Islamic Views: Creationism & Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter uno-dios
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 32
  • Views Views 6K
I can't believe that Purest Ambrosia has given a link for evolution when in it's Abiogenesis she is refering, so typical of the ID deception crew. Let's talk football by discussing cricket. :okay:

If you want the latest insight on evolution, here it is:


Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=R1
 
I don't think Quran contradicts with or denies evolution.I believe even Adam and Havva might have been evolved from other beings according to Quran.

...was this a proper english grammer?lol
 
Please stop these riduculous threads. Most of us have no knowledge regarding the anti-evolution such as I.D or others.
We know much about evolution on the other hand, for that most of us have bin learned all about in school.

Just dont make a conclusion out from what you read here, for noone here knows much about the empty spots of evolution.

For the creator of this thread, I advice you to start on high or college and work it out yourself, or perhaps ask some schoolars and other teachers about it. Dr. Zakir Naik happends to be the best of them all and he would beat any evolutionists, but let me repeat; Dont make these kind of stupid threads for noone here knows the anti side of evolution, this will just confuse many people.
 
Why? I learn evolution at school, am I supposed to go to a second school now?

I take every challenge as it comes, and intelligent design and such will come as I go further into the system but for now I'm good.
 
:sl:

Oh, I have much sympathy for devout Roman Catholics whose institution have done so much to drag down their iman (faith and fidelity). :cry:

But don't throw that which is precious out with the dirty water of men's errors. God is Great and He is above any errors that man can do. I would ask, most humbly, that all who have fallen away from the belief in God look again for Him in silent places where men do not drown His 'still small voice'. :sunny:

With regard to our friends interpretation of Al-Qur'an...

He it is Who has revealed to you the Scripture, whereof some Ayats are Decisive- these are the Mother of the Scripture, and others are allegorical. Then as to those in whose hearts there is perversity, they in fact follow the allegorical part of it seeking trouble and seeking to give it interpretations. But no one knows the interpretation of it except Allah. And the steadfast in knowledge would say: "We believe in it,- the whole is from the presence of our Rabb." And no one minds except those possessed of understanding. (Surah Al-e-Imran: 6)

It is important for us to understand how to interpret what is fundamental (i.e Mother of the Scriptures) and what is allegorical. If we take everything with the most literal meaning perhaps we make fools of ourselves? ;D

I read these passages you have offered and I ponder there true meaning. Tradition (Hadith) can be strong or weak and we must understand them in the historical context in which they are given no?

Agreed...
I believe you might enjoy http://www.amazon.com/Message-Quran...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201049602&sr=8-1

Download Description
The Message of the Quran is one of the most respected translations and commentaries of the Quran in existence in any language. The commentary is drawn from classical Islamic sources and contains in depth linguistic and historical information. Muhammad Asad was born in Austria in 1900 as Leopold Weiss and went on to become one of the foremost Muslim intellectuals of the 20th Century, as well as Pakistan's first ambassador to the UN.

I wish you success on your quest insha'Allah..

:w:
 
plz check this out
source:FOSSIL SKULLS

BLOW FROM FOSSIL SKULLS TO DARWINISM



Each and every evolutionist examining the fossils may come up with a different scenario based on his own imagination, which in fact has no scientific value.

Darwin’s thesis, suggesting that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor, could not be supported by scientific findings, neither during the period it was first proposed, nor in the years since the middle of the 19th century—that is, for approximately 150 years, all efforts put forth to support the fable of man’s evolution have proved void.

All fossils collected have proven that apes were always apes and men were always men; that apes did not transform into men, and that apes and men shared no common ancestor.

Despite Darwinists’ intense propaganda and attempts of intimidation in academic circles, many scientists have found the courage to express this truth. One of them is David Pilbeam, a paleontologist of Harvard University, who states that the so-called evolution of man is a suggestion devoid of any scientific data:

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “Forget it; there isn’t enough to go on.”1



A 20-million-year-old fossilized
tiger skull

William Fix, author of The Bone Peddlers, a book on paleontology, expresses how the so-called “evolution” of man is not supported by scientific evidence:

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is “no doubt” how man originated. If only they had the evidence. . . . 2

In the face of the disappointment caused by the fossil record and the lack of any evidence, evolutionists could only re-arrange the fake skulls several times and make speculations about skulls which have been documented to be counterfeits. However, researches made on the skulls of apes, as well as other living beings and different human races that lived in the past, revealed that these living beings have had existed with all the features they had and have not changed throughout history.

