Jump to content
Islamic Forum
beklemede

did we come from monkeys

Recommended Posts

ÅöäøóÇ ÎóáóÞúäÃ

³Ãƒâ€¡ ÇáúÅöäÃâ€

óÇäó ãöä äøõØúÃ?óÉò ÃóãúÃâ€ÂóÇ

ƒÅ’ò äøóÈúÊóÃ

¡ÃƒÂ¶ÃƒÂ­ÃƒÂ¥ÃƒÂ¶ Ã?óÌóÚóáúÃ

¤ÃƒÂ³Ãƒâ€¡ÃƒÂ¥ÃƒÂµ ÓóãöíÚðÃ

‡ ÈóÕöíÑð

ƒâ€¡ {2}

 

[shakir 76:2] Surely We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing.

 

[Yusufali 76:2] Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight.

 

[Pickthal 76:2] Lo! We create man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing.

 

Didn't I mention germs at the beginning of our discussion?!

 

Peace,,

 

The word here used is nutfah-amshaj (mixed drop). The mixed drop refers to the mixture and convergence of a small quantity of sperms with the ovum (and its associated follicular fluid) to form the zygote. It has the form of a drop and consists of a mixture of male and female secretions.

 

This description is merely referin' to the developing human embryo.

 

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.iad(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/miracle.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.iad(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/miracle.html[/url]

 

Peace,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
But while the quaran said the human has been created by god, it does not explain why it was made with differences.

 

And FYI those differences is the biggest  proof of the darwin evolutionary theory.

 

Not exactly, accordin' to the evolutionists -- "the process of evolution of the human body adapted to a great many climates, as a result of which a picture emerged with such distinguishing features as skin colour, hair type, the shape of the eyes and lips, height and weight." They claim that people in hot climates had wide noses because they needed to be able to breathe more air and to be protected from the effect of the heat, while the exact opposite applied to people in cold climates. Harun Yahya states:

In order to 'acquire characteristics out of need' the cells of the human body would have to be exceedingly conscious, well-informed, aware of the outside world and know what steps needed to be taken. The fact is, however, that cells work as they are programmed to. Their programmes lie in DNA. That being the case, who or what will change that DNA according to the prevailing climate? Evolutionists claim this is done by mutations. These, however, are not conscious and do not behave in line with a specific need or plan. Moreover, 99% of mutations are harmful, and merely damage or destroy what is already in existence. That being the case, what is the force and intelligence which programmes DNA according to different racial characteristics?

 

DIFFERENT RACES ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

Some evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of the theory they defend.

 

The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"

 

In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.

 

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes together in later generations in different combinations. There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features.

 

The different physical features between human races are due to variations within the human race. All the people on Earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

 

In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.

 

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general, dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.

 

This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.

 

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.harunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/ramadan_2004/ramadan_pages_2004_day1.php"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.harunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/ramadan...s_2004_day1.php[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danish don't fool me , it does not depend on the sun exposure.

As for an exaple i am white skin ( like the people from norway ) blond and blue eyes, when go to the beach with friends and girls ... i always end up with my skin burned out while my friends with the typical italian skin are ok.

The evoulution made the people wich live in sunny continents beign more resistant to the sun ray, while people like me wich use to live in less sunny continent does not had that necessity.

This is not a small variable, in a age where cloth were not used .... was a question of death or life, it made the people with skin more resistant to the sun beign more surviving.

 

 

 

kadafi ... you too... don't fool me.

From the text i'd read from your post, i'd assume the one who wrote it is or biased or a real amateur writer.

I like how he try to justify the variable there are in the human race....and than just fly over the bigger point in the last sentece "Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups." .

Bascially he wasted 99% of the article talking about the sex of the angels... and when it come the time to justify why in africa there are only black people... and why in orient yellow poeple ( with all the other difference in the phisic ).....he put JUST 2 words.

great...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is indeed a theory. But it is a theory that has given powerful insights and technologies.

 

Will it be disproven? Perhaps someday, but today it yields useful results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danish don't fool me , it does not depend on the sun exposure.

