/islam/ - 8kun Masjid

>>37615

I haven't finished watching the video yet but I generally don't understand the point of these sorts of "debates", they always turn into a bunch of guys trying to talk over each other and the side that "wins" is the one that uploads the (usually edited) video first.

>>37620

Kuffar aren't interested in the truth but rather just there to spread hate and lies. It's good that Muslims are making their presence shown and not letting them go unchallenged.

>>37620

Alot of people enjoy watching them and the presence of Muslim intellectuals will surely win over budding honest intellectuals.

>>37620

The moderated debates are based.

Speakers Corner debates are a mixed bag. There are people like Jay Smith, Hatun, that redhead Zionist Jew, and that Hindu fanatic that are not there to learn. The best Speakers Corner videos are videos of muslims talking to regular people.

Btw can someone explain why they're arguing about genetic drift?

>>37626

Because Ra is a two bit atheist who only knows to repeat 'evolution' and 'no God lol'

>>37615

Doesn't Aron have a degree in paleontology? Despite his academic background he doesn't seem very well-versed in the biology subjects he keeps bringing up.

>>37615

>Why is it that all these atheist ecelebs are always [blank]

>atheist ecelebs

Replace [blank] with pretty much anything and it answers itself.

I was surprised to see aron ra get completely annihilated like that.

>Why is it that all these atheist ecelebs are always surface level intellectuals who haven't critically assessed their beliefs

Because they’re idiots fueled by little more than hatred towards religion, which to some degree is understandable since the only exposition to religion they’ve had were the decades of being subjugated by the church of satan and having to worship their satanic cerberus-concoction under threat of being burned on the stake, not to mention the institutionalized hypocrisy that ☻ianity brings with it which forced europeans for so long to conceal their true natures as sodomites and dogfkers.

>>37628

It's just further proof academia is a joke

>>37628

biology isnt a real science tbh

>>37778

If this is bait,fine you win ,but if it isn't here the thing biology is a real science;the issue here is that it made/influenced by people and they can be biased. A huge portion of it is beneficial but people's hate towards religion and their hedonism disguised as science have tainted the rather good knowledge it has.

I don't know how many scientists do this, but I have seen some disguise their studies as weak proof against religion, Islam especially,it's weak due to their no/surface level understanding of the religion as a whole .

Hopefully this made sense and we don't misunderstand each other , my English isn't the best.

>>37786

>responding to bait

We know biology is a science, we wouldn't have public health and medicine without it.

>>37786

>>37788

sry i mean paleontology completely useless and un scientific (no predictions possible)

>>37792

Thanks for the insight,brother. If you don't mind can you send me some good sources of what you are talking about, all I find are book praising Darwinism and you seem pretty knowledgeable.

>>37812

Lmao nothing he said makes any sense. Do any of you actually not know the history of modern scientific fields????

This is like trying to attack modern physics because Newton wasn't 100% correct. Uh…we've had over 100 years of research since then. Considering you literally cannot name any actual Biologists/Geneticists that have contributed to the field I am going to assume you guys don't really care about the actual data and thinking that goes into these things.

If you are actually trying to attack a modern field of study you have to actually know what it even states and not just make ☻ up. You can't attack a position you don't even understand.

>>37813

evolution is kufr and shirk

>>37814

You think that of everything, so we really don't take you seriously.

>>37812

The book in the picture (Forbidden Archeology) is where I got all of that information. It was a really interesting read, and there are lots more examples of discoveries that have been made.

You should read the abridged version. If you get the unabridged version, the author will go into extreme detail about how and why those archeological finds were dated at that age. It isn't really necessary to know all that info, and it can be confusing if you don't know that much about geology.

>>37818

t.progressive BO

>>37822

>nobody but the BO could possibly ever call out my stupidity

I got some bad news for you, son.

>>37823

What's stupid about saying evolution is haram you self proclaimed monkey? Not everyone is a modernist interpreter of the quran.

>>37824

>he thinks evolution means man = monkeys

You're so ignorant it's almost painful. You're clearly an uneducated teenager who is here to LARP as a righteous jihadi, declaring everything kufr and shirk, probably because /christian/ kicked you out for LARPing as a "devs vult" crusader.