This means that living beings have not undergone any process of evolution, and have all been created by the All-Mighty God. As the examples in the following pages also reveal, as well as other organs and limbs of many living creatures such as frogs, lizards, dragonflies, flies and cockroaches, their heads also have not changed. The head structures of birds and fish also remained the same. From the first moment, lions, wolves, foxes, rhinoceroses, pandas, tigers, leopards and hyenas were created, they had the same head structures and they retained these same structures for tens of millions of years.

This unchanging anatomy refutes the claim of evolution of living beings.



A 20-million-year-old fossilized rhino skull

This sameness, which is common to all species, also holds true for man. Just as no changes have happened in the head structures of tens of thousands of living species over millions of years, no evolutional change occurred in the skulls of men. Just as fish have always remained as fish, birds have always remained as birds and reptiles remained as reptiles, so men always remained as men. No organ or structure of any living being have “evolved” from the primitive to more advanced forms, as evolutionists continually suggest.

While evolutionists talk about the so-called evolution of man, they make their own evolutionary arrangement and family tree, presenting the volumes, eyebrow projection or forehead structures of the skulls they unearth as evidence. But these structural differences are by no means any evidence for evolution, for some of these skulls belong to different races of men who lived in the past, whereas others belong to some extinct species of ape. It is utterly natural that different human races should have different skull structures. Different fish species also have differently shaped heads. For instance the shape of head of a salmon trout is much different from that of an eel, yet both are fish.

Similarly, there are differences between the skull structures of different human races. There are differences in forehead structures, eyeholes, eyebrow projections and skull volumes between Pigmies and British, Russians and Chinese, Aborigines and Inuit or Blacks and Japanese. Yet these differences do not mean that one race has evolved from another or that any particular race is “more primitive” or “more advanced” than any other.

ALL THROUGH TIME,
NO CHANGE HAS EVER OCCURRED IN THE SKULLS OF ANY SPECIES

Just like all other organs and features, the skulls and the head structures of the various species have remained exactly the same for millions of years. No evolutionary change has ever occurred in the skulls of any living creature. Just like all those species that remained exactly the same for millions of years without any evolutionary change, nor have humans ever faced any evolutionary change. We have always existed as humans, with all our anatomical features. The skulls that are put forward as evidence for so-called evolution belong either to extinct species of monkeys, or to human races that no longer exist today. And none of them can be accepted as evidence for evolution.
















As long as an Aborigine line does not mix up with another race, their features will always remain the same. No matter how much time passes, these people will not evolve in such a way as to acquire different features. They will not acquire skulls with bigger volumes or different anatomical features.




Some races living today, like the Malaysian native to the side, have the large eyebrow projections and the foreheads that are inclined backwards—features peculiar to Homo erectus skulls.






For instance, some Malaysian natives living today have the large eyebrow projections and the foreheads that are inclined backwards—a feature peculiar to Homo erectus skulls, which evolutionists call “primitive.” If the suggestions of evolutionists were true, then these Malaysian natives should have the so-called structure and appearance of an under-developed man, who was recently evolved from apes. However, this is by no means the case. The fact that some anatomical features of the Homo erectus skull are also seen today reveals that H. erectus was not a primitive species, as well as the fact that the evolutionist scenario of “man’s family tree” is simply a lie.

DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES THAT LIVED IN HISTORY COMPOSE
NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!


Neanderthals are an extinct human race who possessed an advanced sense of art and aesthetics. Evolutionists have presented Neanderthals as apelike ancestors of humans, but such claims have been categorically refuted by recent scientific findings.

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) are humans who appeared in Europe 100,000 years ago and ceased to exist approximately 35,000 years ago-or may have been assimilated by mixing with other human races. The main differences between them and present-day humans are that their skeletons are a bit more massive and the average volumes of their skulls are a bit larger. Scientific findings point out that Neanderthals were a fully human race with a level of intelligence and culture no different than those of ours.

Cro-Magnon Man is also a race believed to have lived 30,000 years ago. They have a dome-shaped skull and a wide forehead. The 1600-cubic-centimeter volume of their skull is higher than that of the average present-day human. They have thick eyebrow bulges on their skulls and also have a bony bulge at the back of their skulls, which is also a characteristic feature of Neanderthals.

