Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism up to interpretation ?

[Scimitar]

To be fair, I find your rebuttal of Xavier's post infinitely more flawed than her opening statement. I'm also not sure about the precise level of honour involved in cross posting between forums with the intention of mocking a fellow user behind their back.

You'd be the only one then. She ran away with her tail between her legs, and suggested coffee instead. Mocking? This is mocking... you atheists sure are a sensitive bunch aren't ya?

I ask you here then, Remfield - Is God a scientific concept?

Cant' wait to read your answer...

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Oh, come now! Dear, sweet, little Bluebell (O ye of 'devilish mood')... surely I don't need to remind you of a wee little passage from An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths?

"None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

Enjoy.

Quote hadeeth properly, you claim you have studied the doctrines - this clearly proves you haven't.

Try this for size Remfield.

"You're either my brother in Islam or my equal in Humanity" - that's what Bluebell meant when she said you're no brother of hers... mine neither for the record ;D

Oh and mock all you want... what is it with you lot? DO you all take turns to challenge the Muslims and then run out of steam - only to draft in the next chump who'll also burn out... eventually? It's nothing short of futility on your part. I'm pretty sure you can find more "creative" things to do... Like imagine up multiverses and try to explain how nothing made everything lol

 

[جوري]

My manners have been impeccable. You've been provided with links and your recycled drivel acknowledged as a repeat performance. We can't help you if you're finding it difficult to save face for being on your knees in the atheist bin!
Also how is quoting Islamic fiqh working out for you? Will wonders ever cease?

 

[Scimitar]

Gosh, that was funny... I'd rep you again simply for the entertainment value - but uhm, I need to spread some around... Sadly, I haven't read a post in the past 15 minutes besides yours that's even remotely worthy of it.

Kudos anyway

Scimi

 

[جوري]

you can find more "creative" things to do... Like imagine up multiverses and try to explain how nothing made everything lol

that's just the thing I find them so blasé so more of the same .. It doesn't matter the monumental effort you put in using physics, epidemiology, statistics or genetics as br. M has extensively done in the link on the previous page which went unread btw you're to expect the same recycled rhetoric .. It's boring and tiresome like the jehova witnesses knocking on your door with scripted speeches only they stand on another pole preaching dawkings or whomever else... Ugh

Anyhooo I am off to bed

Wasalaam

 

[Scimitar]

Good call, I'm tired too... off to bed. Thankfully it's Jummah tomorrow and I have an appt. with Allah Subhana wa Ta'aala.

Remfield can go and grab his quotes off some net site and do a copy pasta job ... like you said sis, same old drivel - just another day.

I'm gonna start calling posts like Remfields ones "groundhog posts" bleh

Scimi

 

[جوري]

^^ pls make du3a for me tomorrow if you remember .. I need it..
JZK

 

[R.M. Renfield]

You'd be the only one then. She ran away with her tail between her legs, and suggested coffee instead. Mocking? This is mocking... you atheists sure are a sensitive bunch aren't ya?

Some are, some aren't. I can't speak for her. I'm just pointing something out, that's all.

So she ran out, with her tail between her legs. <Shrug> Does that alone prove that you are right?

I ask you here then, Remfield - Is God a scientific concept?

Cant' wait to read your answer...

I personally don't think so. Why, do you? Likewise, I look forward to your answer. I like surprises. I trust you have something in the way of clever retorts in store for me that will really knock my socks off...? hew

By the way, it's Renfield.

Okay, if you're happy with cross-posting then may I ask you a question based on something you said there?

If human evolution was possible, where are the transitional fossils?

First, would you mind telling me what you class as a 'transitional fossil'? What qualities would you be looking for in a transitional fossil then?

Similarly, I expect your answer to be interesting... Except, I won't be holding my breath. opcorn:

Quote hadeeth properly, you claim you have studied the doctrines - this clearly proves you haven't.

Would you mind showing me where I last claimed to have studied the doctrines? I know nothing of 'quoting hadeeth properly', as you rightly conclude. The question is - would you deny the basic sentiment?

"You're wither my brother in Islam or my equal in Humanity" - that's what Bluebell meant when she said you're no brother of hers... mine neither for the record.

Shouldn't that be "You're either my brother in Islam or my equal in Humanity"...?

If I'm right, then perhaps you also should learn to quote Hadeeth properly? If I'm wrong, then oh dear!

Allow me to copy and paste (for once) something I found interesting...

"Noble Qur'an tells us that all of mankind is descended from one couple, Adam and Eve. Thus we are all brothers and sisters, and our differences in languages and colors are but a mercy that we might know one another. Language and race should never be a reason for discriminating against people".

