Turn on thread page Beta
A New Islamic Perspective on Evolution... watch
- 19-03-2016 22:57
(Original post by champ_mc99)
- 19-03-2016 23:55
1. No because [insert "life is a test argument"]. Also, when you say reject the science of this, it means to believe in the miracle of the creation of man. A miracle can be seen as an inconsistency which goes against laws and boundaries in a cosmos of consistencies, which are the laws of physics. In this case, the rest of life following evolution is the consistency. So, if a miracle is an irregularity, which only happens rarely (otherwise it won't be a miracle), can still mean a person believes in the laws science. When I drop a ball, I still value science enough to be 99.99...% sure it falls to the ground. Hence, we can still value science as (pretty) much as an atheist.
2. What do scientists describe what humans are? They themselves must have come to a conclusion of there being a "first" homo sapiens which have a genetic arrangement identical to us. This first homosapien was Adam. The organism before him in the chain would have a slightly different mutation to not be recognised as our species.
1b I think you have misunderstood my point. Your position is one that is unfalsifiable God created humanity to look like they evolved and set up a universe in which they would have a evolved but just before they would have evolved he miraculously created them. To take that world view requires you to position religion above science but to accept science in certain cases, what criteria is used to conclude when religion requires reinterpretation or when science requires ignoring. And doesn't this introduce a dangerous view of science into society one that will eventually infect the scientific community. Requiring scientific discovery and thinking to fit with both scientific standards and religious standards will lead to scientists being socially obliged to take unscientific view points, will discourage and pevert scientific research and debate and so on and so forth
2 there is no real cemented definition of a species. A pretty simple one for organisms like us would be able to breed to produce fertile off Spring. If that standard is taken then Adam and Eve would require a couple hundred thousand to prevent exctinctuon debt as well as explain how we have level of diversity unexplained by being the off Spring of two recent humans.
- Thread Starter
- 20-03-2016 00:17
(Original post by champ_mc99)
- 21-03-2016 21:13
Nice to know the rest makes sense.
Your question is referring more to the cosmos than biology. Many scientists who are atheists believe the universe came from nothing (of course there are others like the multiverse). This sounds impossible at first but if time began with the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics follow "time", including "energy cannot be created nor destroyed", then outside the Big Bang there were no laws. So the universe can be created from nothing. I don't believe this by the way.
So anyways we can apply the same to God. God created the universe. God is outside time. God is in fact, the creator of time and the laws of physics. Hence, God does not need a creator since one definition of God is that he must be eternal (he doesn't have a beginning or end).Spoiler:ShowAnd Allah doesn't have cells.
Did you know there is a direct correlation between a country's development index and it's percentage of atheists? Best countries (also least religious) in the world are: New Zealand, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Norway, Australia, Finland, and Switzerland...
What are the worst countries in the world to live in? The ones that follow religion very strictly, mainly the Islamic states but also Christian countries in South America and India