Much the same kind of physical differences between the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals also exist between the present-day human races. Just as the diversities between an American and an Inuit, or an African and a European, do not prove that any one of them is superior to any other; so physical properties of these extinct races do not make them primitive or ape-like. These races were assimilated by the other races or, for some unknown reason, they left the stage of history. Yet in no way were they “primitives” or “half-apes.” They existed as perfect human beings.


In brief, the fact that some races of humans who lived in the past have different anatomical structures is no evidence for evolution. Anatomical differences can be seen in every age, between every different human race. The skulls of Americans and Japanese, Europeans and Aborigines, Inuit, Blacks or Pygmies are not the same. Yet this does not suggest that any of these races is more advanced or more primitive than any other.


If, thousands of years later, a scientist finds the skull of an American 1.90 meters tall who lived in the 2000s and decides to compare it with the skull of a Japanese 1.60 meters in height who also lived in the 21st century, he will observe many differences, the size being the first.

If, based on these differences, he claims that Americans were more advanced in the imaginary evolutionary process while Japanese were simply primitive hominids, his interpretation will surely be far from reflecting the truth.

Moreover, size of a skull is no measure of a human being’s intelligence or skills. Many people have adequately-developed bodies, but limited mental capabilities. Similarly, there are many very intelligent people whose bodies and indeed, skulls are smaller than others’. Based solely on size, ranking these people’s skulls into a so-called evolutionary arrangement would surely have no scientific value, for any such arrangement will not reflect the facts. Differences in skull volume makes no difference on intelligence and skills, as is well-known.

The skull of someone who engages in intense mental activities throughout his life does not grow. He simply becomes more mentally capable. Intelligence changes not according to the volume of the brain, but via the organization of neurons and synapses within the brain. 3

Imitation in Apes Does Not Mean that Apes Can Evolve into Humans

Darwinists claim that the imitative capability of apes is evidence for their allegation that apes evolved into humans. True, apes are capable of imitating the gestures and behaviors they see. When trained to do so, they can differentiate the shapes and colors of objects, and react intelligently to stimuli. However, this does not mean that they evolved into humans over the course of time. If such was the case, then all the animal species known to be intelligent—dogs, cats, horses—should be expected to evolve into humans gradually.

For instance, when parrots are trained, they can discriminate square shapes from the circles, red from blue, and can replace objects in the right places. Moreover, the parrots have the ability to talk by imitating human voices, which apes cannot do. In which case—according to the unreasonable claims of the Darwinists—parrots should have a greater possibility of evolving into intelligent humans.

The fox is another animal known for its intelligence. According to Darwinists’ unreasonable and unscientific logic, the skull size of foxes should grow gradually, proportional to their intelligence, and in time, these mammals should evolve into a species as intelligent and conscious as humans. However this transformation never happened. Foxes have always remained foxes.

It is amazing to watch people with academic careers seriously trying to explain these unreasonable claims, by embellishing them with scientific terms and Latin words. No matter how the apes develop their mental capabilities and manual skills, or imitate what they see around them, this would not some day make them humans. Apes have always been apes, and will always remain so. And no matter how hard evolutionists may argue otherwise, the truth is evident: Man has come into existence not through any evolutionary process but has been created by God, with the intelligence, consciousness and conscience God has given him.

Man was created as man and has existed as man since his creation. This is the truth that both wisdom and science have shown us.

The Tale of Human Evolution is Full of Deceptions

Throughout geologic history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most have gone extinct. Today, only 120 ape species remain on the Earth. But those approximately 6,000 extinct species of apes constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists. They created a scenario for human evolution that suited their purposes by arranging some of the skulls of extinct ape species and human races in an order, from the smallest to the largest and embellishing them with prejudiced comments. By using these methods, they have been trying for years to gain adherents for the theory of evolution and deceive people. But now they need to see that the methods they’ve employed are no longer of any use.



Some of the fabricated evidence that evolutionists use to convince others that the scenario of human evolution is true are these:

1. The Piltdown Man, discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912 and which was alleged to be 500,000 years old, was displayed as an absolute proof of so-called human evolution. However, about 40 years after the “fossil” was discovered, scientists examined it once more and revealed an astonishing forgery. The Piltdown Man’s skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and its mandibular bone belonged to a recently deceased ape. The teeth had been specially arranged and added to the jaw, and their joints filed down in order to make them resemble those of a human. Then all these pieces of bone had been stained with potassium dichromate to give them an ancient appearance.

2. In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossilized molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene epoch in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape, and came from a new species dubbed “Nebraska Man.” Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska Man’s head and body were conjectured. Moreover, Nebraska Man was even pictured with his entire family! But in 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found, and these newly discovered pieces showed that the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops.