It comes from here...

ezsoftech(dot)com/stories/mis40(dot)asp

Whatever you think of it, it works for me. So what's your opinion on that?

I'm not offended or hurt by anything you or that little friend of yours writes. I've seen it all before (as she so gleefully points out to me). I'm just startled by your aggression. Most muslims I have met in person have been delightfully well mannered. Perhaps they might venture to say you're an immature little prick? Ah, what would I know...? I'm just an ignorant non-believer. :embarrass

Remfield can go and grab his quotes off some net site and do a copy pasta job ... like you said sis, same old drivel - just another day.

Actually, I wrote all that. When I copy and paste, I like to include my references.

Again - it's Renfield. Please at least try to make an effort...

 

[R.M. Renfield]

My manners have been impeccable.

LOL! Oh, you crack me up! ;D

If that's true, then I must have imagined the rest of your post...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if anyone wants to contest 'wot I wrote' or even wants to remotely tackle the topic suggested in the title of this thread without the knee-jerk compulsion to make irrelevant ad hominem attacks in every breath - go for it...

 

[جوري]

Quite possible indeed you imagined the whole thing? What is real and what isn't after all to the atheist mind? The words self assembled ex-nihilo to form perfect adhoms to perfect drivel .

As for 'tackling' your post our new clever troll you'll find all the answers in the link I provided in the previous page and a heck of surprising parallels between your mind and the rest of your brethren .. It's quite embarrassing how many faulty glassy eyed isomers of one another are produced out of the same cesspool.


Get a day job and a life you take yourself way too seriously one day perhaps soon you'll spontaneously combust or perhaps satisfy the second law of thermodynamics like diamonds and devolve back into a cockroach and you'll be left wondering if your frivolity that's to say you have a cell preferably that hasn't succumbed to a spirochete by then to have some higher reticular function with & wonder where it all went wrong...

Best indeed,

 

[MustafaMc]

how about something a little less scripted? Surely you can up with some abstract thoughts that aren't in your manifesto?

Yes, it is good to read different personal perspectives in their own words. Voluminous cut and paste posts aren't very useful to discussion.

 

[Abz2000]

So she ran out, with her tail between her legs.

she can't do that because she is human - a daughter of Adam, they don't have tails,
only descendants of monkeys do.......

renfield,
i'll pose you one question and see if you turn to denial, censorship or just muddying the facts, then we'll know if you are truthful in your claim to objective scientific reasoning or are just holding on to a well discredited agenda:

if someone were to be passed on knowledge from the Creator and was able to tell you exactly what you would do for the next three months, and even give you video glimpses into events you would go through, and statements which you yourself would make, and even an exact picture of your future child along with hairstyle and clothes,

would you still believe in random selection?
or admit that there is an All Knowing Source beyond your full comprehension.

 

[R.M. Renfield]

Yes, it is good to read different personal perspectives in their own words. Voluminous cut and paste posts aren't very useful to discussion.

I couldn't agree more.

Ah... NOW I get it! You all think I copied and pasted my first post?! Well, no, as a matter of fact, I didn't. You see, I've been into several other Islamic forums before and the pasting from other websites seems to make up a very large portion of the Islamic information in there. No, I don't go in for that. What's interesting is that most of you, who have read it so far, assumed that I have.

So I challenge anyone who's made this hasty assumption - right now - to copy and paste just one paragraph... nay, just ONE SENTENCE of my post - into any search engine... and see if you can find the article from which I copied my text.

Traditionally, in formal academic writing, one is always expected to cite one's references. Although I write informally, it's a habit to include references. So should I ever 'copy and paste' from one source to another, you will always see it mentioned in brackets underneath. For example:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." (The Nizkor Project www(dot)nizkor(dot)org/features/fallacies/straw-man(dot)html)

I'm sorry, I just assumed that all educated people are familiar with this.

Now that we've cleared that one up... perhaps we could move on?

 

[جوري]

I couldn't agree more.

Ah... NOW I get it! You all think I copied and pasted my first post?! Well, no, as a matter of fact, I didn't. You see, I've been into several other Islamic forums before and the pasting from other websites seems to make up a very large portion of the Islamic information in there. No, I don't go in for that. What's interesting is that most of you, who have read it so far, assumed that I have.

So I challenge anyone who's made this hasty assumption - right now - to copy and paste just one paragraph... nay, just ONE SENTENCE of my post - into any search engine... and see if you can find the article from which I copied my text.

