The theory of evolution from the Quran

[Shad]

That is the possibility for human beings before Adam have fur or even apes like . . because if they are naked and their private parts are not apparent to them, and if there are animals, trees etc in heaven/earth. . . then they must have fur and there must be protection from heat and cold etc. Thus, there is the possibility that human beings before Adam look like apes etc. . .but they are humans, ie. as per verse 2.30, not apes. This is the statement propositions from the Quran.

Some other fact for consideration.

Please take note the propositions that Adam and Eve are naked in heaven , like apes ? no protection against heat, cold etc ? and thus human beings before Adam are naked ?

You are comparing similar lack of protection against heat and cold, the elements. You are asking a question. I am responding to that question. You are confusing yourself with your own gibberish. If protection is fur than the lack of fur is not protection. If protection is clothing than as I noted is isolated by culture, region, etc. You have contradicted yourself.

Which is it?

 

[Muslim Atheism]

If protection is fur than the lack of fur is not protection. If protection is clothing than as I noted is isolated by culture, region, etc. You have contradicted yourself.

I'm not contradicting anything. . the main issue is related to what are 'the thing' that cover their private parts before it 'became apparent' to them ?

The question mark (?) indicates:

- why 'their private parts are not apparent' before they ate from that tree, and

- why 'their private parts are then became apparent' to them​

So he made them fall, through deception.
And when they tasted of the tree,
their private parts became apparent to them,
and they began to fasten together over themselves from the leaves of Paradise.
And their Lord called to them,

"Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is to you a clear enemy?"​

7.22​

What is the thing that covers their body and private parts ?

It could be anything. . but obviously it is not from clothing, animals skin etc, and it not from the leaves of the Paradise. . .

Thus, could they have thick hairy body? (initially)

(but go down on earth as human being known today - thick hairy body are only referring to previous human beings)

. . .

If they have thick hairy body and this is what known as 'human beings' to the angels , then the issue whether human beings before Adam also have thick hairy body and naked ? ie. their private parts are not apparent to them.

. . .

or bigfoot like etc ?
(This probably fake, but just a description)

I don't know. . merely possibility.

 

[Aquitaine]

This is merely the allegorical and the statement propositions from the Quran.

I have nothing to say but merely interested in hearing opinions.

So what is your opinion ?

click here for videos

Giant skeletons?



.

I realise this is in the DIR, so I will only politely ask a question.

Muslim Atheist, are you interested in learning about the TOE without using religious scripture?

 

[Shad]

I'm not contradicting anything. . the main issue is related to what are 'the thing' that cover their private parts before it 'became apparent' to them ?

No an issue is your didn't know what the purpose of fur was. You thought it was the lack of protection, in your own words. You were wrong and are backtracking in order to ignore your mistake.

The question mark (?) indicates:

- why 'their private parts are not apparent' before they ate from that tree, and

- why 'their private parts are then became apparent' to them​

What is the thing that covers their body and private parts ?

It could be anything. . but obviously it is not from clothing, animals skin etc, and it not from the leaves of the Paradise. . .

Thus, could they have thick hairy body?

or bigfoot like etc ?

Humans only care about nudity if their culture is against the practice. As I clear said in an early post many people do not use clothing to cover their "private" parts. So for them to have any negative reaction to their own nudity a social stigma is already present or conditioned to be accepted. Humans do have public hair which in some cases covers sexual organs enough to be not longer visible. Visibility is secondary to social taboos of nudity. A taboo which is within Abrahamic religions, not all religions nor the cultures of different people.

If apparent, as in visible, then the argument fails as many apes sexual organs are visible. Visibility is even greater when sexual aroused. Some species of Apes have fur covering these organs, some do not. So it would have to be case by case as the amount of public hair or fur covering the area would vary from person to person or individual ape.

If apparent, as in understood, refer to comments about nudity in other cultures.

If they have thick hairy body and this is what known as 'human beings' to the angels , then the issue whether human beings before Adam also have thick hairy body and naked ? ie. their private parts are not apparent to them.


I don't know. . merely possibility.