As for an exaple i am white skin ( like the people from norway ) blond and blue eyes, when go to the beach with friends and girls ... i always end up with my skin burned out while my friends with the typical italian skin are ok.

The evoulution made the people wich live in sunny continents beign more resistant to the sun ray, while people like me wich use to live in less sunny continent does not had that necessity.

This is not a small variable, in a age where cloth were not used .... was a question of death or life, it made the people with skin more resistant to the sun beign more surviving.

As for fooling u, i am not trying to do anything of the sort :D Secondly, y does a white paper turn to balck when u heat it? Is that evolution too?

 

thirdly, isnt evolution a long time thing, taking billions of years? Why is it that u can use U-V to get a tan in couple of minute?

 

That phenomena has nothing to do with evolution. Without going into lot of physics: when a body is exposed to Electromagnetic radiation such as infra-red(heat) or U-V, it induces heat and AC current (electricity) of the same frequency as of the Electromagnetic radiation object. Large amount of it kills human cells. But thanks to physics we also know that black-dull object release lot more radiation as compared to white-smooth ones. Hence, our body perfect in architechture tans since it has a greter chance of fighting it off. That has been 'programmed' into our body, it did not 'evolve' because all humans are capable of performing this even those living in cold enviroment. Just goto Africa and u will be surprised how much your colour changes.

 

Indeed y dont we see blue humans who live near rivers if its due evolution, that will help them catch their predators? why nor orange or green colour humans?

Edited by Danish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Scientists allways think they have all the answers and people just seem to go along with everything they say, however if you look through history look how many mistakes scientist make. The evolution theory of theirs is just another mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

The fact that science discards and revises its theories when they fail to produce useful results is one of the stronger reasons to respect it, rather then to disparage it.

 

:w:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D and peace to non muslims

 

I agree with you, however I believe a time will come when they realise that they have got the evolution theory wrong.

 

:D

 

The fact that science  discards and revises its theories when they fail to produce useful results is one of the stronger reasons to respect it, rather then to disparage it.

 

:w:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kadafi ... you too... don't fool me.

From the text i'd read from your post, i'd assume the one who wrote it is or biased or a real amateur writer.

I'm not foolin' you my friend. Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish intellectual. His work is always referenced.

 

 

I like how he try to justify the variable there are in the human race....and than just fly over the bigger point in the last sentece "Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups." .

Bascially he wasted 99% of the article talking about the sex of the angels... and when it come the time to justify why in africa there are only black people... and why in orient yellow poeple ( with all the other difference in the phisic ).....he put JUST 2 words.

great...

 

The evolution perspective states that that some “races� are lower than others on the animal-to-human scale.

 

One writer has observed:

 

“After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer [in the evolutionary community] was a resounding no . . .The African was inferior – he represented the missing link between the ape and the Teuton� (John C. Burnham, Science, Vol. 175, February 4, 1972, p. 506).

 

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University. For a quarter of a century (1908-33), he also served as the President of the American Museum of Natural History’s Board of Trustees. Osborn once wrote:

 

“The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics . . .but of the instinct, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year old youth of the species Homo sapiens� (“The Evolution of Human Races,� Natural History, January/February, 1926; reprinted in the April, 1980 edition, p. 129).

 

Let's analysis what Harun Yahya stated:

In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.

 

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general, dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.

 

He didn't refer to the "sex" but rather the genes gettin' mixed up as he stated:

There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features. and hence the different physicial attributes.

 

Peace

Edited by kadafi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the colours of humans are Affected by enviroment and genetics. If u r exposed to a lot of sun ur skin will tan, or even got brown/black after lot of years, Venier.

Well then y do we find the colours between balck and white? Y not pink, blue, purple, violet, indigo, green etc...?!

 

Our colour changes depending on the amount of sun we are exposed to. Clear example is of tan. If you use Ultraviolet light u can create tan, hence go darker.

 

Colour is not due to evolution but sun and heat. Hence i have no idea where evolution is involved in that.

 

That is a small variation found in humans (i.e. colour), like there r variations in every species.