3. Ramapithecus is known to be the biggest and longest-lasting fallacies of the theory of evolution. This name was given to fossils found in India in 1932, which allegedly represented the first stage of the split between the man and the ape, which supposedly occurred 14 million years ago. This fossil was used as solid evidence by the evolutionists for 50-some years. However, further analysis revealed that the dental characteristics of Ramapithecus were quite similar to that of some living chimpanzees. For example, Theropithecus galada, a high-altitude baboon living in Ethiopia, has incisors and canines, which are small relative to those of other living apes, and a short face like Ramapithecus. In the April 1982 issue of Science, an article titled “Humans lose an early ancestor” announced that Ramapithecus is only an extinct orangutan.



4. In July 1984, a nearly complete fossilized skeleton of an obvious human was discovered in Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is assumed that this fossil, nicknamed Turkana Boy, had been about 12 years old, and would have stood 1.83 meters tall when he became an adult. The erect structure of the skeleton is in no way different from humans today. The long, tall build of this skeleton totally matches with the skeletons of men currently living in the world’s tropical regions. Richard Leakey said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today.4 Since this human skeleton was found in strata dated to be 1.6 million years old, it was classified by age alone as another representative of Homo erectus. The Turkana Boy is a typical example of the prejudiced and tendentious interpretation of the fossils by evolutionists.

5. “Lucy” is the name given to the fossil discovered by anthropologist Donald Johanson in 1974. Many evolutionists claimed that Lucy was the transitional form between the humans and their so-called hominid ancestors. However further analysis on this fossil revealed that Lucy is only the member of an extinct ape species, known as Australopithecus. The brain size of the Australopithecus is similar to chimpanzees. Many other characteristics—such as details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms and short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today’s chimpanzees. Even the pelvis is similar to that of chimpanzees.5

6. Richard Leakey presented the skull designated KNM-ER 1470—which he said was 2.8 million years old—as the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to him, this creature had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus, together with a face similar to that of present-day humans, and was the missing link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet after a short while, it was realized that the KNM-ER 1470 skull’s human-like face, which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific journals and popular scientific magazines, was the result of an incorrect assembly of skull fragments—which “mistake” may have been deliberate.



As you have seen, there is no scientific discovery that supports, much less confirms, the theory of evolution, only some scientists who believe in it blindly. These scientists believe in the myth of evolution themselves, even though it lacks any scientific foundation, and also try to make others believe it by using deceptive constructions and prejudiced interpretations. All the news about the so-called “ancestor of humans” and the illustrations used in these news are simply fabrications. Solid evidence has demolished the tale of human evolution.

In the following pages, we give some examples of the innumerable fossilized skulls that invalidate the theory of evolution. These skulls are among the evidence that none of these living creatures has ever changed throughout history, that none has transformed itself into another species and that every species has always existed with all the features it possessed from the very beginning.

Along with these pieces of evidence, the impasse and the absence of logic in Darwinist thought are presented. For example, Darwinists claim that species improved through continuous change. But how do they explain the constancy which is regularly seen in all living creatures? The theory of evolution that claims humans are supposedly descended from apes should also explain why other species have not undergone a process of transformation similar to the imaginary one apes have supposedly experienced.

Darwinists have no answer as to why bears have not decided to become bipedal on a given day, or why a fox has not been evolved into a skilled professor by developing its intelligence, or why a panda has not become a painter who creates impressive works of art. The subject of evolution has been depicted with examples and logics that even children could easily dismiss, simply to proclaim the inconceivable irrationality of Darwinism. Darwinism is presented as if it were a scientific theory, but is in fact an inconceivably irrational ideology.

As you shall see, Darwinism is the biggest scandal in history, founded entirely on lies and fraud and on irrational and illogical claims. The entire world will witness the final collapse of Darwinism in the 21st century.




http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_03.php
these are the three volumes of the book"Atlas of Creation" by harun yahya.
he has written the most valuable stuff proving creation and refuting darwinism....providing clear cut scientific evidences.
these three volumes are available for free.other books regarding the same subject are also availabe.
a must read!
dont forget to check this.
am sorry i couldnt upload the pictures,follow the link:D
 
plz check this out
source:FOSSIL SKULLS

Despite Darwinists’ intense propaganda and attempts of intimidation in academic circles, many scientists have found the courage to express this truth. One of them is David Pilbeam, a paleontologist of Harvard University, who states that the so-called evolution of man is a suggestion devoid of any scientific data:

What a load of BULL. Hanya has just done a copy n paste job from a book that is now 17 years old. (Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43) David Pilbeam NEVER made the above comments, Leakey did?


