The attachments do not present any objective verifiable evidence to support the assertions.
Last edited:
-
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!
The problem of Creationism in Islam rejecting the science of evolution.
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
justaguy313
Active Member
Actually Most Americans 52% do accept the sciences of evolution as either Theistic Evolution (TE) or Natural Causes, and do not accept the literal Biblical record of the Pentateuch. By far only a relatively few people believe in the Sasquatch. Yes literal Creationism remains popular among Christians 42%.
What's New
FDU What's New keeps you up-to-date on all the latest news and stories from Fairleigh Dickinson University.www.fdu.edu
Only 22% Americans believe in Sasquatch is 2020.
Social Darwinism has no acceptance and standing in contemporary science..
For you maybe it doesn't. For sure you cannot say that the school system isn't heavily affected by it.
Ah, c'mon. You didn't even listen to it. That's pure ignorance from your side. Refute arguments presented in the podcast or anything that is said about Darwin in it.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
I’m a simple man
Not apparently simple? In personality I consider simple as honest, forthright and straight forward
By the content of your posts is very evasive with a high fog index.
I listened to it. Extreme bias on your part with an ancient tribal agenda without science.
Good sound science has refuted every one of your posts.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Honesty and all that has nothing to do with simplicity.
Indeed. And I won't. Because they are fallacies, not arguments.
Are you saying heavily attracted to academic science. I agree, but not fundamentalist private schools.
Really> Then you do not consider honesty in your assertion of simplicity. This is very obvious in your posts.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Honesty has nothing to do with simplicity
Your pragmatic view of honesty is not encouraging.
justaguy313
Active Member
Believing in God and rejecting Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with ancient tribal agenda. That's something you made up.
Which science exactly, because science is a pretty large term per say, don't you think?
Is there even such a thing as a general science?
Could you say that there's even a general consensus between scientists in different cathegories? I for sure wouldn't say so from what I saw in the last 20 years addressing pandemics, global warming, new diseases and viruses.
Your endorsement of an ancient tribal agenda has everything to do with the rejection of the sciences of evolution. I do not need to make anything up.
The sciences of Biology, Genetics, Geology, Paleontology, Chemistry and Physics directly related to evolution. 95%++ of all the scientists in these fields support the sciences of evolution.
Broader subject not related to evolution see above. As far as pandemics, global warming, new diseases and viruses, there is a similar consensus of agreement of 95%++ and all the major universities of the world. There are, of course, unknowns and disagreements in the ongoing research in science, which are resolved over time with further research, sharing and cooperation among scientists and universities.
You netioned "General Science?" At the elementary school level maybe, but by High School we have Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
Last edited:
justaguy313
Active Member
You've probably heard ad nauseum that the UN's IPCC report claims that it is "95% certain" that humans are causing climate change.
95% is a very specific number. So where does it come from?
The IPCC uses a "likelihood scale" that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from "exceptionally unlikely" (0-1% probability) to "virtually certain" (99-100% probability). This sounds like it is based on a precise scientific measurement or well-defined statistical process, but when it comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is manmade, this is in fact a subjective decision that is made by the report's authors.
According to the IPCC: "The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change."
In other words, the "95% probability" that is making all of the headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed door meetings between the report authors. Still, it serves an important propaganda purpose in giving a veneer of scientific credibility to the decision, one that a media that never bothers to explain these decisions to you thinks you will be too stupid to figure out for yourself:
So how reliable is the IPCC process in general?
95% is certainly a magic wand number in mainstream science eh?
And just so you don't jump to conclusions too soon, I am not denying climate change, that's not the point I'm making here.
I've presented and supported what I said. We can go to greater details, but you will just appeal to authority so what's the point?
My stance on this issue is clear. If evolution is true than Quran should be rejected. If Quran is accepted, then evolution should be rejected. This insincerity where we don't fully commit to the truth but play games and twist verses to suit what scientists over all say, is not a good stance.
Since my statement is qualified, by the "if", I've appealed to both stances. You have not responded to this. If Quran rejects evolution, why should we pretend otherwise?