 

 

The entire idea for Darwin was when he went to the Galagos (sp?) Islands. He noticed that on each differnt island was the same bird, however they each had small

differences that had to do survival on eat island.

 

The same goes for skin color. Darwin believed that your environment changes people. That is a part of evolution.

 

Another intresting story was in some town, forget the year, there was some kind of butterfly was completely white. However a major exploded letting out much pollution. A large number of the white tree polluation was turned black. All the butterflys that lived around these trees turned black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peace onslaught,

 

"Industrial Melanism"

 

In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is possible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:

 

According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollutionhas killedthe lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened, and now the light-coloured moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-coloured moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.

 

However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation". In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

 

Industrial Melanism is certainly not an evidence for evolution because the process did not produce any new species of moths. The selection was only among already existing varieties. Moreover, the classical story of melanism is deceptive. The textbook pictures above (portrayed as genuine photos) are in fact of dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks by evolutionists.

 

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

 

o Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific".

 

o Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.

 

o As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.( Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 141-151. )

 

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

 

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.( Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396 (1988), p. 35-36. )

 

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another.

 

source: "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.harunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/evolutiondeceit03.php"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.harunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/evolutiondeceit03.php[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peace onslaught,

 

"Industrial Melanism"

 

In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is possible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:

 

According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollutionhas killedthe lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened, and now the light-coloured moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-coloured moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.

 

However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation". In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

 

Industrial Melanism is certainly not an evidence for evolution because the process did not produce any new species of moths. The selection was only among already existing varieties. Moreover, the classical story of melanism is deceptive. The textbook pictures above (portrayed as genuine photos) are in fact of dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks by evolutionists.

 

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

 

o Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific".

 

o Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.

 

o As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.( Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 141-151. )

 

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

 

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.( Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396 (1988), p. 35-36. )

 

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another.

 

source: "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.harunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/evolutiondeceit03.php"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.harunyahya(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/evolutiondeceit03.php[/url]

 

 

Cool. Thanks for the info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entire idea for Darwin was when he went to the Galagos (sp?) Islands. He noticed that on each differnt island was the same bird, however they each had small

differences that had to do survival on eat island.

 

The same goes for skin color. Darwin believed that your environment changes people. That is a part of evolution.

 

Another intresting story was in some town, forget the year, there was some kind of butterfly was completely white. However a major exploded letting out much pollution. A large number of the white tree polluation was turned black. All the butterflys that lived around these trees turned black.

Allow me to define these 3 bilogical terms:

Variation -- Small chages found in the SPECIES, such as some humans have Blue eyes, some have small eyes and so on.

Adaption -- When the species change themselves or are designed in such a way so that they become suitable for the enviroment. For example camel have large feets for sand.

Evolution -- Origin of NEW species from the older ones. For example a reptile might just turn into an elephant, if that does happen then thats evoution.

 

Only because we have small similarities with other creatures does not mean that we evolve from them. Dolphins are said to be the second cleverest creatures, does it mean we eveolved from them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allow me to define these 3 bilogical terms:

Variation -- Small chages found in the SPECIES, such as some humans have Blue eyes, some have small eyes and so on.

Adaption -- When the species change themselves or are designed in such a way so that they become suitable for the enviroment. For example camel have large feets for sand.

Evolution -- Origin of NEW species from the older ones. For example a reptile might just turn into an elephant, if that does happen then thats evoution.

 

Only because we have small similarities with other creatures does not mean that we evolve from them. Dolphins are said to be the second cleverest creatures, does it mean we eveolved from them?

 

Evolution just means that a species has changed some how. I would say that evolution and adaption is alomst the same thing.

 

I don't exactly understand your dolphin point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Here is my 2 cents!

 

I don't buy into the modern notion that we are evolved monkeys or apes but I think we have much in common. At least, I like bananas and climbing trees.

 

Bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

First of all I'm very shocked to hear fellow Muslims DO believe that man were created from monkeys and supports the Theory of Evolution or any modified version of it.

