Seven Reasons it's easier to Believe in God than to Accept Evolution

[fantome profane]

You seem to suggest that humans are clay and only clay, whereas made of clay suggests that clay is only a component.

So if I said humans are made of iron, would that also be a correct statement?

 

[Alceste]

I agree to the part of we are non experts and we leave out the details. As for the evidence, I think major people who say yes to evolution haven't even seen the proof or evidence.

My closest guess is what we have evidence for is adaptation and not a change of species and people would say that the evidence of the first would lead to the second, but the second needs more time. It would be like because we have adaptation, with time more adaptation would take place and we will have change of species. This is only a guess here, I am not sure if its true. The reason I would say that is because once I heard something about the terms macro and micro.

Adaptation would be an acceptable concept. As for the change of species and for us being apes before, I am sure I know the answer to that.

And thanks for your explanation about the theory concept.

We have so much evidence for evolution that nobody has ever seen all of it. Tens of thousands of studies inside and outside the lab, millions of fossils, an incredibly well developed genetic map of how species are related to one another... All the empirical evidence we have supports the theory of evolution.

I get that no amount of evidence can convince you that science got it right and the Quran got it wrong, and that you're very proud of this, but these conversations would be so much more interesting if at least one creationist acknowledged that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, so it is very reasonable to believe it.

 

[Sabour]

So if I said humans are made of iron, would that also be a correct statement?

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_59.html

 

[Sabour]

We have so much evidence for evolution that nobody has ever seen all of it. Tens of thousands of studies inside and outside the lab, millions of fossils, an incredibly well developed genetic map of how species are related to one another... All the empirical evidence we have supports the theory of evolution.

I get that no amount of evidence can convince you that science got it right and the Quran got it wrong, and that you're very proud of this, but these conversations would be so much more interesting if at least one creationist acknowledged that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, so it is very reasonable to believe it.

Quran didn't have it wrong, hope you watch the video I posted few comments ago

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree to the part of we are non experts and we leave out the details. As for the evidence, I think major people who say yes to evolution haven't even seen the proof or evidence.

My closest guess is what we have evidence for is adaptation and not a change of species and people would say that the evidence of the first would lead to the second, but the second needs more time. It would be like because we have adaptation, with time more adaptation would take place and we will have change of species. This is only a guess here, I am not sure if its true. The reason I would say that is because once I heard something about the terms macro and micro.

Adaptation would be an acceptable concept. As for the change of species and for us being apes before, I am sure I know the answer to that.

And thanks for your explanation about the theory concept.

I apologize about the spelling and grammar of that last post. It was late and I was falling asleep.

But I do actually know of a good number of specific evidences.

One main reason that people can't offer the specifics is because they are in databases that people usually have to pay to get into as they are scholarly sources. I have found a few in google but this isn't one. This one is is from national geographic. NG is a good source but it still isn't technically a scholarly one. This piece of evidences covers the fact that whales have tiny leg bones that serve no specific purpose and have hips that are indicitive of having walked on all fours.

How could that be if not for evolution? How could a whale have ever walked? Having gone from a 4 legged animal walking on land to a significantly larger aquatic mammal that swims would no doubt be macro-evolution.

Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says


This one more specifically goes into why we are genetically linked to chimpanzees and how we know that. This is a video of a presentation on it. I do know he calls out the Intelligent design community a bit but I hope you can still look at the evidence provided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[Ouroboros]

You seem to suggest that humans are clay and only clay, whereas made of clay suggests that clay is only a component.

But it doesn't say that. And you said it was specifically pottery clay, not just any clay.

Besides, the verse doesn't explain how or what process God used, why? It's not very scientific to just say, made of some of this and maybe something else, but not explaining the exact details and how. That shows that the text is not a scientific text. It's not its purpose. The purpose is to understand God, not to understand how God created the world. So, in the end, it's up to the reader to fill in the gaps. If the text doesn't say how God made humans from clay, then why can't God have used evolution as the process? The text doesn't deny that, does it?

 

[Aman777]

This one more specifically goes into why we are genetically linked to chimpanzees and how we know that. This is a video of a presentation on it. I do know he calls out the Intelligent design community a bit but I hope you can still look at the evidence provided.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/URL]

Dear Monk, Of course you can find that one of our ancestors was a Chimp BUT that does NOT show that Humans evolved from Chimps. What it shows is that men did NOT write the Bible, since they knew NOTHING of How or when prehistoric people changed from animal to Human intelligence, but God did, and here is what He says:

Gen 6:4There were (intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (Prehistoric people) came in unto the daughters of men, (Heb-Adam) and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Humans were made Billions of years BEFORE prehistoric mankind. Gen 2:7 Humans (descendants of Adam) came to this Earth some 10k years ago when Adam's world was "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 in the Flood. That is WHEN and HOW the prehistoric people, who were already here when Noah arrived, changed (within ONE generation) into Intellectual Giants, and TODAY, there are more than 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) on Planet Earth.