You're a LARPer. You're not Muslim. You're a child. Your opinion means nothing.

>>37837

>declaring everything kufr and shirk

Never happened and not an argument.

>You're not Muslim.

Rabid takfiri. You will reap what you sow for auto takfiring so many ppl on this board. Don't you know a wrong takfir will make YOU the kaffir? Impulsive jahil child. Don't spit out takfir easily and watch your barking mouth. Not only do you claim to be a literal monkey but it seems you are also a seething khariji. Quite sad and pathetic.

>>37839

>so many people

No, just you. You're not a Muslim and it is obvious to anyone who has spent any time in a real mosque and not LARPing on the internet. You're not Muslim. You never have been, but I hope someday you will be.

>>37837

>he thinks evolution means man = monkeys

That is what Darwin thought, and what he wrote his theory about. That is the premise of all evolutionists and Darwinists. Saying that animals like birds (living in an area where their main source of food is worms in a tree) can develop longer beaks over long periods of time to help them get to the worms in the trees is something else. Darwin based this ‘man from monkeys’ theory upon the observations he made of such animals.

Darwin’s theory that man evolved from monkeys is wrong. Allah and his Messenger PBUH have made this clear. That reason doesn’t work for a lot of people. That is why there is a book full of evidence that directly contradicts every single point of Darwin’s theory that even secular people can accept. If you want to know how man was created, go read the Quran.

>>37845

Darwin's evolutionary theory is based on survival of the fittest. He postulated that man shared a common ancestor with the great apes, but never said that we were descended from those apes. I share a common ancestor with my cousins, but that doesn't mean I descended from my cousins.

>>37848

The fact that people like you think "hurr, it's an ape ancestor, it's not an actual monkey" is a valid point in discussions like this, only goes to prove your own mental gymnastics rather than your actual comprehension of the matter at hand. After seeing what >>37813 and you have said in this thread, without properly responding to @96c737, any sensible person would question your own motives instead of @a23c85 s.

The implications that stem from the darwinian model are based upon a very weak foundation. If you try to reconcile the whole abiogenesis-multicellular organism-fish-mammal-human sthick with religion while simultaneously trying to make a distinction between whether the ape-ancestor is called a monkey or common ancestor, you're an idiot.

Everyone always knew that they can breed organisms to 'select' or 'change' certain traits for the offsprings. What darwin stated is that speciation can occur due to selections that depend on factors that are less directed. Yet, he provided little to no details on exactly how this speciation occurs.

The darwinist model, is more hinged on materialism than the actual scientific method.

>>37848

Would you care to give us your Tafsir of the verses in the Quran that explain how man and all the other animals evolved from the same walking fish?

>>37854

>common ancestor

>must be an ape

>can't be a more primitive human

The mental gymnastics must take its toll on you. Then again, you're also using @IDs as though we're on Twitter, so I guess I can't expect much.

>>37855

Fish? Who the hell brought up fish?

To say that one celled organisms started mutating into multiple celled organisms, then into fish, then into land animals, isn’t impossible…but if it happened that way it was ordained by Allah and He is the one that caused and directed those changes. There aren’t any explicit explanations about how Allah began the creation of animals. In the Quran the creation of Adam and all other humans is talked about several times. Man did not come from any other previous created animal. If you say that he did, you are directly contradicting what Allah has revealed in the Quran.

I find it astonishing how atheists like Richard Dawkins, who hold science up as the pinnacle of human intelligence, can completely ignore the scientific method when it comes to asking questions like ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ Part of the scientific method is not to say something definite without having concrete evidence, even then if contrary evidence is found later on, that definite statement has to be taken back. They always go on and on about how beautifully complex and structured the universe and life is, and how complicated all the sciences and mathematics are…and then proceed to say that it all came from nothing for no reason randomly, and if you say otherwise you are a complete idiot who doesn’t understand, because it is all too complex.

I watched an interview of Richard Dawkins talking about DNA. He said that there was so much information encoded in the DNA of humans that there had to be ‘intelligent design’ in human genetic material. There had to be some kind of creator of humans, for there to be that much genetic information. When asked about who or what that creator might be, he said “I don’t know, maybe aliens or something.” Allah only guides those who he wills. The complete blindness and stupidity of atheists is literally a miracle of Allah.