 

To me, it is very clear that Adam is the 1st man created by God. Then came Eve which was the 1st female created by God from Adam. Eventually both Adam and Eve were sent to earth as a result for their disobedience. Originally, Adam and Eve came from HEAVEN.

 

On earth Adam and Eve finally met with each other and from there on they produce infants.. each time twins; a male and a female and then another twins and so on. These twins cross marry each other (a male with female from different twin pair) Since then, human population grows until this very day.

 

1. If you do believe in the theory of evolution, where on earth do you put Adam and Eve, which was in fact mentioned in the Quran? Or do you believe Adam and Eve and their descendants all died and then there was no human being in this world. Then the so called new 'humans' suddenly came from monkeys? :D

 

2. The Theory of Evolution (or any modified version of it) is in fact a theory that came FROM human beings. And we all know no matter how genius or clever humans are, their mind and intellect are bounded. So bounded and limited. Humans alone can't expain divine or 'ghaib' things thats one of the reasons why Prophet Muhammad was sent; to teach us about these divine and 'ghaib' things. Some things are meant to be taken just as it is because we are merely humans; weak and limited. We can't possibly figure out everything.

 

3. God have said that man are the best of creation (we can't be the best of creation if we come from monkeys).

 

4. The 1st man created was Adam and remember God commands everything to bow to Adam because Adam was err sorry I can't seem to find the right word.. because Adam is (karim/honourable/high degree). That's when Syaitan/devil disobeyed God and swore to put man to astray till the day of akhirat.

 

To me this theory of evolution has many flaws and no solid proof and is just another scheme by the kafir/jews to led man to astray.

 

Wallahu'alam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

First of all I'm very shocked to hear fellow Muslims DO believe that man were created from monkeys and supports the Theory of Evolution or any modified version of it.

 

our fellow Muslims actually believe this?! :P did they not bother to read surat al-baqarah where it states that humans were turned into monkey...that is where they orginated from.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

First of all I'm very shocked to hear fellow Muslims DO believe that man were created from monkeys and supports the Theory of Evolution or any modified version of it.

 

To me, it is very clear that Adam is the 1st man created by God. Then came Eve which was the 1st female created by God from Adam.  Eventually both Adam and Eve were sent to earth as a result for their disobedience. Originally, Adam and Eve came from HEAVEN.

 

On earth Adam and Eve finally met with each other and from there on they produce infants.. each time twins; a male and a female and then another twins and so on. These twins cross marry each other (a male with female from different twin pair) Since then, human population grows until this very day.

 

1. If you do believe in the theory of evolution, where on earth do you put Adam and Eve, which was in fact mentioned in the Quran? Or do you believe Adam and Eve and their descendants all died and then there was no human being in this world. Then the so called new 'humans' suddenly came from monkeys?  :D

 

2. The Theory of Evolution (or any modified version of it) is in fact a theory that came FROM human beings. And we all know no matter how genius or clever humans are, their mind and intellect are bounded. So bounded and limited. Humans alone can't expain divine or 'ghaib' things thats one of the reasons why Prophet Muhammad was sent; to teach us about these divine and 'ghaib' things. Some things are meant to be taken just as it is because we are merely humans; weak and limited. We can't possibly figure out everything.

 

3. God have said that man are the best of creation (we can't be the best of creation if we come from monkeys).

 

4. The 1st man created was Adam and remember God commands everything to bow to Adam because Adam was err sorry I can't seem to find the right word.. because Adam is (karim/honourable/high degree). That's when Syaitan/devil disobeyed God and swore to put man to astray till the day of akhirat.

 

To me this theory of evolution has many flaws and no solid proof and is just another scheme by the kafir/jews to led man to astray.

 

Wallahu'alam

 

 

Explain to me how it is very clear that adam and eve were the first man and women when there is no proof. Not to mention there is more proof for evolution.

 

In the Torah, IIRC they only have 2 children, Cain and Able.

 

1. Honestly I don't believe in Adam and Eve.

 

3. Firstly to say that humans are the best creation from God is, in my view, incorrect. Humans have created the most destuction do the environment, to its own people,etc... Secondly if you believe that God said this, doesn't, mean God created adam, and even. It could me that God started the big bang, or started the first life and eventually Humans came up through evolution.

