a fast car, i COMPARE it with other kind of cars. As i know majority of cars can only reach certain amount of speed and based on that i say i have a fast car. So i make a comparison. Allah also answers this in the Qur'an.

"Nor is there to Him any equivalent." Qur'an 112:4

Saying there is no equivalent, says you cannot compare Him with ANYTHING. This again confirms as when we tend to imagine outside this universe, our understanding is still bound by time and space. So we tend to compare whatever is outside this universe with what is inside this universe. Saying there must be no gravity for example, well no..as you compare it with knowing what is gravity.

So with these 3 very short ayaat for us answers such MAJOR questions. The rest is history so to say as when you have confirmed the existence of a Creator and the start of big bang, then from here we can apply logic, rationality and reason. Which again are PERFECTLY in line with a Creator. Islam also is the ONLY religion that is in line with this. Also Adam(as) can be explained by logic, rationality and reason. Science tells us, that human beings come from 1 human being. Which is even logical. For example when we look at Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.) they look very much alike, however this comes because they also have 1 ancestor. When you look at some people from some place, many look a like. Look at Scottish people for example. Many gingers. In the Middle East many look alike. I myself a Kurd sometimes even mistake Afghans with Kurds because they look similar. However a Chinese is clearly not looking like a Kurd. So the split came after 1 ancestor that connects all of us, as we are human beings. I can have children with a Chinese woman or a African woman. Allah even gives this explanation in the Qur'an.

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." Qur'an 49:13

 

[Scimitar]

I'll give a more complete reply when I have more time, I just wanted to point out that the probability of life forming from non-life is irrelevant to this conversation as the thread is about evolution, not the origin of all life. The origin of life on Earth and evolution are two different things.

No they are not, they are related and part of the same belief process which atheists sponsor and Muslims as well, although with totally separate inferences.

Besides, even if the origin of life on Earth were relevent to evolution, the probability of life forming from non-life would be at a 100% chance of happening if it was the design/method of how God brought forth life.

This compromised narrative is what will get you stuck In one breath you claim the possibility of life evolving from nothing, and in the next - "BE" and it "Becomes manifest" in whole, no evolution necessary,

When you are done flip flopping between ideas, let me know

Also, regarding the list of scientists, first thing I noticed is most of them are not any sort of life scientist, so their opinion is basically irrelevant on evolution (just like a geneticist's opinion would likely be irrelevent on how structurally sound a bridge was). And second, it is only an incredibly small number of scientists who signed it, and since you presented a list of scientists who apear to deny the evidence supporting evolution, I'll go ahead and counter with a list of nearly 1500 scientists with variations of the name Steve that support evolution;

https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

And again, a more complete reply later, when time allows.

Life scientist? Bro, listen to me becuase you sound really ignorant right now.

Have you seen the list of LIFE SCIENTISTS in that list? basically all of them barring the theoretical scientists who are no different to the very same scientists who claim evolution - except the ones in the list, do not claim evolution.

Brother, you need to take a few more days off, and prepare your case

Scimi

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MisterK;

Besides, even if the origin of life on Earth were relevent to evolution, the probability of life forming from non-life would be at a 100% chance of happening .

As you say, the chance of life happening is a 100% yes, because we are here today. Life is so complex that I firmly believe it could not happen without God.

if it was the design/method of how God brought forth life

When we turn to scripture, then it seems that the evolution of man did not happen. I prefer to rely on the word of God, rather than science, which like the theory of evolution is still evolving.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[Scimitar]

which like the theory of evolution is still evolving.

There is more than just one theory for evolution - I counted five at my last stop.

Scimi

 

[Zeal]

Is it just me or is it that with all these theories going around and new ideas it get's quite confusing how creation began in islam?

 

[Simple_Person]

Is it just me or is it that with all these theories going around and new ideas it get's quite confusing how creation began in islam?

It is only confusing for the Muslims that follow like sheep without asking any question why this or why that with intellectual debate. Islam prohibits us doing as such. Islam rather tries to push us to seek knowledge, use our mind, ponder about things, ask questions. There are many brothers and sisters here and without any proud, but rather alhamdulillah i count myself among them that i am not confused whatsoever about all those theories. For me i just ponder about those theories and ask questions. Those theories are based on such shallow thinking that you would almost think that these theories are especially made for those sheep believers, being Muslims or Christians or Jews. I am more than happy to untangle some of those theories that are kind of almost believable for the sheep believer, but just recently with these topics the people asking these questions it isn't about the intellectual debate anymore, their heart already believes it when reading their comments and replies. So if you even would give them intellectual debate that it is all shallow and those theories don't give you real factual evidence that adds up to be solid theory and more based on assumptions and lies, still the individual doesn't believe it. He/she is rather already hooked on the theory.

For me sub'han'Allah this is rather confirmation that being born a Muslim or Christian or Jew, doesn't guarantee us to die as a Muslim or Christian or Jew that believes in tawheed or just simply die as none of those groups but still believe in one Creator.

Also i am very grateful that such theories have come in to existence, because the sheep are being separated in to people that start using their minds and ponder about things thus become firm in their believe or follow other religion based on tawheed. The other group being dishonest people that were hiding their true feelings about the religion among Muslims, Christians and Jews and get thrown in to the group of disbelievers. This last group is the one causing much harm to Muslims, Christians and Jews, as they don't believe in a Creator whatsoever.

 

[Abz2000]

كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَكُنتُمْ أَمْوَاتاً فَأَحْيَاكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ {28

[l]

How can you disbelieve in (and reject and be ungrateful to) Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.

[/B][/I]

Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 28

Amino acids are important biological molecules that serve as the basic molecular building blocks of proteins and enzymes used by all living things on Earth. All amino acids have a similar basic structure like that below, with different amino acids differing only in the specific structure that lies in the location labeled with the “R”.

Our work has shown that when mixed molecular ices of the sorts we see in space are irradiated by UV photons, amino acids are one of the types of products that are created.

So far we have only been able to detect the presence of some of the simpler amino acids in our photolysis residues. Below is a figure showing high-performance liquid chromatography data from a residue made by the UV photolysis of an ice containing H2O, CH3OH, CO, and NH3. Note the double peaks for serine and alanine, showing we have made both right and left handed versions of these molecules (glycine, where R = H, is not chiral).

Extensive sets of experiments have shown that the production of amino ices during ice photolysis is a relatively robust process. Most ices that contain C, H, O, and N within their original molecular components will yield some amino acids when irradiated by ionizing radiation.

This work shows that chemistry that occurs in space can lead to the production of amino acids, one of a number of materials critical to life on Earth and a material whose presence likely played a key role in the origin of life on Earth.
Since the process of ice photolysis is thought to be occurring wherever new stars and planets are formed, this implies amino acids may well be introduced to the surfaces of all newly formed planets.


One of the peculiar properties of amino acids is that they are “chiral” or “handed”. Because of the arrangement of chemical groups around the ‘central’ carbon atom of an amino acid, it is possible to make two versions of an amino acid that have identical chemical formulas but that are geometrically different, each being the mirror image of the other.

The situation is somewhat similar to your two hands. They have the same ‘formula’ (Palm1Fingers4Thumb1), but no amount of rotating of either hand can get the two to perfectly superpose. In keeping with your hands, these two variants of an amino acid are often referred to as being ‘right’ and ‘left’ handed versions of the same molecule.

http://www.astrochem.org/sci/Amino_Acids.php

[l]

36- Glory be to the One, who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as themselves, and other things they do not know.
[/B][/I]

Quran Ya-Seen 36:36)


وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

[l]

And of all things We created two mates; perhaps you will remember.
[/B][/I]


Quran 51:49