The Creation of Woman

[allfoak]

I would appreciate if someone who has read and accepted this as truth would explain the process of removing a rib from a man and growing a woman from it here from a scientific or even rationalist perspective. Did Adam, thereafter, have only 11 pairs of ribs? Or 23 in total, one being unpaired? Did Eve have 13 pairs, or 25 ribs? How does a rib become a woman?

It was not a creation, it was a separation.
The verse describes the separation of male and female for the purpose of gaining knowledge of self.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no change, but a new creation appears from reproduction, creation after creation, no magic.

Of course there is change we have a record of it. And your claim of creation is a claim of magic. There is evidence that supports my claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were created in your mother's womb, you're a creation, I'm not talking millions of years ago
when you were a monkey, but the reality today you're a human being created in your mother's womb.

Nope, that is not creation. No magic needed. The fertilized ovum that became me was nourished and grew there.

By the way since you never defined monkey I will. Monkeys are a monophyletic group that includes Old World and New World animals commonly called monkeys. Of course that means that you are a monkey. I am a monkey, your mother is a monkey.

 

[FearGod]

Of course there is change we have a record of it. And your claim of creation is a claim of magic. There is evidence that supports my claims.

The change came along with reproduction(creation), no magic

 

[FearGod]

Nope, that is not creation. No magic needed. The fertilized ovum that became me was nourished and grew there.

By the way since you never defined monkey I will. Monkeys are a monophyletic group that includes Old World and New World animals commonly called monkeys. Of course that means that you are a monkey. I am a monkey, your mother is a monkey.

It's a creation, the meaning of the word is to bring or make something new, so each creation
is different than the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The change came along with reproduction(creation), no magic

Is English your first language? You do not appear to understand the terms that you use. Reproduction is not creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a creation, the meaning of the word is to bring or make something new, so each creation
is different than the other.

Nope, try again. Find a different term to use.

 

[FearGod]

Is English your first language? You do not appear to understand the terms that you use. Reproduction is not creation.

Of course reproduction isn't creation, but creation is done during reproduction, it isn't about English
but understanding.

 

[FearGod]

Nope, try again. Find a different term to use.

You aren't a product of random mutation and natural selection, you're a product made and created
in the womb, this the reality whether you like it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course reproduction isn't creation, but creation is done during reproduction, it isn't about English
but understanding.

Sorry, you need to use proper terminology. Let's avoid loaded terms that you cannot support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You aren't a product of random mutation and natural selection, you're a product made and created
in the womb, this the reality whether you like it or not.

Sorry, but you are denying reality. You are the product of evolution. You share a common ancestor with chimps. You share an older ancestor with gorillas. An even older one with orangutans, etc. and so on until one can see that he or she is related to all life on this planet.

 

[FearGod]

Sorry, you need to use proper terminology. Let's avoid loaded terms that you cannot support.

You're fixed to what the others had taught you, to understand me you need to have a creative mind in which you don't.

 

[FearGod]

Sorry, but you are denying reality. You are the product of evolution. You share a common ancestor with chimps. You share an older ancestor with gorillas. An even older one with orangutans, etc. and so on until one can see that he or she is related to all life on this planet.

The reality that all species had came by a process and being created by a process regardless of
the very tiny tiny changes that had happened during billions of years ago.
We were created, no escape, try again

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're fixed to what the others had taught you, to understand me you need to have a creative mind in which you don't.

No, I know how to communicate properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reality that all species had came by a process and being created by a process regardless of
the very tiny tiny changes that had happened during billions of years ago.
We were created, no escape, try again

Nope, now you are guilty of trying to use an equivocation fallacy. There was a reason that I corrected you.

And no, evolution is an ongoing process. You are the product of evolution. Like it or not you are an ape.

I can support my claims with evidence. So far you have only used logical fallacies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The reality that all species had came by a process and being created by a process regardless of
the very tiny tiny changes that had happened during billions of years ago.
We were created, no escape, try again

If you're defining "creation" this way, then your argument is meaningless because "creation" doesn't even contradict evolution.

 

[FearGod]

Nope, now you are guilty of trying to use an equivocation fallacy. There was a reason that I corrected you.

And no, evolution is an ongoing process. You are the product of evolution. Like it or not you are an ape.

I can support my claims with evidence. So far you have only used logical fallacies.

Theory of evolution is very ancient science known during the 9th century, they knew that life was
evolved but was created and not by luck.

The theory actually was named the the Mohammedan theory,

The 14th century influential historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun wrote the Muqaddimah or Prolegomena ("Introduction") on what he referred to as the "gradual process of creation." He stated that the Earth began with abiotic components such as "minerals." Slowly, primitive stages of plants such as "herbs and seedless plants" developed and eventually "palms and vines." Khaldun connects the later stages of plant development to the first stages of animal development. Finally, he claims that the greater thought capabilities of human beings was "reached from the world of the monkeys."[17]

In his 1874 book titled History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, John William Draper, a scientist and contemporary of Charles Darwin, criticized the Catholic Church for its disapproval of "the Mohammedan theory of the evolution of man from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time."[18]
Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

The Englishman John William Draper famously referred to “The Mohammedan Theory of Evolution” in his 1874 book History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, probably in reference to the Arabic scholar Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in his 14th century The Muqaddimah,

creation ... started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish ... the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.