 

5. So if the theory of evlution is flayed, what proof of there that Adam and Eve existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

Here is my 2 cents!

 

I don't buy into the modern notion that we are evolved monkeys or apes but I think we have much in common. At least, I like bananas and climbing trees.

 

Bye

 

Humans did not evolved from monkeys. They evolved from Hominids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution just means that a species has changed some how. I would say that evolution and adaption is alomst the same thing.

 

I don't exactly understand your dolphin point.

No, ppl confuse evolution with varaition and adaption. It will not be variation if humans turned it to rabbits, that will be evolution, regardless of how many years it takes. Evolution in my sense is a transformation of one specie into another or creation of a totally new specie.

 

I don't exactly understand your dolphin point.

My point is: Since u r saying that we originated from monkeys, because we look similar to them. Why cant we have originated from dolphins, we have closests intelligents, or from a potato since we have the closest resmblance to them genetically or from ants, since ants are very similar to humans in their character? Y be narrow-minded and go only for looks?

 

By the way, where are billions of animals which explain transformation of a reptile into bird? R u saying they all 'vanished'? Naturally, there must be trillions of their fossils, where r they? Indeed, u should have couple of them in ur back garden. That should a clear proof for most.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D to fellow Muslims

 

Onslaught I suggest you go here "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.geocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/prophets_of_the_world/pageone.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.geocities(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/prophets_of_the_world/pageone.html[/url] to read the history of mankind. And in surah Nisa' (4:1) the very 1st verse God tells us about Adam and Eve and how humankind expanded.

 

Onslaught as I'm kind of new here and I believe you are a non-Muslim? Because God has mentioned about Adam and Eve in many sections in the Quran and if you do not believe in Adam and Eve, well you simply don't believe in Quran and for a Muslim to disbelieve; may God spare us all from the Hell Fire.

 

Again I would like to point out to you that the Theory of Evolution is just something brought up from humans intellect. And I would like to remind you that some things are meant to be taken just as it is because we are merely humans; weak, bounded and limited. We can't possibly figure out everything. If you have strong faith in God and Islam you would've have understand and accepted the invinsible/ghaib/unseen things that man alone can't possibly understand. The way I see it, people nowadays tend to only believe what they see (especially the Europeans and Americans) because of their lack of faith and knowledge. They depend solely on their intellect. Science alone cannot answer every possible thing and when scientist cannot explain it, they create these 'theories'. We may not the proof on everything but we have faith in God and the signs of God is indeed great and magnificent.

 

Perhaps others such as al-Furqan and Insignia of Islam can answer better than me because they are more knowledgable but to me I'm making a stand here and to me believing in the evolution theory is a complete nonsense.

 

God is All-Knowing and may Allah forgive me if I stated something wrong.

 

:w:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can we come from monkeys. it is baseless. might be the scientists say about the people whose faces were changed to monkeys by Allah :D when they did not come to straight path and constantly disapproved Allah :D existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[DO NOT CHANGE COLORblue]

i respectfully disagree to an extreme extent...

 

Peace

 

Totally disagree with this and may Allah give you wisdom.

Charles Darwin himself could not prove the theory of evolution he merely introduced it.

But enemies of Islam take this theory to be fact even though no paleantologist, scientist, etc has never proved it.

 

Allah mad mankind form Adam, there is no concept of the "caveman" in our deen. (ie man was ignorant and Jahil and learnt things through trial and error)

Prophet Adam was created as first Prophet and forst man, he was then given infinite wisdom by Allah, and then subsequently the human race began.

Please do not confuse science fiction with Facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is great to have illusions about our Godly origin. The truth, however, is that we all evolved from monkeys and they, in turn, evolved from smaller animals who, likewise, emerged from primorial germ-like creatures... Sorry  :D

 

Sorry but you are very much mistaken, Theory of evolution has never been proved and nor wikll it ever be proved as it is complete and utter nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam alikum,

think of this:

a single fat cell can not be turned to a musscle cell.......get the point?

Edited by slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×