The definition of what a human is to an angel is irrelevant. Produce an angel to provide testimony. Either we are sticking with human definitions of what a species is or we play word games. You are using an unproven assumption in part to argue another unproven assumption or question. This is a fallacy.

You again provide evidence of your own failures to think out your ideas. Nudity is not dictated by the amount of fur or hair on one's body, it is a social construct built around clothing. In fact its part of the definition of the word...

What does apparent mean in your argument? Visibility or understanding? Pick one... You will find a response in one of the above lines.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

This is about 'logic' and the validity of its 'statement propositions', not about 'facts'. Two different things.
Therefore the issue about 'Produce an angel to provide testimony' is irrelevant.

Secondly. okay. . the above is your opinion but it does not logically answer the following issue.

their private parts became apparent to them,
and they began to fasten together over themselves from the leaves of Paradise.

- why 'their private parts are not apparent' before they ate from that tree, and

- why 'their private parts are then became apparent' to them​

I see no further issue with your answer.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Muslim Atheist, are you interested in learning about the TOE without using religious scripture?

No, this is the DIR section, and the issue of this thread about the Quran and 'logic', ie. the statement propositions from the Quran (premises) and accepted by the Muslim community. Thus, I'm interested to hear answers from 'Muslims' and the 'statement propositions' from the Quran 'ONLY' (the logical premises). Opinions from those who are not VERY WELL familiar with verses of the Quran are irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Shad]

This is about 'logic' and the validity of its 'statement propositions', not about 'facts'. Two different things.
Therefore the issue about 'Produce an angel to provide testimony' is irrelevant.

Secondly. okay. . the above is your opinion but it does not logically answer the following issue.




I see no further issue with your answer.

Proposition are statements which are true or false. If proposition are true then logically the conclusion is true, sound and valid. If a proposition is false a conclusion is either invalid or unsound. Your are attempting to come to a conclusion which reflects a fact and therefore reality. You can not come to a conclusion which is true without proving the proposition are also true.

You have linked videos, text and pictures in support of your argument. Do not play stupid games when I do the same. Either remove your external sources or allow others do use external sources as well. Imploying such a blatant double-standard is childish. It is also a fallacy; special pleading.

their private parts became apparent to them,
and they began to fasten together over themselves from the leaves of Paradise

This does not suggest nudity but a level of concussions or self-awareness. If Adam/humans were just as mentally capable before eating the fruit he would be aware of nudity regardless of fur or thick hair. Reference earlier comments about social rejection/acceptance of nudity. It is taught social construct, not a nature instinct. If not as capable, this suggest as I noted earlier an possible increase of intelligence followed by a taught social construct.

So far there are 3 possibilities

1. Increased in intelligence.
2. Social construct
3. Loss of dense body hair (Humans have hair covering most of body but it's very fine) However this is post hoc rationalization.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Proposition are statements which are true or false. If proposition are true then logically the conclusion is true, sound and valid. If a proposition is false a conclusion is either invalid or unsound. Your are attempting to come to a conclusion which reflects a fact and therefore reality. You can not come to a conclusion which is true without proving the proposition are also true.

You have linked videos, text and pictures in support of your argument. Do not play stupid games when I do the same. Either remove your external sources or allow others do use external sources as well. Imploying such a blatant double-standard is childish. It is also a fallacy; special pleading.

(just a description)

Do you have verses from the Quran to explain the statement propositions from the Quran ?

A. Yes
B. No​

Which one ?

This does not suggest nudity but a level of concussions or self-awareness. If Adam/humans were just as mentally capable before eating the fruit he would be aware of nudity regardless of fur or thick hair. Reference earlier comments about social rejection/acceptance of nudity. It is taught social construct, not a nature instinct. If not as capable, this suggest as I noted earlier an possible increase of intelligence followed by a taught social construct.

So far there are 3 possibilities

1. Increased in intelligence.
2. Social construct
3. Loss of dense body hair (Humans have hair covering most of body but it's very fine) However this is post hoc rationalization.

Okay. .

Secondly. okay. . the above is your opinion.

I'm not trying to argue with you and accept your opinion . . this is a no debate section, and I hear opinions.

I see no further issue with your answer.