Here is historic evidence of the Arrival of modern Humans (descendants of Adam) on this Planet of people who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. God Bless you. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

In Love,
Aman

 

[LuisDantas]

Quran didn't have it wrong, hope you watch the video I posted few comments ago

In post #80, you mean? This?

[youtube]q_uOwT-H8w4[/youtube]

I fear it is just not of very good quality, far as the information it claims to offer go. It tries way too hard to appear to respect scientific knowledge without truly wanting to.

See for instance the attempt at appeal to authority at around 6min25sec. Or how he shows basic ignorance of even the general idea of the Theory of Evolution around 10min40sec. I don't even know whether I think he is lying.

The video is, quite simply, a speech by someone on a matter he does not truly have appropriate credentials to speak of. He might benefit from reading some Richard Dawkins, for instance.

What does surprise me is the insistence in presenting the Bible or the Quran as if they had to have some sort of conflict with Evolution. It seems just so gratuitous, so unnecessary and unflattering for believers.

 

[Sabour]

I apologize about the spelling and grammar of that last post. It was late and I was falling asleep.

But I do actually know of a good number of specific evidences.

One main reason that people can't offer the specifics is because they are in databases that people usually have to pay to get into as they are scholarly sources. I have found a few in google but this isn't one. This one is is from national geographic. NG is a good source but it still isn't technically a scholarly one. This piece of evidences covers the fact that whales have tiny leg bones that serve no specific purpose and have hips that are indicitive of having walked on all fours.

How could that be if not for evolution? How could a whale have ever walked? Having gone from a 4 legged animal walking on land to a significantly larger aquatic mammal that swims would no doubt be macro-evolution.

Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says


This one more specifically goes into why we are genetically linked to chimpanzees and how we know that. This is a video of a presentation on it. I do know he calls out the Intelligent design community a bit but I hope you can still look at the evidence provided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Don't worry its okay.

As for what I read and watched its all opinions and possibilities and I saw no evidence.

The video is trying to explain the theory and claiming to have seen evidence.

 

[Sabour]

But it doesn't say that. And you said it was specifically pottery clay, not just any clay.

Besides, the verse doesn't explain how or what process God used, why? It's not very scientific to just say, made of some of this and maybe something else, but not explaining the exact details and how. That shows that the text is not a scientific text. It's not its purpose. The purpose is to understand God, not to understand how God created the world. So, in the end, it's up to the reader to fill in the gaps. If the text doesn't say how God made humans from clay, then why can't God have used evolution as the process? The text doesn't deny that, does it?

You are right, Quraan is not a scientific book, but it has truth in it and it has hints. Just like when Quraan describes mountains as pegs

let me use another translation of the verse

Muhammad Sarwar: He created the human being from clay like that used for pottery

Arberry: He created man of a clay like the potter's,

 

[Sabour]

In post #80, you mean? This?

[youtube]q_uOwT-H8w4[/youtube]

I fear it is just not of very good quality, far as the information it claims to offer go. It tries way too hard to appear to respect scientific knowledge without truly wanting to.

See for instance the attempt at appeal to authority at around 6min25sec. Or how he shows basic ignorance of even the general idea of the Theory of Evolution around 10min40sec. I don't even know whether I think he is lying.

The video is, quite simply, a speech by someone on a matter he does not truly have appropriate credentials to speak of. He might benefit from reading some Richard Dawkins, for instance.

What does surprise me is the insistence in presenting the Bible or the Quran as if they had to have some sort of conflict with Evolution. It seems just so gratuitous, so unnecessary and unflattering for believers.

The reason it appears to do so is because of the way Yusuf Estes uses in his videos.

He tries to stay clear of debates and arguing. Its purpose is not discussing the evolution theory or arguing for or against. Its aim is only to show where does Islam stand.

What he is talking about are the basics and he didn't get into evolution in its details. I don't even know if he qualified to do that and I somehow agree with you, but his points and his approach is valid.

