Evolution is illogical and non sense

[Brickjectivity]

Who does not view a person in terms of them being the owner of their decisions, does not really know any person. You ignore the soul, the heart? What do you think love is doing? All main concepts in religions have to do with choosing. The idea that you can just do away with all knowledge about how things are chosen, and still have a functioning religion, is an illusion.

Evolution is not competing with religion any more than the stars are. We used to say that God is like the sun. Now we would say God is not like the sun, because there are lots of suns. It doesn't mean that we are doing away with choice or with God.

Again, just throw that evolution theory back at the biology teacher, and tell them to come up with a theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. You get to decide it what you accept.

Or simply go look yourself for the best current theory around in which freedom is posited as real and relevant.

My biology teacher was very polite and never forced anyone to learn 'Evolution'. She simply taught about biology and about cells and photosynthesis etc. This benefited students, because cells and photosynthesis are very beautiful and amazing. They are inspiring. Learning all of the ways that biology and chemistry function is good, not bad; just as learning about stars is good. There is no harm in knowing how stars function. There is good in measuring how old the stars are and how far away and in studying atoms. Above all there is good in studying disease, so that we can destroy diseases.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It doesn't mean that we are doing away with choice or with God.

You have not addressed anything about how things are chosen in the universe, and I think this means your knowledge about how things are chosen is absent. That you are one more of those whose intellectual enjoyment is to doubt free will is even real, instead of having enjoyment to know how things are chosen.

It doesn't figure what you say. You are religious, so then you focus directly on the way things are decided, simple.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You have not addressed anything about how things are chosen in the universe, and I think this means your knowledge about how things are chosen is absent. That you are one more of those whose intellectual enjoyment is to doubt free will is even real, instead of having enjoyment to know how things are chosen.

It doesn't figure what you say. You are religious, so then you focus directly on the way things are decided, simple.

Sorry if you feel I did not respond. I am having difficulty understanding what you are talking about when you say 'How things are chosen in the universe.' I have never heard anyone talk like that, so I don't know what you mean by that phrase. I also don't think that intellectual enjoyment is at cross purposes with free will. I think intellectual things are neither for nor against free will, and I think people should be responsible for our choices. That being said, Islam means 'Submission' I am told, and that it means submitting everything including your opinions, and I only brought it up because you felt my acceptance of evolution diminished my faith. So then you might choose Islam, but then your opinions are no longer yours if you submit them. This is foreign to me. I don't mean to offend here. Is this not so? It appears to me that you have chosen not to learn about evolution, because you are concerned that it is against Islam. Well, I do not think it is against Islam, but I do not know Islam well. Maybe you are mistaken about that, but if not then you should still learn science though I think that will lead you to conclude that evolution is an accurate model of how things work.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am having difficulty understanding what you are talking about when you say 'How things are chosen in the universe.'

That is the most basic, most generic, language anybody could use. Yet you make it sound as if I was talking about the hyperincursive selfrefferential anticipatory aspects of the quaternion. Your misapprehenison of the most basic most generic language means of course that your knowledge about how anything is chosen is absent.

That is because of evolution theory that you are this ignorant about how anything is chosen. You do not demonstrate compatibility on a practical level of evolution theory with religion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is the most basic, most generic, language anybody could use. Yet you make it sound as if I was talking about the hyperincursive selfrefferential anticipatory aspects of the quaternion. Your misapprehenison of the most basic most generic language means of course that your knowledge about how anything is chosen is absent.

That is because of evolution theory that you are this ignorant about how anything is chosen. You do not demonstrate compatibility on a practical level of evolution theory with religion.

Your language is simple but nonsensical. You keep going on and on about "choosing" but not even other creationist Muslims seem to know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is the most basic, most generic, language anybody could use. Yet you make it sound as if I was talking about the hyperincursive selfrefferential anticipatory aspects of the quaternion. Your misapprehenison of the most basic most generic language means of course that your knowledge about how anything is chosen is absent.

No, its actually an unusual turn of phrase, but let us assume for the sake of argument that I lied about being confused by that. Ok, you're not paranoid. I'm just lying and don't want to understand, so I refuse to understand. How do we continue?

That is because of evolution theory that you are this ignorant about how anything is chosen. You do not demonstrate compatibility on a practical level of evolution theory with religion.

So basically I am a liar, and evolution theory makes me ignorant about how anything is chosen?

 

[Katzpur]

I find a non-committal stance on these things contradictory. Religious beliefs sort of go tandem with other religious beliefs that are in the same texts, etc. And even in the same ''genre''; for example, once there is a non-committal stance on evolution, it becomes very easy to say, well, this other stuff is all metaphor as well. That is a logical conclusion, actually. So, what is the religious teaching, then? It seems, why believe one statement, if a lot of other things in the Bible are blatantly false. There is no way to get around the fact that the Bible, hence traditional teaching, stating that creationism not only happened, but happened rather quickly, etc.

Only Bible literalists take everything in the Bible literally. Those of us who aren't, try to recognize which parts may be metaphorical, and may change what we believe as time goes by. I don't have to believe that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods in order to believe it was created by God and that He had a very specific plan by which He accomplished it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So basically I am a liar, and evolution theory makes me ignorant about how anything is chosen?

I don't think you lie about being confused. You are genuinely confused about the most basic generic ideas about how choosing works. You don't bring up your own knowledge about how things are chosen, to contrast it with my knowledge. If you did that then I might say you just don't understand my take on it. You are just generally confused about how any choosing works. You have a void in place where the most basic knowledge about how choosing works should be.

And that shows the talk about evolution theory being compatible with religion is meaningless rhetoric.

 

[metis]

The ToE says nothing one way or the other about the issue of whether there's a creator-god.

