4 creatures creat (or evolute) new creature?

[outhouse]

Evolution only disproves the Abrahamic Theology about the creation of man. It does not disprove god at all

Wrong.

The creation mythology was never ment to be read literally.

The Abrahamic Theology properly translates with allegory and metaphor, those that take a literal reading are the mistaken ones, and there is no shortage of those.

 

[Amechania]

mmmm, sprem and eggs.

 

[Question_love_act]

gnostic is right, Godobeyer.

Evolution says nothing about if God exists or does not exist. Some people think it does, but they are wrong. Only creationists and anti-theists do, and both should not be taken seriously.

Indeed! The purpose of evolution is explaining speciation (creation of species). No theory should be taken out of context.

 

[Question_love_act]

The struggle for existence was later described by Islamic writer Al-Jahiz in the 9th century, who argued that environmental factors influence animals to develop new characteristics to ensure survival. According to Rainow, the 11th century scholar Abu Rayhan Biruni described the idea of artificial selection and argued that nature works in much the same way.
​

Source: Wikipedia, natural selection (Sorry I left the source out since I'm new I can't post an Internet link. So please see the Wikipedia source on Odion's comment.)

Awesome! And not surprising at the same time. It shows how sometimes science is taught in an ethnocentric way.​

 

[Breathe]

Indeed! The purpose of evolution is explaining speciation (creation of species). No theory should be taken out of context.

Indeed it shouldn't, but they frequently are.

Awesome! And not surprising at the same time. It shows how sometimes science is taught in an ethnocentric way.

Yeah, though I think.... or hope... it's because of a lack of resources on the topic that will soon be remedied.

 

[Godobeyer]

mmmm, sprem and eggs.

mmmmm, man and woman

so my point of this thread , there are 4 elements , to creat new creature (baby)

 

[Godobeyer]

Which part of Darwin's theory of evolution is rejected?

Also, evolution is no longer just of Darwin; as we have learnt more, we had expanded upon it.

the part that tell that origine of human is monkey .

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Sexual reproduction is not the only way to generate a new life, even naturally; asexual reproduction is possible with many organisms and even among those that use sexual reproduction, it need not be male and female or even two different individuals (it could be from the same individual serving as both 'parents')

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction

 

[Godobeyer]

Sexual reproduction is not the only way to generate a new life, even naturally; asexual reproduction is possible with many organisms and even among those that use sexual reproduction, it need not be male and female or even two different individuals (it could be from the same individual serving as both 'parents')

Reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that .

So God can creat for nothing too , exemple Adam , and creat from one man , (Eve comes from Adam ) , and creat from one woman (Jesus (pbuh) came from Marry ) ...Etc

it's easy for God to creat anything from nothing to show us his power .

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Huh? How on earth did we just go from a discussion about reproduction and different types of sexual reproduction to the assertion of a god, that nothing existed, that matter and energy were created from nothing and assembled into a living being?

How did we get to the point of 'so god can create from nothing too'? Nothing in my statement implied spontaneous generation of life or matter; you start with an individual (or two) who reproduce to form some derivative thereof. Unless you are claiming that god is our ancestor and that he engaged in asexual reproduction to produce humans? I just do not see how it factors into a discussion about reproduction.

 

[Godobeyer]

Huh? How on earth did we just go from a discussion about reproduction and different types of sexual reproduction to the assertion of a god, that nothing existed, that matter and energy were created from nothing and assembled into a living being?

How did we get to the point of 'so god can create from nothing too'? Nothing in my statement implied spontaneous generation of life or matter; you start with an individual (or two) who reproduce to form some derivative thereof. Unless you are claiming that god is our ancestor and that he engaged in asexual reproduction to produce humans? I just do not see how it factors into a discussion about reproduction.

that's what we called , faith

so ,let me talking about beliefs and faith .

creat from nothing is very simple for God , so look at your self , you almost came from nothing ,just sprem and egg !!!

so tell me which came first, the sprem and egg OR the woman and man ?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Almost nothing is VERY VERY different to nothing. I came from genetic material from my father encapsulated in sperm generated in his testicles which made its way to the ovum (encapsualting yet more genetic material from my mother) generated by my mother's ovaries and then housed within her womb and was supplied (through my umbilical cord and placenta) with an ongoing supply of nutrients over my gestation period which my mother obtained through eating.


I have no idea what you are asking...or how faith factors into it. Are we talking about sexual reproduction of human being or are we talking about proposed alternatives for the origin of humanity?

In such a case your question simply makes no sense; it assumes that each generation is identical in the question which is simply not the case. 'Man' is not a fixed entity from one generation to the next, nor is woman, nor are the reproductive units involved. It is the same with the chicken and the egg riddle, it is a question which is poorly formed - it ignores that 'chicken' is merely a label we give to the animal at it's current stage in it's evolution and the term 'egg' as it is used in this case is clearly intended to mean 'chicken egg' yet is not stated as such.

It is by assuming that there is no such thing as evolution that your question becomes something that might be considered valid; in light of evolution it simply does not hold meaning. It isn't something that can be answered without defining what precisely constitutes a human in terms of genetics - i.e. at what point in our evolutionary path do we clearly transition from nonhuman to human and that is nonsensical, the change is so incredibly small between each generation that they would be considered the same species as their parent/offspring.... likewise the sperm and egg (given the inference that they be human sperm and human egg) would face the same problem. In light of evolution the question simply makes no sense to me.