 

[Father Heathen]

Acceptance of evolution and belief in a god concept are not mutually exclusive. Likewise, a belief in a literal interpretation of a creation myth is not a prerequisite for belief in a god concept.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are right, Quraan is not a scientific book, but it has truth in it and it has hints. Just like when Quraan describes mountains as pegs

Exactly. It's a metaphor. A symbolic, figurative language. Not literal. That goes for the clay part as well, right? Not literal clay, but figurative.

let me use another translation of the verse

Muhammad Sarwar: He created the human being from clay like that used for pottery

We know it's not literal pottery clay, so why is it literally clay but not literally pottery clay?

You must see that it's a figure of speech, not a scientific definition. God made humans from clay, earth, dirt, dust, ... you name it. It's a metaphor for that God made us from the world. We are made from world-stuff.

The same goes for animals by the way, they're also made from the same clay. We eat them, and plants, and what we eat turns to cells, proteins, etc in our body. We eat the same clay as they eat. We're made from the same clay as them.

Arberry: He created man of a clay like the potter's,

Still, it only answer what God made us from.

Does it say how?

Evolution explains how.

 

[Sabour]

Exactly. It's a metaphor. A symbolic, figurative language. Not literal. That goes for the clay part as well, right? Not literal clay, but figurative.

Not everything is symbolic or figurative. there are somethings that are Direct and Obvious. It all is down to the language.

We know it's not literal pottery clay, so why is it literally clay but not literally pottery clay?

It is the language. You can clearly see that in Arabic.

You must see that it's a figure of speech, not a scientific definition. God made humans from clay, earth, dirt, dust, ... you name it. It's a metaphor for that God made us from the world. We are made from world-stuff.

The arabic word used is صلصال. We have to see the meaning of the word to see the meaning. Quraan is clear on that aspect.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason it appears to do so is because of the way Yusuf Estes uses in his videos.

He tries to stay clear of debates and arguing. Its purpose is not discussing the evolution theory or arguing for or against. Its aim is only to show where does Islam stand.

Go back to around 10 minutes in, ten and a half. You will see that he is not only attempting to argue agains the Theory of Evolution, but he is also misrepresenting it while so doing.

He either does not know that the ToE has no trouble whatsoever explaining why monkeys and humans coexist at the same time or he is pretending ignorance.

What he is talking about are the basics and he didn't get into evolution in its details. I don't even know if he qualified to do that and I somehow agree with you, but his points and his approach is valid.

No, it is not. It is irresponsible, libelous, slanderous.

 

[Sabour]

Go back to around 10 minutes in, ten and a half. You will see that he is not only attempting to argue agains the Theory of Evolution, but he is also misrepresenting it while so doing.

I did, and I explained that it is the way he talks and approaches things. It is more like a style thing.

He either does not know that the ToE has no trouble whatsoever explaining why monkeys and humans coexist at the same time or he is pretending ignorance.

Or maybe he knows it and found it not credible.

No, it is not. It is irresponsible, libelous, slanderous.

That is your opinion

 

[LuisDantas]

I did, and I explained that it is the way he talks and approaches things. It is more like a style thing.



Or maybe he knows it and found it not credible.




That is your opinion

Yes. It is my opinion, well-supported by evidence and fact, that he is doing Islam terrible harm by presenting it as opposed to actual knowledge - and by lying while so doing, no less.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not everything is symbolic or figurative. there are somethings that are Direct and Obvious. It all is down to the language.

So then it's literally, direct, obvious, and down to clay, and nothing but exactly clay. Which we know isn't true from biology. So either or here. What is it? Is it figurative (and true) or literal (and false)?

It is the language. You can clearly see that in Arabic.



The arabic word used is صلصال. We have to see the meaning of the word to see the meaning. Quraan is clear on that aspect.

If it's not clear, then why is evolution automatically false based on this verse? Why is this verse in conflict with evolution if you don't know from the Quraan if God used evolution to form clay to humans or not? Which verse discards evolution? That one doesn't.

 

[Sabour]

Yes. It is my opinion, well-supported by evidence and fact, that he is doing Islam terrible harm by presenting it as opposed to actual knowledge - and by lying while so doing, no less.

He in no way opposed knowledge.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

He in no way opposed knowledge.

And here's the problem you should be facing.
The man in your video is lying about evolution and what it.. This is something you can look up and easily prove. Go to a scientific site explaining evolution, and check for yourself if the people saying he is lying are correct, to not do so, is to choose to be ignorant of the situation...
If the man is using falsehoods in his video, is that something Allah would want, or does Allah represent truth.
If you follow Allah and there is even a chance someone is speaking falsely in his name, would Allah want you to not look and find the truth?

In all honesty, you should be more offended by that video than anyone else who has posted so.
So the question is, do you follow Allah with truth in your heart? And will you follow this mans video, even if he does speak lies