 

[Shad]

I asking for you not to employ a double-standard with your mess of links. videos and jpegs.

Why do I need to a verse from the Quran? You are asking questions which implies looking for answers. I give 3 possibilities from what I have read of the linked verses. If you want confirmation from the Quran do your own research...

 

[Muslim Atheism]

I asking for you not to employ a double-standard with your mess of links. videos and jpegs.

Some of them are the proof for transitional form of human beings into apes like humans, some are just description and open for possibility or bring clearer pictures of the issue. I did explain the purpose for such images.

. . .

Why do I need to a verse from the Quran? You are asking questions which implies looking for answers. I give 3 possibilities from what I have read of the linked verses. If you want confirmation from the Quran do your own research...

If you have already given the answers, then I accept it as your opinion.

and. . this is a DIR section and please read the first post. . it clearly said:

"Possible corroboration between theory of evolution and proposition in the Quran."​

and with all the supporting verses (the statement propositions or premises) . . .

Spoiler: first post

Therefore, do you have any 'statement propositions from the Quran' to support your conclusion ?

A. Yes
B. No​

If there is no verse to support your conclusion or opinion , then it is merely irrelevant opinion or less weight to the real issue of this thread.

 

[Shad]

Some of them are the proof for transitional form of human beings into apes like human, some are just description and open for possibility or bring clearer pictures of the issue.

Yes... My points were also proof of the concept of nudity and it's application as social construct and that of the environment. I was suggesting possibilities as well by these examples...

"Possible corroboration between theory of evolution and proposition in the Quran."and with all the supporting verses (the statement propositions or premises) . . .

This is correlation not corroboration. The verses are the claims not the initial evidence. Thus are assumptions not statements of truth.

Therefore, do you have any 'statement propositions from the Quran' to support your conclusion ?

A. Yes
B. No​

If there is no verse to support your conclusion or opinion , then it is merely an opinion and less weight or irrelevant to the real issue of this thread.

I am using the same verses you have used. I am give external examples just as you have. The issue is with interpretation and application of said interpretation. Which I have clearly laid out in previous comments. The verses suggest a punishment, that of become apes not being apes. It is a non-sequitur.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

My points were also proof of the concept of nudity and it's application as social construct and that of the environment.

Social construct in heavens ? Increased in intelligence when the proposition from the Quran said:

And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful." They (angels) said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise." 2.31-32

* ie. an inference that suggests Adam possess high intelligence and smarter than angels.​

I guess what you said is merely blank opinions and irrelevant.



. . .

This is correlation not corroboration. The verses are the claims not the initial evidence. Thus are assumptions not statements of truth.

This is the DIR section for Muslim, and in this section. . the main presumption was verses from the Quran are facts.

The truth is from your Lord, so do not be among the doubters. 30.60​

You don't agree on this ?

If you don't . . . then your opinion does not belong to this section.


. . .

I am using the same verses you have used. I am give external examples just as you have. The issue is with interpretation and application of said interpretation.

Then you have to provide the 'verses from the Quran' to support your conclusion. Otherwise, it is merely opinions and carries irrelevant or less weight to the issue of this thread.

Thus, I accepted what you said as your opinion, and see what others have to say about those verses.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, this is the DIR section, and the issue of this thread about the Quran and 'logic', ie. the statement propositions from the Quran (premises) and accepted by the Muslim community. Thus, I'm interested to hear answers from 'Muslims' and the 'statement propositions' from the Quran 'ONLY' (the logical premises). Opinions from those who are not VERY WELL familiar with verses of the Quran are irrelevant to this thread.

Oh okay, you want to ask other Muslims about the idea of melding TOE into your MA beliefs.

The only reason I asked is because if you were interested in learning about the basics of TOE - then there are some great online educational lectures, as well as other brilliant websites that are designed for newcomers.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

This is the summary of premise from statement propositions in the Quran:

First Premise: Existence of human beings before Adam


Second Premise: The possibility of human beings before Adam have thick hairy body.


. . .

This is the Third Premise:

Third Premise: Planet Earth and other living creatures has existed long before the creation of Adam.