Traditionally, in formal academic writing, one is always expected to cite one's references. Although I write informally, it's a habit to include references. So should I ever 'copy and paste' from one source to another, you will always see it mentioned in brackets underneath. For example:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." (The Nizkor Project www(dot)nizkor(dot)org/features/fallacies/straw-man(dot)html)

I'm sorry, I just assumed that all educated people are familiar with this.

Now that we've cleared that one up... perhaps we could move on?

Expressing the same message in different words doesn't qualify you as a free thinker. If you'd so much as click on the link provided or use the search feature you'd see that almost all if not all atheists come defining the terms you use in a similar style albeit the wording differs.. There's never been any zing to spice it up a little or to remotely elude that said writing is borne of research, abstract thought & not indoctrination!.. nor have they an adequate response to the aberrations that put a complete dent to their theories.

For instance the reconciliation of 'Natural selection' with such things as trinucleotide repeat expansions amongst loads others afore mentioned and discussed ad nauseam ..

You're so incredibly educated indeed that you should take your education and share it with like minded primates.. we've just about had our fill of your type!

You haven't personally given any reason why we should humor you anew?

best,

 

[R.M. Renfield]

she can't do that because she is human - a daughter of Adam, they don't have tails,
only descendants of monkeys do.......

You ought to be telling Scimitar that. Not me.

renfield,
i'll pose you one question and see if you turn to denial, censorship or just muddying the facts, then we'll know if you are truthful in your claim to objective scientific reasoning or are just holding on to a well discredited agenda:

I always find it's better to wait until someone denies, censors or muddies facts before revealing my criteria. Apart from eliciting an honest answer, it gives a good impression with regards to prejudice.

Okay, let's see then...

if someone were to be passed on knowledge from the Creator and was able to tell you exactly what you would do for the next three months, and even give you video glimpses into events you would go through, and statements which you yourself would make, and even an exact picture of your future child along with hairstyle and clothes,

would you still believe in random selection?
or admit that there is an All Knowing Source beyond your full comprehension.

Can we get something straight first? Did you really mean random selection or did you mean to say natural selection?

I mean, are we still talking about natural selection with regards to evolution or did you want to enter into a hypothetical discussion about fate?

Please appreciate, I'm not trying to obfuscate - but if you can understand this - I think we should be clear about what's meant by 'random' before we can continue, because the natural selection of evolution doesn't happen at random.

 

[Abz2000]

same thing, if it's not according to a set law and guidance, then it's random i.e - it chooses as it goes along. (even then - it would need intelligence to choose).
and if it is according to a set law/rule, then it has a law/rulemaker...... unless you decide to then believe it had intelligence, and either had that intelligence already or was given that intelligence,
nature doesn't mean anything unless you quantify it, and quantifying it would mean it has a description and name,
then you come back to the terminology behind the concept of Almighty God,
and you still evaded the yes or no question and went into terminology issues.
peace be to those who sincerely seek the guidance.


ran·dom
adjective

proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.
​

 

[MustafaMc]

R.M., I acknowledge that you most likely wrote this yourself from your own understanding as it seems mostly original albeit basically a regurgitation of the same-old-same-stuff. As you have your views on evolution, so also do I. I am unapologetically a theist who believes wholeheartedly that Allah created this universe and all that it contains including all existent and extinct life forms both known and unknown. Not to boast, but so you will have a frame of reference for my background, I have a Ph.D. in plant genetics and molecular biology.

Very often, it seems to imply that science is 'just another set of beliefs' (as with the case of religion). This is misleading because scientists do not (at least should not) rely upon supernatural beliefs, or indeed any assumptions of the sort not supported by observation, in order to generate conclusions.

No, science is not 'another set of beliefs'; however, ToE goes beyond science (IMHO) with inadequate explanations for the emergence of life processes that do not convey a selective advantage until it is fully functional. For example, meiosis is required for sexual reproduction and supposedly evolved from the mitosis of the unicellular prokaryotic Common Ancestor; however, meiosis requires multiple additional steps that individually confer no apparent selective advantage.

Evolution represents a scientifically understood set of processes by which all life on earth undergoes a slow transformation in order to adapt to it's surroundings. It is not a means by which to explain how life got here in the first place. Evolutional theory uses natural selection to explain how change comes about in species over very long periods of time. Since we have very good estimates as to how old the Earth is, we find more than enough time to allow for these slow changes to have occurred. Because it can also be easily observed over short periods of time as well, both inside and outside of the laboratory nowadays, it's really not something we need be to be too concerned about, when it comes to it's veracity.

I don't have any issues with this.

There is very little there to contradict the presence of a divine creator. Once they understand the theory, many religious people find themselves quite at ease with the idea that God might have willed evolution to occur - as 'part of His plan'.

