Islam, how much do you really know about it?

[Sui]

I hope I have explained where I am coming from. Honestly if you have an argument I would love to hear it but I think it would be better if you took some time to develop your argument first.

There is much about evolution that I do not understand, nor will I pretend to understand it. I wouldn't be surprised if my knowledge about it is outdated. That does not mean that I'm completely ignorant about the subject and that I simply spout off whatever sounds good.

I understand where you are coming from and I would be more than happy to re-educate myself. Although it does not take a deep understanding of the theory to reject its fundamental premises. Despite being in disagreement with what I've read, I try to remain neutral. It is not my place to argue against or try to disprove evolution. I have my beliefs and I will leave the scientific endeavors to those who fully comprehend the subject matter. I simply meant to state that the more I understand it, the less sense it makes to me, nothing more.

 

[Sui]

Who says its chance?

Maybe God is guiding evolution the way he sees fit. Ever think of that?

Of course I've thought of that. However, that is the key word here: maybe. I prefer to stay neutral on the subject since my knowledge is undoubtedly limited. Whether evolution is a part of biological history or not, I believe intelligent and purposeful design is behind everything.

 

[Caladan]

The opinion that God is guiding evolution is flawed for one main reason; evolution does not mean progress. the developed complexity of some life forms is a side effect.

 

[Gharib]

zohar actually has 12 rakaats

is this about Ishaa/eeshaa yes you are right i just put the Salti Witr in it as well 12 for the last pryer and then another 3 for Salati Witr. am i right

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

There is much about evolution that I do not understand, nor will I pretend to understand it. .... Although it does not take a deep understanding of the theory to reject its fundamental premises.

Frankly Your last statement is one that matters.
I would rephrase it thou..
"Although it requires not understanding the theory to reject its fundamental premises."

If you understood them, then you wouldnt reject it.

The mere fact that you want to leave it to the scientists more or less is an open confession to surrendering yourself to superstition of any kind. You may limit that to your interpretation of creationism of some particular religion. But in the end by the mere method you use your ideas have no more credibility than those of people claiming the universe is held up by a column of giant turtles .. one above each other.

Thats actually a very sad thing.

 

[Sui]

Frankly Your last statement is one that matters.
I would rephrase it thou..
"Although it requires not understanding the theory to reject its fundamental premises."

If you understood them, then you wouldnt reject it.

The mere fact that you want to leave it to the scientists more or less is an open confession to surrendering yourself to superstition of any kind. You may limit that to your interpretation of creationism of some particular religion. But in the end by the mere method you use your ideas have no more credibility than those of people claiming the universe is held up by a column of giant turtles .. one above each other.

Thats actually a very sad thing.

So, those of us with a limited understanding of the theory should ignore what scientists have to say about it? They are knowledgeable of the subject and therefore have much more credibility than I do. I did not say I am going to ignore evolution and just leave it to the experts. In fact, I said "I would be more than happy to re-educate myself". Until I come to have a thorough understanding, then yes, I am going to leave it to the scientists.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

So, those of us with a limited understanding of the theory should ignore what scientists have to say about it?

Well IF you believe in creationism then frankly what you write here is exactly what you do: you ignore the great majority of scientists telling you that creationism is not backed up by science while evolution is.

Apart of that i indeed think that it is not a good idea to take what someone has to say for granted just because he supposedly knows. I do not believe in the argument of authority when it comes to (for me) important questions. I do believe in sound evidence and if the matter at hand is important i try to understand the claims and examine evidence as much as i can.

 

[challupa]

I think what I see here is that creationists need to have proof that is absolute before they will believe that evolution happened. I ask how that can be when you are willing to take what the bible says on faith with no empirical proof and yet not give the Theory of Evolution any credibility because there are still unknowns. Is that not a contradiction of thinking. After all God gave us brains to try to figure out our surroundings so why would he have prevented us from researching and coming up with evidence of an evolutionary process? I am not taking either side in this at the moment, merely pointing out that if it proof that makes you believe in something, you have contradicted yourself.

 

[studentmomma]

Would anyone of the Islam religion mind doing an interview for me to help me with my final that is due is my religions class? Thanks for any help that can be given.

 

[Sui]

Well IF you believe in creationism then frankly what you write here is exactly what you do: you ignore the great majority of scientists telling you that creationism is not backed up by science while evolution is.

Apart of that i indeed think that it is not a good idea to take what someone has to say for granted just because he supposedly knows. I do not believe in the argument of authority when it comes to (for me) important questions. I do believe in sound evidence and if the matter at hand is important i try to understand the claims and examine evidence as much as i can.

I do not ignore what scientists have to say, as that goes against the principles of Islam. So, I take into consideration as much as possible. You say that you don't allow scientists to have authority over you when it comes to important questions. However, when I express my general thoughts on the subject in disagreement with it, you say I am ignoring science. Don't I have the same ability to disregard scientific authority when it comes to important questions?

 

[Sui]

Would anyone of the Islam religion mind doing an interview for me to help me with my final that is due is my religions class? Thanks for any help that can be given.

Hi, studentmomma.

I'm not sure how many Muslims are online these days, perhaps they are busy. I am a convert, not sure if that makes a difference or not. If none of the more knowledgeable brothers and sisters are able to help, I would be more than happy to do so.

 

[Gharib]

to add some info on this evolution theory i have to say that the evolutionists beleive that birds evolved from reptiles, ok thats fine. but the BIG problem is that the lungs of thEse 2 animals are completely different, birds breathe in but don't breathe out, and rEptiles breathe in and out. so for a change in the lungs of these 2 species a sudden change is required, thus proving the evolution theory wrong, evolution is a slow process wich requires thousands of years for one species to evolve to another,

so would any evolutionist like to explain how this is possible.