>>37844

I have seen you takfir many brothers here sadly. And you do not have evidence for takfir as you are simply an impulsive takfiri child. May Allah (swt) guide you or destroy your self proclaimed monkey kind.

>>37858

>tries the whole "ape ancestor =/= an actual ape bro!" line

>accuses others of mental gymnastics

You cannot use the fact that Allah turned some people into monkeys and pigs as evidence for your darwinism.lite

It is very much possible that humans have changed drastically over the ages. We all descended from Adam(AS) and even so, while the people of Nuh(AS) used to live for hundreds of years, while some earlier humans were taller and stronger than others, while we are different from our ancestors; we cannot and shouldn't use this to tie darwinism to our religion. See >>37862. When people like dawkins are pressed for their claims they put forward speculations while completely oblivious to the fact that they're basically taking baby-steps towards the cosmological argument.

Atheists unironically believe that life emerged from a chaotic environment, managed to not exist in aforementioned environment but thrive and give way to more complex life that they evolved into. i.e. from first simple cells to prokaryotes to multicellular organisms to fish to amphibians to mammals, etc. etc. And they attribute it all to "chance", "randomness", "luck". Even after seeing the probabilistic infeasibilities. The 'science' they like to wave around is more materialist philosophy than something based upon the scientific method. Ironically, their takes are very similar to that of polytheistic pagans.

The ambiguity of your "ape ancestors" and other supposed organisms, right between the transition from where things branch off, aren't properly defined because they literally cannot tie their theory together and throw in lazy remarks. Even what they can say with (relative)certainty, that these organisms that branched off lived in the same era, are approximates; within which periods, even more branch-offs(according to their own theories) could occur.

While once people took the laziest take from a guy that didn't know about the internal structures of cells to explain away just one of the many gaps in our understandings; they now maneuver around it and change definitions to fit into it instead of taking newer evidence for what they are and throwing away/modifying(much) the botched foundation in the first place.

Most atheists that try to bring up darwinism(while talking about religion) are painfully unaware that they're doing the same thing I mentioned dawins doing. Just repeating what you read, word for word, without even trying to actually apply it to existing axioms by yourself is a sign of ignorance, not only about the matter at hand but even about the very thing they are bringing to the conversation.

>>37870

>I have seen you takfir many brothers here

Again, nope, just you.

>>37872

I never said "ape ancestor". I said "common ancestor".

>>37879

>common ancestor

As in the walking fish that is the supposed ancestor of all animals on Earth? That is the theory. You need to take it all the way to the beginning. You can’t just argue about the different wordings used at the end of the evolutionary line.

Here >>37858 you said ‘can’t be a more primitive human’. If this more primitive human was the common ancestor of men and apes, does that imply that apes are descended from the more primitive humans? So the apes devolved from them?

Just because there is a verse in the Quran saying that some people were turned into apes and swine, has NOTHING to do with Darwin’s evolutionary theory. It is IMPOSSIBLE to try to antiquate the theory of the evolution of man with Islam. You need to take the things you are saying to their beginning and to their conclusion. You can’t just say wishy-washy things about the tiny aspect of a ‘common ancestor’. That tiny aspect is part of a much larger whole, and it cannot be separated in any logical way.

>>37884

>That is the theory.

That is one theory, not "the" theory. Evolutionary creationism is in line with Islam. Only the Christians believe that Adam was brought from the clay as a 100% modern man. There is valid and absolute proof of more primitive humans that existed in the past. Do you believe Allah just put those bones and fossils there to confuse us?

>>37890

Explain this ‘theory’. Are you saying that Allah created this ‘common ancestor’ to apes and humans separate from all the other animals? Since you are departing from the common evolutionary theory that describes all life evolving from single cell organisms?

You are being deliberately vague, making a great fuss about the difference between the term ‘common ancestor’ and ‘ape’. You offer no specifics at all. You only want to contradict what we are saying, because it coincides with something that @a23c85 said (your mortal enemy). Now that we have called you out on your bull sh*t, you seem to be making things up as you go along.