Also, the acceptance of the basic ToE is not incompatible with Islam:

Islamic views on evolution are diverse, ranging from theistic evolution to creationism. Throughout history, some Muslim thinkers have proposed and accepted elements of the theory of evolution, while believing in the supremacy of God in the process. In modern times, some Muslims have rejected evolution, and teaching it is banned in some countries... -- Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Creationists take all fields of science and all parts of any field of science that threatens their belief system and shrinkwraps it under one umbrella and calls it "evolutionism".

The "big bang" theory, abiogenesis, paleontology, anthrophology .... the list goes on. If it is perceived to contradict their beleives, it becomes "evolution".

Mohammud takes this a step further; as there are scientists, philosophers and psychologists questioning "free will", and there are some who have determined that we have no free will; that what we "choose" are inevitable effects of the causes of our genetics and experiences. Because this threatens Modhammud's worldview, this debate is immediately moved under the umbrella of "evolutionism". So he argues against "evolution" by arguing for "free will" and "choices"; because in his mind, evolution says there is no such thing because he has put this "free will" argument under the category of "evolutionism" and surmised that those who accept evolution don't believe in free will or the power of choice.

He has connected the unconnected.

 

[Desert Snake]

Only Bible literalists take everything in the Bible literally. Those of us who aren't, try to recognize which parts may be metaphorical, and may change what we believe as time goes by. I don't have to believe that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods in order to believe it was created by God and that He had a very specific plan by which He accomplished it.

Great. However, if a text is presented, then those instances should be pointed out either way, a disclaimer in front of certain books etc. I don't want the teachings of a church to be ''vague'' on what they actually are teaching as real, literal, what is just a funny story, what is metaphor, etc.
It seems that's important to get across to someone else, otherwise how is even debate, or discussion,possible.

 

[Katzpur]

Great. However, if a text is presented, then those instances should be pointed out either way, a disclaimer in front of certain books etc. I don't want the teachings of a church to be ''vague'' on what they actually are teaching as real, literal, what is just a funny story, what is metaphor, etc.

I'd have to agree with you that this certainly would make things easier. Unfortunately, people's opinions differ and the only "disclaimer" in the front of certain books would have to be the opinion of the editor.

 

[outhouse]

Could you give me an example?

Science in anthropology shows that there was never an exodus.

Science in anthropology and archeology were used to determine history that shows Abraham was a literary creation.

Science shows us that Israelites were displaced Canaanites.

Cultural and social and physical anthropology and archeology shows us Israelites worshipped a family of gods, and that two were combined into the one god concept.

Science shows us there was no global flood.


Science shows us the average age of mortal men does not equal the mythology in the old books.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think you lie about being confused. You are genuinely confused about the most basic generic ideas about how choosing works.

Well I guess that is where the conversation ends.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well I guess that is where the conversation ends.

Where it ends, started....never got past the first step.. you take your pick.

 

[Katzpur]

Science in anthropology shows that there was never an exodus.

Science in anthropology and archeology were used to determine history that shows Abraham was a literary creation.

Science shows us that Israelites were displaced Canaanites.

Cultural and social and physical anthropology and archeology shows us Israelites worshipped a family of gods, and that two were combined into the one god concept.

Science shows us there was no global flood.


Science shows us the average age of mortal men does not equal the mythology in the old books.

I would definitely agree with some of these statements. On others, I have no opinion one way or the other, and on some, I would say that some of the findings of science are still inconclusive at this point.

 

[Kirran]

I think it's useful to point out, that Mohammad genuinely doesn't seem to be saying that Islam is the correct path or anything like that. Which religion somebody follows is secondary to him, I think, coming after whether or not a person accepts free will. But he has his own very definite conditions about what constitutes rejecting free will, and it seems that so far everybody on RF has met them.

English is, of course, his second language, but he won't accept that actually a lot of the difficulties in communication arise not from the other party's ignorance of the concepts involved in choosing (which he has tried to explain on several occasions, but not in a manner which anybody has been able to decipher) but rather from his rather incoherent logic combined with a few failings in his English which is, it must be said, generally pretty good.

 

[outhouse]

I would say that some of the findings of science are still inconclusive at this point.

They all are actually not up for debate and scholars have placed a level of certainty as high as close to fact.

That was my point. You refuse the scientific findings.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think it's useful to point out, that Mohammad genuinely doesn't seem to be saying that Islam is the correct path or anything like that. Which religion somebody follows is secondary to him, I think, coming after whether or not a person accepts free will. But he has his own very definite conditions about what constitutes rejecting free will, and it seems that so far everybody on RF has met them.

English is, of course, his second language, but he won't accept that actually a lot of the difficulties in communication arise not from the other party's ignorance of the concepts involved in choosing (which he has tried to explain on several occasions, but not in a manner which anybody has been able to decipher) but rather from his rather incoherent logic combined with a few failings in his English which is, it must be said, generally pretty good.

I've gone through incredible lengths to have him even explain it in his native tongue with some vocabulary and look up the specific translations for the words and it still doesn't make as much sense as it ought to.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think it's useful to point out, that Mohammad genuinely doesn't seem to be saying that Islam is the correct path or anything like that. Which religion somebody follows is secondary to him, I think, coming after whether or not a person accepts free will. But he has his own very definite conditions about what constitutes rejecting free will, and it seems that so far everybody on RF has met them.

English is, of course, his second language, but he won't accept that actually a lot of the difficulties in communication arise not from the other party's ignorance of the concepts involved in choosing (which he has tried to explain on several occasions, but not in a manner which anybody has been able to decipher) but rather from his rather incoherent logic combined with a few failings in his English which is, it must be said, generally pretty good.

I just don't know if that's right. In other places on the forum, when he's not going on and on about choosing and freedom, he makes complete sense and is easy to understand.