The problem of Creationism in Islam rejecting the science of evolution.

[shunyadragon]

Yes circumstantial can be very strong especially when all other chances of other events are zero or that there is none for any alternative. Circumstantial evidence is very useful in court, because, you make the assumption both sides will have it, and if one side does not, even though it's not a certainty, the jury can rule in favor of the one with it and against the one who lacks it. This is why "reasonable doubt" is explained to juries. So they know they don't have been proven beyond doubt, but reasonable doubt, means circumstantial evidence is useful.

Regardless of your view of the strength or weakness of circumstantial evidence it has nothing to do with Methodological Naturalism and science by definition.

It applies only to the nature of some kinds of evidence in Law. Circumstantial evidence may be useful in the Court of Law.

Please document the use of circumstantial evidence in Methodological Naturalism. Hint: There are no references.

 

[Link]

It is same scientific basis for computers, medicine, airplanes and cars. You have not presented one scrape of evidence or knowledge that would lead me to question the sciences of evolution nor any other science/ All the sciences are in harmony, and virtually 95% of all scientist support evolution base don the objective evidence.

Where are your references to support your argument. Hine: There are none!!!

It's not the same. There were building built by engineers long time ago, it didn't make other assumptions by theory of scientists of that time all true.

I also distinguish between two type of expertise. That which we see in real time the effect, and that which we do not see, but it's all theory. For example, I see computers working. I see medicine cures often. I see cars moving.

However, when it comes to things which have no application and no consequences in real time if false, I don't trust experts. This is for one reason, I don't believe we should trust "scholars" of my religion as "experts", because the consequences and benefits are unseen.

The practicality of evolution comes down to some predictions about life and places, same with some other sciences such as geology, however, as I mentioned in the start, this can be created and formed this way much like inheritance of classes are used in programming languages, without there actually being literal inheritance. It maybe design option by God for us to make use of. So the evidence lines up with both theories. I believe there is also evidence of design including what I've stated about the mind.

You are welcome to believe in evolution and the Quran. But I can't be dishonest to myself, like I said, I would choose one or the other. There is no point of deceiving myself and lying about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes circumstantial can be very strong especially when all other chances of other events are zero or that there is none for any alternative. Circumstantial evidence is very useful in court, because, you make the assumption both sides will have it, and if one side does not, even though it's not a certainty, the jury can rule in favor of the one with it and against the one who lacks it. This is why "reasonable doubt" is explained to juries. So they know they don't have been proven beyond doubt, but reasonable doubt, means circumstantial evidence is useful.

However, what I was showing is that, there can be counter theories to evolution, and so it's obviously of the circumstantial type.

At least you agree unlike the supposed scientist who can't even admit that much.

Right now there is only one theory that explains all of the evidence. That once again tells us that your complaints are groundless.

You seem to think that it would be rather easy to construct a theory that challenge evolution, but no creationist has done so in over a hundred years. Your handwaving example was already refuted. Circumstantial or not if there is only one theory that explains the evidence then one does treat it as a fact until shown to be at least possibly wrong. And you have not even done that.

 

[Link]

You seem to think that it would be rather easy to construct a theory that challenge evolution, but no creationist has done so in over a hundred years.

I don't believe that, and believe it's only not known because of ideology of many of the scientists and their stubborn nature to what proves God.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not the same. There were building built by engineers long time ago, it didn't make other assumptions by theory of scientists of that time all true.

True, maybe, but they used practical trial and error methods in the past for engineering design was the beginning of some of the basics of science.

Actually the basics of Methodological Naturalism was first proposed by Islamic scientists and these methods ar ethe same used in the sciences of evolution today

I also distinguish between two type of expertise. That which we see in real time the effect, and that which we do not see, but it's all theory. For example, I see computers working. I see medicine cures often. I see cars moving.
You make that distinction, but this does not reflect how science works. You ar ebouncing all around the place without citing anything related to science.

The Islamic scientists that first proposed Methodological NAturalism did not make the distinction for science.

However, when it comes to things which have no application and no consequences in real time if false, I don't trust experts. This is for one reason, I don't believe we should trust "scholars" of my religion as "experts", because the consequences and benefits are unseen.

That is problem you have to deal with rejecting the scientific methods first proposed by Islamic scientists.

The practicality of evolution comes down to some predictions about life and places, same with some other sciences such as geology, however, as I mentioned in the start, this can be created and formed this way much like inheritance of classes are used in programming languages, without there actually being literal inheritance. It maybe design option by God for us to make use of. So the evidence lines up with both theories. I believe there is also evidence of design including what I've stated about the mind.

Nothing her has any vague resemblance of how science functions in the real world foday. More mindless rambling.

You are welcome to believe in evolution and the Quran. But I can't be dishonest to myself, like I said, I would choose one or the other. There is no point of deceiving myself and lying about it.

You are deceiving yourself and lying about science in every post to justify your ancient agenda.

 

[Link]

You guys confirm why if there are scientists who can prove evolution to be false, it won't work. You are too ideologically vested and toxic, that reasoning with you becomes impossible.

 

[shunyadragon]

You guys confirm why if there are scientists who can prove evolution to be false, it won't work. You are too ideologically vested and toxic, that reasoning with you becomes impossible.

There are not any scientists that can "prove" evolution is false or it won't work. This is an odd irrational statement based on a lack of knowledge of even what science is.

Every post I have presented is based on sound internationally accepted science in all major universities worldwide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe that, and believe it's only not known because of ideology of many of the scientists and their stubborn nature to what proves God.

It does not matter what you believe. It matters if you can support your claims or not and so far all you can do is to make empty claims. That is no different from being dead wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whether it's true or not, the point is, the evidence that lines up with evolution is circumstantial.

It really isn't. All evidence from almost every field of scientific study all converges on the same conclusion - that evolution is a fact of life. Biology doesn't make any sense without it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You guys confirm why if there are scientists who can prove evolution to be false, it won't work. You are too ideologically vested and toxic, that reasoning with you becomes impossible.

There is no such scientist.