>Do you believe Allah just put those bones and fossils there to confuse us

Those fossils of the several ‘human predecessors’ in many instances are several different skeletons from different ages, of even different animals mixed together. Some of the bones were even deliberately fabricated, in order to find the ‘missing links’. Some of them were later admitted to be false by even evolutionists themselves, and even after that they are still in museums and being printed in educational textbooks. Because according to them, the evolutionary theory of man is set in stone. No matter how much contradicting evidence you find, and no matter how much of their accepted evidence is proven to be wrong, they can never change their theory. Normally scientific theories always change from their original form, since new information is always being discovered…but there I go again talking about science. The field of human evolution is more akin to the flat-earth society. You have to stick to the dogma no matter what. You would have learned that if you read even part of the book >>37821

>>37903

Until you understand the difference between "common ancestor" and "ape", there really isn't much to discuss.

>>37903

>@a23c85

Dude … stop doing that.

>Some of the bones were even deliberately fabricated

You probably think humans used to ride around on dinosaurs, too …

>>37904

A common ancestor means that both species are descended from the same ancestor, so they are kind of like relatives. An ape is a type of mammal similar to a monkey. Please elaborate on your theory of human evolution and explain how it ties in with Islam.

>>37909

Are you going to explain it? Why is the person who asked you about it a disgrace?

>>37879

you might think its just me, but I saw you takfir others, you just assumed they were me because they had common sense , and still u bring no evidence for the takfir you khariji

>>37903

>You are being deliberately vague, making a great fuss about the difference between the term ‘common ancestor’ and ‘ape’. You offer no specifics at all. You only want to contradict what we are saying, because it coincides with something that @a23c85 said (your mortal enemy). Now that we have called you out on your bull sh*t, you seem to be making things up as you go along.

spot on, this man is justifying creation by other than Allah (swt) simple because he wants to spite me quite sad

>>37909

you can actually detect and measure the endocrine system, call me when they measure evolution over millions of years and can make predictions, i suggest u read the definition of SCIENTIFIC method , if 1 thing is missing its not a science

>>37620

Unironically this. It's painful to watch them.

>>37909

Not that brother, and in my opinion, I think evolution (if it is true) doesn't inherently debunk god or vice versa. But I just have to question, this may sound dumb, but why isn't there another species that is similar to man, but from a different family tree. Like, fish people or bird people or something akin to that? I think I understand behind the concept of natural selection and evolution but don't you think there's something amiss in that theory. And I'm pretty sure evolution is still a theory, outside of a few small changes in humans, we have yet observe a monumental change on another species similar to how the great ape evolved to homo-sapiens and Neanderthals.

>>38079

>we have yet observe a monumental change

That's because such changes take thousands of years. We can observe the past, but not the future.

>the great ape evolved to homo-sapiens and Neanderthals

The great apes didn't evolve into homo-sapiens or neanderthals and nobody claims they have. Homo-sapiens and the great apes share an ancient primate ancestor, but humans did not evolve from apes nor apes from humans.

>>37792

I'm pretty sure even the Homo erectus which predate the Neanderthal by millions of years used tools.

Also, Darwin based his theory on how birds' beaks varied depending on their diet and environment. That is the crux of his theory. The animals suited to their environment and most capable of reproducing pass their genes on to the next gen while the others die out leading to animals adapting to suit their surroundings.

>>38081

Why does it require for bird and fish people to exist in order for evolution to occur? Evolution isn't a linear process which must always end with a human like species.

Evolution simply means that there are variations among a species (as we can see in dog or cat breeds) and the one most suited to its environment survives to reproduce more. For example if we introduced black and white rabbits to a snowy area the rabbits with dark fur would be spotted and hunted by predators whereas the white ones could camoflage.

However I don't see how any of this disproves Islam since this is just another natural process. Additionally, we have observed evolution within human lifetimes such as how bacteria and viruses evolve resistance to certain drugs since only those strains that are resistant to said drug survive and this process continues until we get a strain against which the drug is no longer effiicient.

>>39386

This is good evidence against them, such technology as glass spearheads can only be accomplished by a skilled intelligent human. Take the average person and give them modern tools and gloves, perfected glass material and they wont be able to master arrow making, but when Adam (as) was kicked out of jannah he probably made it with their bare hands with sticks and stones like an alpha.

>>39386

I agree with you akhi. I just wanted to clarify since there is a large number of people in the ummah who don't even recognize evolution in general and instead chose to believe that everything was created as it is.