The theory of biological evolution in its complete form was presented by a great early zoologist, al-Jahiz in the ninth century.
Did Arabic Scholars Discover Evolution in the Ninth Century? | HuffPost

 

[FearGod]

No, I know how to communicate properly.

Did you see, I said you need to be creative and your answer that you communicate very well.
I have to respect the forum's laws anyway.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theory of evolution is very ancient science known during the 9th century, they knew that life was
evolved but was created and not by luck.

The theory actually was named the the Mohammedan theory,

The 14th century influential historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun wrote the Muqaddimah or Prolegomena ("Introduction") on what he referred to as the "gradual process of creation." He stated that the Earth began with abiotic components such as "minerals." Slowly, primitive stages of plants such as "herbs and seedless plants" developed and eventually "palms and vines." Khaldun connects the later stages of plant development to the first stages of animal development. Finally, he claims that the greater thought capabilities of human beings was "reached from the world of the monkeys."[17]

In his 1874 book titled History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, John William Draper, a scientist and contemporary of Charles Darwin, criticized the Catholic Church for its disapproval of "the Mohammedan theory of the evolution of man from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time."[18]
Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

The Englishman John William Draper famously referred to “The Mohammedan Theory of Evolution” in his 1874 book History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, probably in reference to the Arabic scholar Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in his 14th century The Muqaddimah,

creation ... started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish ... the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.

"Referring to something" is not the same as that very thing being the same. The Mohammedan theory posited that life rose through various forms from minerals, but posits no mechanism. It wasn't a scientific theory, just a proposed hypothesis at best. It bares little relation to modern evolutionary theory other than the fact that it can be used for comparative, illustrative purposes. It is not literally the same thing.

The theory of biological evolution in its complete form was presented by a great early zoologist, al-Jahiz in the ninth century.
Did Arabic Scholars Discover Evolution in the Ninth Century? | HuffPost

Now you're being utterly dishonest. Here is the full quote in context:

[...]
Arab and Persian scholars (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) not only translated the writings of the Greeks, but also made original contributions about mathematics, medicine, and social science(among other topics). Regarding biology, one of the more interesting claims that surfaces from time to time concerns evolution:

"The theory of biological evolution in its complete form was presented by a great early zoologist, al-Jahiz in the ninth century."

wrote the Turkish theologian Mehmet Bayrakdar in a 1983 issue of the London-based Islamic Quarterly. But in its complete form? Not quite.
There are indeed some tantalizing quotes that evoke evolutionary ideas from medieval Arabic scholars. The Englishman John William Draper famously referred to “The Mohammedan Theory of Evolution” in his 1874 book History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, probably in reference to the Arabic scholar Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in his 14th century The Muqaddimah,

"creation ... started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish ... the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group."

And 500 years before Khaldun, al-Jahiz articulated a kind of biological selection in his Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals). In 1930, the Spanish scholar Miguel Asin Palacios translated one such passage from al-Jahiz:

"In sum, no animal can survive without nourishment. The hunting animal cannot escape being hunted. Every weak animal devours those that are weaker; every strong animal cannot avoid being consumed by those that are stronger.... God, in sum, made some beings the cause of life to others, and in turn made these the cause of death to yet others."

These two observations—- continuity of existence across different forms of life (and indeed non-life) from Ibn Khaldun, and a struggle for existence among individuals from al-Jahiz—- are indeed relevant to the contemporary theory of biological evolution. However, this is a far cry from “biological evolution in its complete form”. First of all, the goal of al-Jahiz’s Book of Animals was, according to the German historian Herbert Eisenstein, “not actually the study of animal species, but a proof of the existence of the Creator that is evident from his creation“ (p. 122 in Einfürung in die arabische Zoographie). Moreover, al-Jahiz was a gifted philosopher and theologian interested in biology, not vice-versa. He saw free will and the autonomy of God’s creation as the reason why animals were “created” with the means (e.g., claws, fangs, spines) to attack others and defend themselves. According to Einsenstein (continuing the passage quoted above), al-Jahiz wrote that

"when you see an animal ... of great danger, and concerning whom Man must be very careful, such as snakes and wolves provided with fangs ... thus may you know ... that God—- sublime and powerful is He—- gives to the steadfast, those who understand that free will and rational experience could not exist if the world were purely evil or entirely good."

Whether or not you think this argument is convincing (and it remains a key part of modern religion’s approach to theodicy), the point is that al-Jahiz was less interested in the natural mechanisms by which life became diverse over time than he was in understanding nature in the context of monotheistic philosophy.

Another difference between modern biology and the natural philosophy of the Arab-Persian golden age was, ironically, the reality of the species. The notion that a group of interbreeding animals is thereby distinct from other such groups is not evident in pre-modern Arabic literature. Al-Jahiz was fascinated with hybridization and adaptation, and contemplated if and how environmental factors may have had an influence across generations of humans and other animals. According to another German translation of a passage from al-Jahiz, he wrote that maybe eels arose by cross-breeding fish with snakes. Maybe people from the western Caliphate (what is today Morocco and Algeria) look different from Arabians because of differences in the food and air. These were the kinds of discussions one can find in the prolific writings of al-Jahiz, Ibn Qutaiba, and others of their time. Were they more informed about nature than Europeans in the 9th century? Yes. Did ninth-century Arabs discover biological evolution? No.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did you see, I said you need to be creative and your answer that you communicate very well.

It certainly takes a great degree of "creativity" to lie about what an article says like you just did.