I have not heard ad nauseum of the UN's report, but after review I found you selectively and dishonestly cited the report. The report overwhelmingly supports the human caused global warming, and the impending disaster if humanity does not change.
I am a geologist with a specialty in climate and paleoclimate (geologic history of climate) and have followed the research and publications related to global warming for 50 years. I have no problem with 95%++ of all scientists in the related fields endorsing global warming.
The melting of sea ice and glaciers as well as record high temperatures air and ocean temperatures worldwide over recent history since the Industrial Revolution based on factual evidence.
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, publishing the results in April 2008. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, and only 5% believed that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.
In part the very very few scientists that object to global warming out of thousands of scientists.
The above has too high a fog index. Not true, The documented increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human causes by burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has a direct relationship to global warming.
The 95% figure is of course an estimate, the actual best estimate is 97% based on actual polls. The uncertainties you selectively cite in the report do not detract from the overwhelming support for global warming and the facts that there is a direct relationship between increased global temperatures and the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
In geologic history it is documented that in previous eras the increase in CO2 for different reasons resulted in global warming.
In the headlines yes, but probability has no relationship to the actual science, and the direct polls of scientists like my self.
I go by the documented science of global warming by the overwhelming evidence, academic research and publiThecations over my 50 years of study, and direct polls of scientists. The process of IPCC amounts to vague commentary, and not the real overwhelming evidence.
The only thing I see is some disagreement as to how much of global warming is caused by humans. By far the overwhelming majority support human caused global warming since the Industrial Revolution.
No, it is based on direct polling of scientists and the fact that very few out of the thousands of scientists have published objections to global warming.95% is certainly a magic wand number in mainstream science eh?
Last edited:
You have NOT presented any scientific references nor evidence to support your agenda. You previously claimed support of science. There is none.
We can fully understand in plain English the overwhelming evidence for the sciences of evolution. Your objections remain based on the supposed 'truth' of an ancient tribal religion without science.
Okay say you are right. I'm saying we should abandon Islam, not twist the Quran. This is because I have a principle of being sincere to interpretation. Can't do what Bahais for example do with the day of judgment.
Of course, we disagree concerning our religious beliefs. That is another issue.
I approach this issue strictly from a scientific perspective regardless of religious beliefs.
You claimed there is scientific support for your agenda concerning evolution and have presented nothing.
Last edited:
justaguy313
Active Member
I am a geologist with a specialty in climate and paleoclimate (geologic history of climate) and have followed the research and publications related to global warming for 50 years. I have no problem with 95%++ of all scientists in the related fields endorsing global warming.
The melting of sea ice and glaciers as well as record high temperatures worldwide, and ocean temperatures over recent history is factual evidence.
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, publishing the results in April 2008. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, and only 5% believed that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.
In part the very very few scientists that object to global warming out of thousands of scientists.
The above has too high a fog index. Not true, The documented increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human causes by burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has a direct relationship to global warming.
The 95% figure is of course an estimate, the actual estimate is 97%. The uncertainties you selectively cite in the report do not detract from the overwhelming support for global warming and the facts that there is a direct relationship between increased global temperatures and the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
In geologic history it is documented that in previous eras the increase in CO2 for different reasons resulted in global warming.
In the headlines yes, but probability has no relationship to the actual science, and the direct polls of scientists like my self.
I go by the documented science of global warming by the overwhelming evidence, academic research and publiThecations over my 50 years of study, and direct polls of scientists. The process of IPCC amounts to vague commentary, and not the real overwhelming evidence.
The only thing I see is some disagreement as to how much of global warming is caused by humans. By far the overwhelming majority support human caused global warming since the Industrial Revolution.
No, it is based on direct polling of scientists and the fact that very few out of the thousands of scientists have published objections to global warming.
As I said in the post, I didn't post this because I deny global warming, that's not the issue.
The same was said about scientific concensus during covid 19 pandemic even though many of medical employees and doctors of medicine stated otherwise
So it seems 95% is the magic wand number, that's pretty clear. The same with climate change, when conspiracy theorists called out the scam you got all of a suddenly to 97 and now to 99%. What did you do, kill the heretics?