The arrowhead thing doesn't mecassarily disprove anything since it is quite possible that a certain community of Homo erectus learned to make and use arrows.

>>39385

Actually evolution assumes life emerges out of natural randomness and can speciate naturally, fish acquiring so many mutations and beneficial traits that they stop being fish and become birds, etc. It's retarded magical thinking.

In my view if god doesnt strike the atheist with lighting or something hes basically won the debate.

>>39464

There are flying fish in the epipelagic zone but fish didnt become birds. They became land animals by adapting first to live in rock pools which are kinda half way between living on land and and sea. The land being completely unpopulated by other animals was a very desirable habitat.

>>39466

> They became land animals by adapting first to live in rock pools which

I'll accept variations within a species, that's observable and reasonable via some mutations, but anything more than that is not science, nor metaphysically reasonable, it's just absurdity.

>>39468

Well we believe that one species in the rock pools is the ancestor of all the reptiles (including the dinosairs) modern amphibious creatures and mammals. Basically your mom was a dipneusta and so was mine.

But the cool thing about science is that its just our best guess based on what the most reliable observations tell us. It could be proven wrong if someone found some new evidence.

>>39469

evolution as in radical speciation over huge timespans isn't observable, it's not falsifiable, you can always adjust the hypothesis and parameters to fit anomalies in the data. And most science institutions are parroting the same dogma so dissident ideas will never stand a chance for a long time.

>>37909

>it's a science fact

No. It's a collection of anecdotes, hunches and pattern-guess-work.

>>39464

Nope. Evolution is a fact. The theory is that of Natural Selection, which does make sense in most cases.

Also, the categories of fish and bird is an arbitrary category since birds (according to current science) fall under the category of reptiles since they're technically dinosaurs.

>>39464

If the universe is as old and big as the scientists claim it is then somewhere eventually there will be some self-replicating molecules form that are slowly molded and selected by their environment until it ends up with us; a rather long series of molecules that also happens to self-replicate.

>>39485

>goreposting like an edgelord

No.

>>39472

>>39472

>it's a fact because I say so

No.

>it's a fact because my text book says so

No.

Not how science works. Evolution isn't even a hard science,.It's in the same tier as psych theories that can't be observed.

Is evolution your religion? Yikes

>>39489

Evolution is an observable fact. Haven't you ever heard of bacteria evolving to become resistant to certain drugs? Or wolves evolving into dogs?

>>39490

That may be quite true. The scientific community is quite capable of falsehoods and lies, being largely a kaffir institute,however that doesn't disprove evolution itself. It only disproves the standard narrative of human evolution (which is quite flimsy since the idea that humans came from Kenya is disproved by the oldest human fossils in Jebel Irhoud in Morroco)

>>39495

>bacteria

>mammalian species

>same thing

lmao

>wolves and dogs

dogs can interbreed with wolves, they aren't fully different species.

>>39496

No, it doesn’t disprove evolution itself. It completely discredits the current model saying that humans evolved from animals. There is nothing in Islam that contradicts evolution…but saying that humans evolved from animals does contradict what has been revealed about the creation of Adam.

>>39503

>has been revealed

There is much that has not been revealed. Allah told us what we needed to know in the best way we could understand it, but also made us smart enough to study creation further and deeper to achieve greater understanding.

>>39472

>fact

not really, its based on randomness and random fossils, tons of assumptions and guesses

sure its their BEST GUESS without Allah

but we know better that Allah made us

believing life can create itself is illogical and kufr

>>39495

thats adaptation, not evolution

the bacteria here is getting used to a bigger dose, like humans can with some foods

not transforming the bacteria into a dog for example

>>39511

no, quran says there is EVERY example in it

>>39511

Quran [21-30] 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?

Allah does not tell us how he began the creation of animals. This could have happened by the way evolutionists claim (regarding animals) with single celled organisms evolving into more advanced life. They also believe that life originated with water. Even the big bang theory is in line with this verse (that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them). The Quran is very much in line with science. The Darwinian theory of evolution that says that man evolved from other animals goes against the scientific method itself by ignoring contradictory evidence, and we know it isn’t true because of what is in the Quran.