One can neither scientifically prove or disprove the involvement of Allah in the origin of the species.

Abiogenesis is a natural science study which begets a theory of how biological life originated on earth. It attempts to explain how biological life can arise from organic matter, via a set of natural processes. Evidence for the Theory Of Abiogenesis is altogether a much more challenging prospect for a creationist, although strangely, I hardly ever hear them mention it.

Abiogensis has less observational evidence to support it than ToE. It is no more and no less than speculation.

As with evolution, many religious people, (again - once they understand it's principles) do not find it hard to accept as part of God's plan. Though admittedly, it's estimated time-framework does require some modicum of flexibility with regards to the Biblical 'truism': "God Created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh". Unless one is fully able to believe the Earth is much younger than our evidence suggests - it isn't difficult by using a little reasoning to interpret the book of Genesis as possessing something of a metaphorical slant. Personally, I would say 'mythical' - but that's just me.

If one thinks about the definition of a day, it has meaning only for one on earth after its creation within the solar system. From this point of reference, I agree that the six days of creation is metaphorical. I have no knowledge for how long it took from the second that the universe began until the existing species were established.

Possibly the most difficult hurdle for the creationist to overcome with abiogenesis and evolution when put together, is the discovery that single-celled organisms can mutate and eventually become animals. There is, indeed, a lot of strong evidence for it but as with all sciences of this nature, it would require some dedicated study for any creationist to fully appreciate.

Now this is where I have to strongly disagree as you have made completely fallacious statements. There has been no such discovery, but rather a hypothesis for how it might have happened.

In all the years I've been arguing in favour of scientific principles over the theological, I have not once come across a creationist who offered me their own unique interpretation of what it could all mean.

I have no idea what you are getting at here - 'interpret what it could all mean'. Whether Allah created the species instantly or over an extended period of time is irrelevant to me. I disagree that evolution is a natural, self-sustaining process that in and of itself can explain the origin of species without a Divine Being directing and controlling the process. Even though the development inside their mother's womb of each and every individual human can be explained, I also see it as an amazing miracle that leaves me in utter awe of my Creator. As a scientist I see human embryology as a (seemingly) self-sustaining, self-perpetuating natural process that could theoretically be taken as an illustrative example for evolution. However, a human life is a cycle and not an ever-advancing progression to a higher life form. Each man begins as a fertilized egg and ends with his death.

Perhaps I should mention some Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my doorstep, merrily proclaiming that fossil evidence had been planted by Satan who, at the time was disguised as an alien in a flying saucer, who drilled deep into the rock to plant an assortment of fake dinosaur bones to confuse us....
though I'm inclined to think we are safe to reserve that one for some after-dinner amusement.

Fossils don't bother me or challenge my faith.

On the other hand, sure, there have been those who, once they've made an attempt to understand it, have offered me their unique hypothesis of how it might fit into their own model of a God-made Universe. By reasoning that, since evolution doesn't seem to contradict God's plan, they could happily accept it as part of that plan. It doesn't necessarily make them right - but they have at least demonstrated a willingness to take the trouble to understand what evolution is and what it isn't.

Purely naturalistic evolution seeks to scientifically explain the origin of species without any involvement by Allah whatsoever. In order to make evolution more palatable to theists, evolutionists posit that 'God could have started the evolutionary ball rolling'.

Though to address the crux of the question bluntly, I would have to posit that the overwhelming evidence for evolution and for abiogenesis need not be interpreted in any other way than it already has. That's because the evidence clearly supports the theory, beyond the point of reasonable doubt. If the evidence had not supported the theory - or worse, had contradicted it - then the theory would have been thrown out by now. Along with all the many other ideas which have been discarded when proven incorrect.

Again, I object to your 'beyond the point of reasonable doubt'. However, despite the many gaps that ToE does not adequately bridge, I admit that it is probably the best best scientific hypothesis for how species may have arisen. You choose to hold onto a shaky theory/hypothesis; whereas, I hold on to Allah as the Creator for all life forms although only Allah knows by what means He did so.

You see, such is the overwhelming nature of the evidence, that in order to fully disbelieve the Theory Of Evolution, one would have to either deny the very existence of the supporting evidence... or ignore it completely.

I neither deny or ignore so-called supporting evidence, but rather I am left with, 'So what?'

 

[R.M. Renfield]

I'm sorry but it's not the same thing. Natural selection doesn't happen at random. If it did, then it wouldn't work very well as a process for selective breeding.