If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “Forget it; there isn’t enough to go on.”1

OK. Let's rip this crap apart and expose the trickery employed by the creationist brigade.

What Menton left out, however, was the complete context, which is more esoteric. The quote was in reference to a discussion about the specific branching of hominoids that occurred previous to the Australopithecine era of Lucy, and was not meant as a broad indictment of evolution in general as Menton implied. Pilbeam said, and I quote at length because the issue is nuanced:

Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man’s closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orangutan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the ‘hominoids’. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as ‘the fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, ‘If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “forget it; there isn’t enough to go on”.’ Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete…. Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago


The point was about when chimps and humans branched from a common ancestor, not whether ape-like ancestors were present in both hominoids’ lineage.

David Pilbeam’s estimates of the branching times for the various groups of hominoids. That’s just chapter three (”Ape-Like Ancestors”). Chapter four (”The Early Hominids”) picks up on the near side of the fossil gap referred to in the quote.” To paint Pilbeam as equivocating about evolutionary principles is disingenuous at best.

BUMP :D

A 20-million-year-old fossilized
tiger skull

William Fix, author of The Bone Peddlers, a book on paleontology, expresses how the so-called “evolution” of man is not supported by scientific evidence:

OK, this 20+ year old book by a writer who niether subscribes to evolution or creation, He's a believer in psychogenesis, that there are psychic powers that have been shaping humanity. He cites as evidence Kathryn Kuhlman and Oral Roberts, the faith healers, and thinks the psychic investigators JB Rhine and Russel Targ were hot stuff. And then there's Uri Geller and Rupert Sheldrake and Charles Tart, out-of-body experiences and reincarnation. He argues for the "celestial origin of the first human beings", claiming that we flew here from other planets, and that for a long time people flitted back and forth, giving rise to ancient stories of gods born to humans and divine ascensions and returns. He wrote several other books along these lines, Star Maps and Pyramid Odyssey.


BUMP :D
 
:sl:

Oh, I have much sympathy for devout Roman Catholics whose institution have done so much to drag down their iman (faith and fidelity). :cry:
Well first off, the Catholic Church did not bring down my Faith at all. If anything, it helped me a lot.

But obviously, there are becoming many problems in the Catholic community.. a ton of people leaving Catholicism. Most are going to Protestantism.

I live in Texas, and Texas obviously has a lot of Hispanics. The city I am in is about 30% Hispanic! Anyways, and as I drive through town, I see a lot of signs in spanish like "ingelsia baptista" or "inglesia de christos" etc, and not a whole lot of "Catolico romana!"

I think the main reason why is because the major shortage of Catholic clergy, and the lack of Churches. There are only 8 people in the Catholic Seminary right now in my city that has a metro of 1.4 million people and is growing very rapidly, especially the Catholic population. But in many cases, there is just not a Catholic Church near! and if it is, it is packed full. And the Priests are so busy all day that it is hard to do anything! But then all throughout the neighborhoods there are house church after house church, and even bigger protestant churches. There are ministers who are willing to devote their time to you. These Churches are like little small families in a sense.. If one has financial problems, they do money offerings. They always give to the poor, and they are always there for each other.

92% of immigrants into the USA from Latin America are Catholic. About half of them become protestant. Each year, 600,000(yes, that is right, SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND) leave Catholicism and become Protestant.

However, we all know what the problem is.. The Catholic Church lacks in being there for people. There is a shortage of Churches and Priests!

And obviously, our college base is very open minded to new ideas. you have many people converting to Judaism and Islam, and other religions as well!
 
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_03.php
these are the three volumes of the book"Atlas of Creation" by harun yahya.
he has written the most valuable stuff proving creation and refuting darwinism....providing clear cut scientific evidences.
these three volumes are available for free.other books regarding the same subject are also availabe.
a must read!
dont forget to check this.
am sorry i couldnt upload the pictures,follow the link:D
Adnan Oktar went do school for interior design and practices pseudo science.
No real scientist takes him seriously. He is a disgrace to both Islam and science.
 
lol not really willberhum, it is dawkins who is a disgrace, he is an extremist scientist, who is sending wrong messasges to the world. he should be ashamed
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top