 

[kai]

to add some info on this evolution theory i have to say that the evolutionists beleive that birds evolved from reptiles, ok thats fine. but the BIG problem is that the lungs of thEse 2 animals are completely different, birds breathe in but don't breathe out, and rEptiles breathe in and out. so for a change in the lungs of these 2 species a sudden change is required, thus proving the evolution theory wrong, evolution is a slow process wich requires thousands of years for one species to evolve to another,

so would any evolutionist like to explain how this is possible.

i think the notion is they evolved from dinosaurs not reptiles.

 

[Masourga]

so for a change in the lungs of these 2 species a sudden change is required

I don't understand. Why is the conclusion you make that a sudden change be required for this? Reptiles don't have feathers either... another complete difference between the two. So why would you be willing to over-look that to bring up the lungs?

Nothing says ANY of those changes had to be sudden. There's no argument to be made there honestly.

 

[Riverwolf]

to add some info on this evolution theory i have to say that the evolutionists beleive that birds evolved from reptiles, ok thats fine. but the BIG problem is that the lungs of thEse 2 animals are completely different, birds breathe in but don't breathe out, and rEptiles breathe in and out. so for a change in the lungs of these 2 species a sudden change is required, thus proving the evolution theory wrong, evolution is a slow process wich requires thousands of years for one species to evolve to another,

so would any evolutionist like to explain how this is possible.

Ever hear of mutations?

Not noticeable physically with your eyes, but on the genetic level there have already been many mutations over the last 1000 years in the human genome.

This sudden change that you notice is certainly possible through this.

 

[Sententia]

to add some info on this evolution theory i have to say that the evolutionists beleive that birds evolved from reptiles, ok thats fine. but the BIG problem is that the lungs of thEse 2 animals are completely different, birds breathe in but don't breathe out, and rEptiles breathe in and out. so for a change in the lungs of these 2 species a sudden change is required, thus proving the evolution theory wrong, evolution is a slow process wich requires thousands of years for one species to evolve to another,

so would any evolutionist like to explain how this is possible.

Not the best argument. Have you ever researched this or are just reading the first thing that comes up in google to support your argument? It is important to note that birds evolving from dinosaurs is a theory and as such could be refuted and disproven.

However so far this theory remains the best theory but perhaps you can disprove it.

 

[Gharib]

there is also the theory that fish became into land creatures by just comming out of the water, i too have been in water and i didn't see any changes. the fishto reptiletheory is aslo impossible, heres why.
water animals do not have gravity in the water, thus they have zero weight. so to transform into a land animal they would recuire many sudden transformations such as:
legs, new muscles in their body, to be able to breathe through their mouth instead of the nostrils, etc. so in order for a water animal to change into a land animals these changes are required to happent within 5 minutes otherwise the animal would die without water. and the evolutionists claim that "evolution" is a very slow process wich requires thousands of years to be fully completed, so not only does this prove the theory wrong but there are also the "transitional forms" that haven't been found yet, this completely proves the theory wrong if the two points are combined ie. the transitionals forms and the sudden changes.

 

[Sententia]

there is also the theory that fish became into land creatures by just comming out of the water, i too have been in water and i didn't see any changes. the fishto reptiletheory is aslo impossible, heres why.
water animals do not have gravity in the water, thus they have zero weight. so to transform into a land animal they would recuire many sudden transformations such as:
legs, new muscles in their body, to be able to breathe through their mouth instead of the nostrils, etc. so in order for a water animal to change into a land animals these changes are required to happent within 5 minutes otherwise the animal would die without water. and the evolutionists claim that "evolution" is a very slow process wich requires thousands of years to be fully completed, so not only does this prove the theory wrong but there are also the "transitional forms" that haven't been found yet, this completely proves the theory wrong if the two points are combined ie. the transitionals forms and the sudden changes.

You actually believe this?

Its completely ridiculous.

 

[Riverwolf]

there is also the theory that fish became into land creatures by just comming out of the water, i too have been in water and i didn't see any changes. the fishto reptiletheory is aslo impossible, heres why.
water animals do not have gravity in the water, thus they have zero weight. so to transform into a land animal they would recuire many sudden transformations such as:
legs, new muscles in their body, to be able to breathe through their mouth instead of the nostrils, etc. so in order for a water animal to change into a land animals these changes are required to happent within 5 minutes otherwise the animal would die without water. and the evolutionists claim that "evolution" is a very slow process wich requires thousands of years to be fully completed, so not only does this prove the theory wrong but there are also the "transitional forms" that haven't been found yet, this completely proves the theory wrong if the two points are combined ie. the transitionals forms and the sudden changes.

Ever hear of lungfish?

I'd like to point out that the reverse has happened: air-breathing animals taking to the waters. They're called whales. Dolphins, whales, and porpoises are related genetically to cows, bison, and buffalo. They still have to breath air from time to time, a few of them able to hold their breath for hours upon hours, but I guarantee you that sometime in the distant future, they'll evolve gills.

According to science, the first animals to take to the land evolved into amphibians. And I'd theorize based on the above that the first fish to take to the land had the same problem: they had to return to the water from time to time so they could breath. Eventually they'd be able to evolve air-breathing lungs.

 

[Riverwolf]

You actually believe this?

Its completely ridiculous.

I found it to be a very good point, and it took me a few minutes to come up with a possible explanation off the top of my head. Actual scientists should be able to give their real theories based on actual studies.