• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EVOLUTION, what a lie.

F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE/Autodidac]So if something is not in the Qu'ran, it's not true? For example, President Obama is not President of the United States? I did not eat breakfast this morning?(End quote)

Response: Did you see me say that?

Quote: Autodidact/
And another chess game with a pigeon.(End quote)

Response: And more denial from the delusional.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
Fellow posters:

I'm sure that Fatihah is not a typical Muslim, and Muslims as a whole are actually able to learn and understand science as well as non-Muslims.

Fatihah is a good example of an anti-scientific world view. He sees the world in terms of primitive superstition, which makes him afraid to accept modern scientific learning--except of course when he needs to use his computer to communicate his barbaric, anti-knowledge world view.
Click to expand...

Response: Likewise.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Fatihah said:
[QUOTE/Autodidac]So if something is not in the Qu'ran, it's not true? For example, President Obama is not President of the United States? I did not eat breakfast this morning?(End quote)

Response: Did you see me say that?

Quote: Autodidact/
And another chess game with a pigeon.(End quote)

Response: And more denial from the delusional.
Click to expand...

You said that ToE is not true because "it's not in the qu'ran." Therefore, you must be saying that anything that's not in the qu'ran is not true. Do you see that?
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Fatihah said:
Response: And I am using "the" definition of the word. And yes, it is relevant.
Click to expand...

You're using a different definition of the word. The definition you're usig is not relevant to a discussion of the Theory of Evolution. So, no, it's not relevant.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
You said that ToE is not true because "it's not in the qu'ran." Therefore, you must be saying that anything that's not in the qu'ran is not true. Do you see that?
Click to expand...

Response: Quote the post in which I say that ToE is not true because it's not in the qur'an, if you are truthful.
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Fatihah said:
Response: Quote the post in which I say that ToE is not true because it's not in the qur'an, if you are truthful.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a lot of things that aren't in the Qur'an, but are also true. I don't see what one has to do with the other. It's a non sequitur.
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Fatihah said:
Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?
Click to expand...

  • Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
  • Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
  • Function: noun
  • Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
  • Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena


The confusion here, Fatihah is that you are staying with the context of an English word and blithely ignoring how that word relates to the Theory that has the word in its name. The Theory of Evolution is not quite the same as the working definitions of the word evolution.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Tristesse said:
I'm sure there are a lot of things that aren't in the Qur'an, but are also true. I don't see what one has to do with the other. It's a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Response: Very true. And we should all be able to verify to see if what's not mentioned is true. When it comes to ToE, that's not the case. No one here has ever seen with their own eyes, a species evolve into another. Yet a biologists says that they've seen it, and somehow it's true. Now let the christian tell that same person that they saw the Holy Ghost, and they will get mocked. Why the hypocrisy? This is the hypocritical double standard that all ToE believers have.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE/YmirGF]
  • Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
  • Pronunciation: \Ìe-vY-Èlü-shYn, Ì-vY-\
  • Function: noun
  • Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
  • Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena


The confusion here, Fatihah is that you are staying with the context of an English word and blithely ignoring how that word relates to the Theory that has the word in its name.(End quote)

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?
Quote:YmirGF/
The Theory of Evolution is not quite the same as the working definitions of the word evolution.(End Quote)

Response: Never said it was. So that point is irrelevant.
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Fatihah said:
Response: Very true. And we should all be able to verify to see if what's not mentioned is true. When it comes to ToE, that's not the case. No one here has ever seen with their own eyes, a species evolve into another. Yet a biologists says that they've seen it, and somehow it's true. Now let the christian tell that same person that they saw the Holy Ghost, and they will get mocked. Why the hypocrisy? This is the hypocritical double standard that all ToE believers have.
Click to expand...
The difference is that if you learn enough science you can in fact do research in areas that would verify the work of others before you. Assuming, of course, that you are a competent scientist using accepted methodology. The same is NOT true in regards to Christians telling us about the Holy spirit. Even if we follow exactly what they did and believe as they did, there is no guarantee that we will perceive said Holy Spook. Ditto Muslim scholars who debate the meaning of a given Qur'anic verse and arrive at very different conclusions.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
YmirGF said:
The difference is that if you learn enough science you can in fact do research in areas that would verify the work of others before you. Assuming, of course, that you are a competent scientist using accepted methodology. The same is NOT true in regards to Christians telling us about the Holy spirit. Even if we follow exactly what they did and believe as they did, there is no guarantee that we will perceive said Holy Spook. Ditto Muslim scholars who debate the meaning of a given Qur'anic verse and arrive at very different conclusions.
Click to expand...

Response: You can also verify the scholarship of the qur'an and hadiths in the same manner. So to accept one and not the other is hypocritical.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Fatihah said:
Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "proof"? What do you want me to tell you? You're using one definition of "evolution", but it's not the definition used in the Theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution is about changes in lifeforms over generations of populations, not one individual. Therefore, the definition you brought up is irrelevant to a discussion about the Theory of Evolution.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Fatihah said:
Response: You can also verify the scholarship of the qur'an and hadiths in the same manner.
Click to expand...

No, you can't. If a biologist does an experiment and shows you the evidence supporting whatever conclusion he came to, you can go back and do the same experiment and see exactly what he saw. We believe what scientists say because if we were really interested we could go study it ourselves and see it with our own eyes. We can't do the same with claims about God, Allah or some spiritual experience.

So to accept one and not the other is hypocritical.
Click to expand...


No, it's not.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Fatihah said:
No one here has ever seen with their own eyes, a species evolve into another.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, and it's still wrong. Painted wolf, for instance, has actually seen this exact thing. She's a biologist. I've seen it on shows and in books and on the internet. You can actually see it for yourself, if you want to (although I know you don't want to).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top