Imagine a sive, used to sort out stones of a specific size, utilizes a mesh to allow smaller stones to drop through whilst retaining larger stones. Do we say the sive is intelligent? No.

Does the sive work at random? No, it doesn't.

We could say the sive selects stones because that's what it was designed to do...

Now we reach the crux of our original question about interpretations. A question that I attempted to answer (in my own words) in my first post. Looking at a man-made stone sive, we both would interpret it as having been designed for a purpose; ergo: intelligent design.

Same with natural selection, which forms an essential part of the Theory Of Evolution, it does not occur at random. Like the sive, it filters out the less fittest to survive whilst retaining those fitter to survive. Except, unlike the sive, we can't see it or touch it. So we need to use scientific methods if we want to try and learn how it works.

As you'll find mentioned in my first post (which seems to have been glossed over and the whole of it condemned) you'll see that you can still interpret evolution as part of an intelligent design, if you want to.

All this is saying is, that the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly in favour of it. You might have been taught that evolution is false because your scriptures speak of a single creation event. Remember, they were written an awful long time before evolution was discovered. So in a world of modern science, as we live in today, doesn't it seem natural for people to look for new interpretations of scripture?

One might reason that if creation has occurred at all - then it has so, through a course of a great many events - or not at all. Perhaps 'Creation' is a word that is now open to interpretation.

and you still evaded the yes or no question...

Wouldn't it be rather boring if we could answer all of the questions thrown at us by science and religion with simple 'yes' and 'no' answers? Don't you think, that with all that's been discovered - and all there is yet to discover - that 'yes' and 'no' on their own would be rather restrictive? Why else do you think our languages have words like 'but' & 'because'...?

...and went into terminology issues.

Well, I had to. Don't you see? It's not my fault if, with that terminology, the question was altogether useless to the debate. [shrug]. I'm not saying it wasn't an interesting question... because it was.

I mean - let's face it... if we were really talking about 'random' selection then the conversation would quickly have slid off at a tangent, involving destiny, probability, time machines, Quantum physics and God-knows what else! Trust me, you wouldn't have got much from it and you'd only have critisized me all the more for it.

As it happens, I think you should be thanking me for helping you to stay focussed.

Hopefully now you can undertand what I'm saying? In language, we have different words for different things, which is the whole point of having a language. If all of our words meant the same thing, we wouldn't really have a language, would we?

 

[MustafaMc]

I think he may have meant 'random mutation' and other genetic changes that create variability for natural selection to act upon. These genetic changes must first be existent and presumably occur randomly prior to their effects becoming beneficial.

 

[Abz2000]

i like your way of explaining things renfield, you should be a kindergarten teacher

but let us try to take a step back and look at the fact staring us in the face, that if it had been a question of sieving, we wouldn't have to be building planes and submarines right now,
because there exist in nature creatures able to fly and others able to stay under water, evolution would not get rid of beneficial traits, do you think it had foreknowledge that we would one day build planes?
and how something non-seeing and non-thinking develops the ability to see is just something inconceivable, because there are many unrelated features of hte eye, and the organism would need to be able to understand the concept of sight, not knowing what seeing is, make a plan to develop it, and then grow a bunch of totally useless parts one by one in the process of building an eye, natural selection would throw it out the window if not at the first stage, then at the second or third - unless it knew what seeing was and what components it needed. and it takes quite a stretch of the imagination. almost as bad as telling a child that iron man decided to look for it's parts and picked up it's eye in it's hand to see the rest. (and even that's a complete eye!).

also - the scriptures have told us since times immemorial that we (mankind - and specifically believers) are the caretakers of the earth, this was when men were not much more capable of doing amazing things than other creatures, in fact there were times where other creatures could make humans live in constant fear, it is no longer the case and man is able to control the largest of creatures. we find now that it is man - and man alone that has the ability to corrupt land, sea, and air - something that no monkey or orangutan, or even the most venomous snake can or will do.
and it also tells us that it was non-believers who (in practice) cared the least.

Mischief has appeared on land and sea because of (the meed) that the hands of men have earned, that ((Allah)) may give them a taste of some of their deeds:
in order that they may turn back (from Evil).
Say: "Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before (you): Most of them worshipped others besides Allah."
Quran 30:41-42

We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof:
but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish;-
(With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women,
and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Quran 33:72-73

i will not delve too much into the scientific issues other than what common sense and critical reasoning show, brother Mustafa is well versed on the subject (by Allah's leave), and i will leave you to ponder on those verses.
peace be to those who sincerely seek the guidance.

edit - thanks for the clarification brother Mustafa, that's what i meant, because natural selection would be the process of cutting off, not building.