 

[Ouroboros]

the part that tell that origine of human is monkey .

That part doesn't exist. You have misunderstood the theory.

 

[Godobeyer]

That part doesn't exist. You have misunderstood the theory.

so make me understand it

 

[Breathe]

the part that tell that origine of human is monkey .

Ah, but it doesn't.

Evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys.

We and monkeys evolved from another ancestor species.

It is small mutations each time, over millions of years.

Do these images help to understand how evolution works?

 

[Ouroboros]

so make me understand it

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Humans share ancestors with all living things. Our closest relative (not grandparent) is the chimpanzees. And it is confirmed in the DNA.

There's a difference.

Put it this way, let me ask you, do you come from your brother? Is your brother your father? No, of course not. But your brother and you share the same parents (unless you're adopted or half-sibling). So it happens, it can be seen in the DNA. The same goes for monkeys and apes. It can be proven in the DNA that we share ancestry (grand-grand-grand-grand...-grand-...parents) with them. We also share ancestry with bananas. But we didn't come from bananas, or apes, or monkeys.

On another note, there's a big difference between apes and monkeys. Look it up.

 

[Oz-Man]

I think they are wrong to do it.

Evolution does not say there is no God. Evolution cannot say there is no God. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. Evolution is about how life changes, not God.


I believe that God exists, and evolution is how life changes to suit its needs.

You could think evolution is the way God creates life; "continual, eternal creation of God". "Evolution is the mechanism of creation".

Or you could think that God "guides" the evolution of species. But I don't think this it is "guided" by God.

Or both.

The Qur'an does say seven seas could not contain all of the words of God.




But Islam does not say that God created life in one day, or say anything against evolution, in my opinion. I think it is only misconceptions of evolution and from reading the Qur'an without looking deeper into the meanings. The Qur'an says it uses "unspecific" (Arabic: متشابها&#1578 verses too.

Sahih International: It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

.الله اعلم​

lulwut?

You do realize that the majority of Islamic scholarship is directly against the theory of evolution? The theory of Evolution is in direct contradiction with the story of Adam and Eve. Yet; you somehow take precedence over Islamic scholars when analyzing the Quran?

I mean; I find it good that more Muslims are starting to accept Evolution but its also silly the way they try to accommodate for it.

 

[Oz-Man]

And BTW, why do you pose the question of atheism or atheist to me?

I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. They are not the same thing.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive; you are both an Agnostic and an Atheist.

 

[Breathe]

You do realize that the majority of Islamic scholarship is directly against the theory of evolution?

A modern and depressing phenomenon which is mostly caused by Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) to propagate ignorance of what evolution actually is, teamed up with some Christian literalist buddies, and not one that goes with Islamic history or the mindset to 'seek knowledge'.

The struggle for existence was later described by Islamic writer Al-Jahiz in the 9th century, who argued that environmental factors influence animals to develop new characteristics to ensure survival. According to Rainow, the 11th century scholar Abu Rayhan Biruni described the idea of artificial selection and argued that nature works in much the same way

-- Source: Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

The theory of Evolution is in direct contradiction with the story of Adam and Eve.

Clever, did you work that out on your own?

Yet; you somehow take precedence over Islamic scholars when analyzing the Quran?

The Qur'an is not completely literal, and it includes many metaphorical sections within it. The story of Adam and Eve is one that I take as metaphorical, in addition to the story of Noah.

There's nothing wrong in listening to experts in this field. If I want to know about evolution, I'll speak to a biologist or someone who is well-versed in it, in the same way I'll speak to a doctor if I'm feeling ill, I won't go to my friend who's a plasterer.

I mean; I find it good that more Muslims are starting to accept Evolution but its also silly the way they try to accommodate for it.

You have shown no reason why it's 'silly'. So far I've seen nought but ignorance, so by all means, please enlighten me.

 

[Oz-Man]

A modern and depressing phenomenon which is mostly caused by Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) to propagate ignorance of what evolution actually is, teamed up with some Christian literalist buddies, and not one that goes with Islamic history or the mindset to 'seek knowledge'.

A "modern" phenomenon? Are you being serious right now? Islam has been dictating the Adam and Eve story since the time of the prophet. You are telling me that the majority of Muslims since the death of the prophet have been actively believing in the theory of evolution and then suddenly Oktar came along and changed all that? haha yeah right. It being MOSTLY caused by Oktar is a ridiculous statement too since its been the position of the four schools since their creation.

The Qur'an is not completely literal, and it includes many metaphorical sections within it. The story of Adam and Eve is one that I take as metaphorical, in addition to the story of Noah.

There's nothing wrong in listening to experts in this field. If I want to know about evolution, I'll speak to a biologist or someone who is well-versed in it, in the same way I'll speak to a doctor if I'm feeling ill, I won't go to my friend who's a plasterer.

Oh here it comes the; "things i like ill take literal; things i don't like is metaphorical". A common creationist tactic used to battle the inconsistencies of their religion. Islamic scholarship is of the view that the Adam and Eve story must be taken literally. This is hilarious; you take beings like angels and demons or events like the prophet ascending to heaven on a winged horse literally but the adam and eve story must be taking metaphorically----when its disproven; how convenient.

And BTW Al-Jahiz was a Mutazili---a sect of Islam that would be considered heretics in this day and age. Al-Jahiz was a singular man; he did not represent Islam and his views did not either; using him as an argument for why evolution was or is accepted in Islam is futile.