Have those who disbelieved not considered
that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity
and We separated them

and made from water
every living thing?​

Then will they not believe?
21.30

(in the end, the earth; ie. all planets, will once again be a joined entity)​

Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke
and said to it and to the earth,

"Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion."
They said, "We have come willingly."​

(41.11)

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe​

But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been.
And We said, "Go down, [all of you],
as enemies to one another,
and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement
and provision for a time."
2.36​

The above verses suggest that the planet earth existed long before the creation of Adam.

Could this supports the contention that there are other human beings before the creation of Adam?

 

[Shad]

Social construct in heavens ? Increased in intelligence when the proposition from the Quran said:

And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful." They (angels) said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise." 2.31-32

* ie. an inference that suggests Adam possess high intelligence and smarter than angels.​

I guess what you said is merely blank opinions and irrelevant.

Which was not mentioned until now nor in the OP.

This is the DIR section for Muslim, and in this section. . the main presumption was verses from the Quran are facts.

The truth is from your Lord, so do not be among the doubters. 30.60​

You don't agree on this ?

If you don't . . . then your opinion does not belong to this section.

I was questioning the interpretation hence why I suggested possibilities not stated within your OP. You should include 2.31-32 in your OP.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on all.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Fourth Khalifah, Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (ra) explained in the light of Holy Quran and scientific evidence that the processes of
Creation + Guided Evolution
were employed by Allah The Exalted.
Ref:https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Which was not mentioned until now nor in the OP.

I was questioning the interpretation hence why I suggested possibilities not stated within your OP. You should include 2.31-32 in your OP.

The context is 2.30-39, and you have to be very familiar with verses of the Quran and the Quranic context of verses in various chapters , or even some hadiths, scholars etc. . . before you able to understand the issue, perhaps.

No, this is the DIR section, and the issue of this thread about the Quran and 'logic', ie. the statement propositions from the Quran (premises) and accepted by the Muslim community. Thus, I'm interested to hear answers from 'Muslims' and the 'statement propositions' from the Quran 'ONLY' (the logical premises). Opinions from those who are not VERY WELL familiar with verses of the Quran are irrelevant to this thread.

However, if you reject facts from the Quran or as to the existence of angels etc , then there is no issue since there is no debating in the DIR section.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Oh okay, you want to ask other Muslims about the idea of melding TOE into your MA beliefs.

Okay, I'm asking Muslims from various denominations about the interpretation of the proposed verses from the Quran. The Ahmadiyya Muslim have some explanations, that I will go through on the explanations. Thanks to DawudTalut and Matemkar.

 

[Shad]

The context is 2.30-39, and you have to be very familiar with verses of the Quran and the Quranic context of verses in various chapters , or even some hadiths, scholars etc. . . before you able to understand the issue, perhaps.



However, if you reject facts from the Quran or as to the existence of angels etc , then there is no issue since there is no debating in the DIR section.

You should include relevant information regardless. Especially if it forms a major context of your argument.

I rejected your interpretation of the verses. Not the verse themselves. I do so as you play word games. Humans are already apes so there is no punishment or the punishment is still upon us. Also there is no causation link in referenes to previous punishments and Adam. You are taking a number of verse, reinterpreting and retrofitting an interpretation which supports your presupposition. There is no flow to your argument.

I will step back as you seem to be only wish to discuss your own interpretation regardless of the context of the verses.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

I will step back as you seem to be only wish to discuss your own interpretation regardless of the context of the verses.

Yes, if you have no verses from the Quran to support your conclusion . . this is not debating section, it is for learning and understanding. Read the rules.

Please also differentiate between 'translation' and 'interpretation', it is not the same. I'm merely providing the translation and asking for people's interpretation on the relevant verses, ie. must be supported through valid logical premises from the Quran. There is no argument. . . and Muslims respond by giving the verses, hadith and the Ahmadiyya's interpretation etc.

Whereas, this is an argument. . a conclusion which has no support from the Quran, but counter the beliefs and invalidated many premises/verses from the Quran itself, the Constitution.

Humans are already apes so there is no punishment or the punishment is still upon us.

Rules

Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted.