Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incredible97)
    ...
    Beautiful story

    (Original post by HSafirah)
    Assalamualaikum
    Walaykumasalaam everyone

    Hope you're all well
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Hang on, but doesn't Islam claim that Allah created everything from nothing too?
    Bro, you're talking about the lord of the worlds here. He does whatever he wishes and can do whatever he wishes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I miss IdeasForLife

    Brother ash, secretly unban him :fuhrer:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I was praying, my baby brother flings a scarf on his head and prays next to me he he. #MenDon'tWearScarves

    Alhamdulilah he can say Awah akbah, and ya iyaha illAllah lol.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Up quark)
    I miss IdeasForLife

    Brother ash, secretly unban him :fuhrer:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    lol, I wonder how many times he's been banned :rofl:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Up quark)
    Bro, you're talking about the lord of the worlds here. He does whatever he wishes and can do whatever he wishes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The point is, I don't see how you can make fun of the way others believe the universe started (even though that meme does not describe either deism or the Big Bang's origins) if you essentially believe the same thing, but just dress it up with Special Pleading.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    lol, I wonder how many times he's been banned :rofl:
    Not as many times as me, that's for sure. :yes:
    (Original post by beautifulxxx)
    I was praying, my baby brother flings a scarf on his head and prays next to me he he. #MenDon'tWearScarves

    Alhamdulilah he can say Awah akbah, and ya iyaha illAllah lol.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indoctrinated&Proud
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The point is, I don't see how you can make fun of the way others believe the universe started (even though that meme does not describe either deism or the Big Bang's origins) if you essentially believe the same thing, but just dress it up with Special Pleading.
    But it's not the same thing tho... I guess it makes more sense to her if there was a deity (and that deity being allah) who kick-started it all off

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The point is, I don't see how you can make fun of the way others believe the universe started (even though that meme does not describe either deism or the Big Bang's origins) if you essentially believe the same thing, but just dress it up with Special Pleading.
    I wasn't making fun
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Be Ready To Meet Your Creator


    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Peace be with you all!

    As you know, Evolution is quite a controversial topic. I as a muslim, do not make the claim that evolution has never occurred - but i do question the mechanism behind it.

    Here's a piece i've written, and i am welcome to any comments:

    I want to clarify something i have already done before. I am not promoting the false idea that Gould rejects any form of neo-darwinism. In fact, i gave the following quote quite early in our discussion:

    "Gould himself said: "Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through a series of intermediate stages.13 (Gould) "

    I also never have asserted the overwhelming majority of evolutionary events constitutes to all evolutionary events - i have many times clarified that Gould never rejected neo-darwinism entirely.

    What i am trying to argue here is that for the majority, in fact, the overwhelming majority of evolutionary events (i would hazard to say 99.9% as it would be unscientific of me) according to Gould, Darwinin Evolution is not a viable explanitory source , nor is it supported by evidence in the fossil record.

    Therefore my quote still applies:

    I quote Gould

    "We do regard punctual equilibrium as by far the most common tempo of evolution, and we do assert that gradualism is both rare and unable in any case - given it's characteristic rate- to serve as a source of major evolutionary events"

    Gould was a paleontologist as well. He simply made a clear observation from the Fossil Record: if darwinian evolution were to hold true, we would have seen innumerable numbers of transitional fossils, rather than punctuations i.e species formed with large gaps. He also asserted that this is not due to there being poor fossilisation, but that we shouldn't even expect transitional forms because the mechanism for almost all evolution is not darwinian evolution.

    His theory proposed two things:

    "First, that the pattern of stasis and abrupt change apparent in the fossil record is real, and not an artifact of its incompleteness. In other words, once a species has arisen it remains unchanged for most of its history, but when change occurs, it doesso swiftly."

    and secondly:

    "...The long periods of stasis in individual species and through periods of environmntal change were not predicted by classical Neo-Darwinian theory, and required another explanation."

    (I can now access research papers from home, forgot to log in before. I assume you can access it, so here is the title of the paper(sorry for not using vancouver or harzard as referencing system, had little time!): Punctuated Equilibrium is Now Old Hat Roger Lewin

    Therefore the quote i had cited with regards to transitional forms still applies:


    Gould says: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed" "

    1. Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.


    And his colleague (who he made a joint publication about punctuted equilibrium theory)


    Gould’s colleague, Niles Eldrege, who wrote in 1995:
    "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!"



    Main points of contention:

    1. I am not asserting Gould rejects all forms of neo darwinism, and have even provided quotes where he approves of extremely rare isolated possible cases. However, it is clear that Gould rejected neo-darwinism as an explanation of the evolution of organisms in almost all cases, citing neo darwinism as lacking explanatory power, having predictions which were shown to not hold true, and lacking major support in the fossil record. If you think about it, Gould did not bring about his theory to solve gaps in neo-darwinian theory, rather, he stated that a new explanation was required to fit the evidence. Therefore beliving in neo-darwinism is really a leap of faith, and you will find a lot to refute this ideology in the fossil record, as well as false predictions made.

    2. At the same time, you have neo-darwinists (who by the way, many first started to reject Gould) are slowly begining to trying to integrate or claim part of his theory was already included in neo-darwinism. What Gould is saying is not that neo-darwinism does not apply, nor is he saying that the two can't be integrated. Rather, he states for the overwhelming process of evolution through time, in almost all cases, you only see punctuation. There needs to be another explanation for the evolution of species because darwinism can not be the answer to almost all the cases we see, and lacks fossil record support and is flawed on a number of accounts. Those that adopt neo-darwinism , while allowing for some punctuated equilibrium, themselves, do not believe it is a viable theory for the evolution of the majority of species - or they would be holding Goulds theory themselves.

    Therefore they cite a big problem in accepting Gould , which is namely:


    "[S]ome of the genetic mechanisms that have been proposed [by proponents of punctuated equilibrium] to explain the abrupt appearance and prolonged stasis of many species are conspicuously lacking in empirical support. Thus, we do not feel logically compelled to abandon neo-Darwinism in favor of the theory of punctuated equilibria"

    22. Charlesworth, B., Lande, R., and Slatkin, M., "A Neo-Darwinian Commentary on Macroevolution," Evolution, 36(3) 1982 pg. 474-498.


    Conclusion

    Gould accepted extreme rare instances of neodarwinism, but stated that the overwhelmingly, the process of evolution could not have occured via neo-darwinism as it is an untenable mechanism for this purpose, and lacks evidence or support in the fossil record, and additionally, makes predictions which do not hold when we look at the evidence.

    Proponents of neo-darwinism , while accepting punctuated equilibrium (after many of them initially rejected it), do so only in isolated cases and circumstances, and they themselves believe it is not a sufficient explanation, nor a genetically viable one to explain the majority of life - otherwise they would have joined Gould!

    So while the two theories are technically not mutually exclusive, they each claim for the overwhelming majority of evolution, the other persons mechanism is not viable, lacks evidence and so on. Therefore there are serious refutations to both theories, and even ways to falsify them.

    In my view, i currently believe IF it were to be shown that organisms descended from one another , and that the tree of life is indeed linked, it would be through a process guided by divine intervention, because i do not belive the other mechanisms are scientifically viable, or adhere to proof. I also believe that mutations and isolated cases could have been coded to enable a species to thrive and adapt. Despite neither being adequate explanations for the overwhelming accounts of the developtment of species through time, i postulate that scientists still hold on to them because they feel despite quite big flaws and challenges, it is better than asserting 'God' guided it, or helped program some of it.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Keep posting vids on the day of judgement; in fact, our next topic should be on the day of judgement. The signs, the actual day, the test, the scales etc...should strike some fear in all of us.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I love this. Though it is quite blunt:
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if this question is irrational or stupid but I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
    As Muslims, we believe that time going so fast is a sign of the last day. So my question is: What is the scientific reasoning behind time moving like wind ? Google has been a little useless btw.

    Here's the hadith: And Ahmad narrated (10560) that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until time passes quickly, so a year will be like a month, and a month will be like a week, and a week will be like a day, and a day will be like an hour, and an hour will be like the burning of a braid of palm leaves.”


    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beautifulxxx)
    I'm not sure if this question is irrational or stupid but I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
    As Muslims, we believe that time going so fast is a sign of the last day. So my question is: What is the scientific reasoning behind time moving like wind ? Google has been a little useless btw.

    Here's the hadith: And Ahmad narrated (10560) that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Hour will not begin until time passes quickly, so a year will be like a month, and a month will be like a week, and a week will be like a day, and a day will be like an hour, and an hour will be like the burning of a braid of palm leaves.”


    This isn't really that scientific, i dont think. Time isn't moving faster k. As you get older, you have more responsibilities and stuff to do which eats into your time... Which makes it seem like time goes by quickly. When you're bored, time seems to flow slowly, right? But when you have stuff to do or when you're having fun, time flies by, right? It's all about perspective and perception

    From a scientific point of view, i dont think it's possible to speed up time k.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A big gender divide exists between men and women in their 40s in belief in God and life after death, a poll suggests.
    Of the British men surveyed, 54% said they were atheists or agnostics compared with only 34% of women.
    The study also showed that Muslims in the survey had the fewest doubts about the existence of God and the afterlife.
    The research involving more than 9,000 British people born in 1970 was analysed at the University of Essex.

    Belief
    However, only 33% of those who said they were Roman Catholics had no doubts. Among Anglicans and Methodists, the equivalent figure was 16%.
    The study also showed that belief or disbelief in God and the afterlife did not always go together.
    A quarter of those who called themselves agnostic said they did believe in life after death.
    However, nearly a third of those people who labelled themselves as "religious believers who have occasional doubts" did not believe in an afterlife.
    Professor Voas also highlighted the very high level of belief in both God and life after death among Muslims.
    Some 88% of Muslims in the survey said they knew God really existed and had no doubts.

    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30910342
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generic_man)
    I bet it is a lot higher in younger Muslims, they seem far more religious than their parents' generation.
    As a younger generation muslim i would agree though i have no evidence to agree. I would postulate younger generation muslims have more access to material, and are therefore able to read more, due to advances in technology, ease of access and so on.

    In my view Islam illuminates truth and beauty, wisdom and rationality. The more you learn, the stronger your faith gets.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 19, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.