Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
Today at 03:10 PM
German nationalist party ...
Today at 01:11 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 03:13 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 01, 2025, 11:55 AM
News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM
Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds

 (Read 11381 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #30 - September 07, 2013, 07:52 AM
    Well, it's fine with catholics.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #31 - September 07, 2013, 08:01 AM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on September 07, 2013, 07:50 AM
    I often find that Christians claim compatibility with evolution simply because they are not young earthers, but the time scales involved are the least of the problems.
    To really have  a belief compatible with evolution you would also have to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth....

    A lot of Christians do think it's a myth.

    Quote
    ....and you would probably also have to have an explanation for why your holy book repeats this common mythological idea.

    The usual spiel is that the Adam & Eve myth says awesome stuff about the human condition. I've never been able to get anyone to clarify exactly what is so awesome about it, but that's what they reckon.

    Quote
    ....or you think at some point in evolutionary time, souls were injected exclusively into hominids.

    That's the usual approach. See there was these monkeys, then one day Big Grumpy decides they gotta have souls so he can make them guilty of all sorts of shit and punish them for it. Cool system. Afro
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #32 - September 07, 2013, 04:31 PM
    Quote
    Quod Sum Eris

    No one is saying it's a science book, but saying it was never supposed to be taken literally is quite simply not true. You've heard of Galileo right?

    The Catholic Church was open and willing to hear Galileo's findings. In fact they wanted to investigate the matter further before letting him publish it. Galileo did want to wait and got financing from royalty to publish his findings before they were proven to be accurate. The Catholic Church did not like this along with the fact that royalty was also involved in the situation. This had more to do with politics then religious dogma. Also as with any theory in the scientific field, it must be investigated before people published.

    Quote
    And you actually made my point for me. Sin is human nature. This is how god made us. We need to be forgiven for a crime we never committed.


    God created the possibility of sin. Humans got so carried away with it that it has driven a wedge between us and God. Christ gave himself up on the cross to bring reconciliation between us and God.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #33 - September 07, 2013, 04:34 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 07, 2013, 05:53 AM
    We're running around in circles, but that's common in discussions with believers. Basically, your holy book morphs and changes and the interpretations shift to fit whatever you want it to say at the time. It's cool really, and if that's what you want to do, be my guest. I just think it's very hypocritical when you turn and criticize Muslims for doing the same thing.


    I criticize Muslims for their behavior ( violence, misogyny, and exc )

    Yes I do criticize their religious texts but mostly for the human rights abuses that they lead to.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #34 - September 07, 2013, 04:37 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on September 07, 2013, 07:50 AM
    I often find that Christians claim compatibility with evolution simply because they are not young earthers, but the time scales involved are the least of the problems.
    To really have  a belief compatible with evolution you would also have to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, and you would probably also have to have an explanation for why your holy book repeats this common mythological idea.

    You would have to believe that Humans descend from other animals, entirely different species; species which do not have souls. That is unless you have an explanation for what happens to the souls of porcupines and slugs, or you think at some point in evolutionary time, souls were injected exclusively into hominids. But that would be denying the evidence that humans are qualitatively the same as other animals.




    The creation story is full of symbols it is not literal.

    To be honest I believe in evolution for the most part, but still have a hard time accepting the idea humans and apes have a common ancestor.

    I do believe animals have souls.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #35 - September 07, 2013, 05:15 PM
    do bacteria have souls? what about funghi?
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #36 - September 07, 2013, 06:38 PM
    Quote from: C1981 on September 07, 2013, 04:31 PM

    God created the possibility of sin. Humans got so carried away with it that it has driven a wedge between us and God. Christ gave himself up on the cross to bring reconciliation between us and God.


    This is the part that really gets me. Saying we were created with the possibility of sin is confusing when the christian idea of sin IS human nature. So we're wicked because of our god given nature. We need to be saved and forgiven for being the way god made us to be. It's intellectual stupidity that degrades us as a species.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #37 - September 07, 2013, 06:59 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on September 07, 2013, 05:15 PM
    do bacteria have souls? what about funghi?


    Bacteria Jesus and Funghi Muhammed will get back to you on that one....
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #38 - September 07, 2013, 08:01 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on September 07, 2013, 05:15 PM
    do bacteria have souls? what about funghi?


    Nope they don't have souls.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #39 - September 07, 2013, 09:23 PM
    Quote from: C1981 on September 07, 2013, 04:37 PM
    To be honest I believe in evolution for the most part, but still have a hard time accepting the idea humans and apes have a common ancestor.

     Cheesy

    If you're going to accept evolution, you have to accept that humans evolved too. You don't get to pick and choose which species it applies to. If you don't accept that humans evolved too, you should look up HM's post about poodles.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #40 - September 07, 2013, 09:37 PM
    I am stubborn Osman.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #41 - September 07, 2013, 09:40 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on December 01, 2012, 03:40 PM
    The new focus among this generation of Muslim apologists seems to be accepting evolution for all species with the exception of human beings. I watched a couple of clips on youtube with Abdurraheem Green and Yasir Qadi saying that Muslims can accept evolution in all animals except for humans, since there is nothing in the Qur'an or Sunnah to disprove that other species evolved. Of course, that argument is complete nonsense. It's like saying "Well, I have no problems believing that all modern dogs have evolved from ancient wolf ancestors, since that is what the fossil record, DNA evidence, geological evidence, and scientific consensus all point to EXCEPT for poodles! I have to believe that poodles were magically created by fairies!"

     Afro
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #42 - September 07, 2013, 10:56 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on September 07, 2013, 09:23 PM
    Cheesy

    If you're going to accept evolution, you have to accept that humans evolved too. You don't get to pick and choose which species it applies to.


    That's what the muslims are doing here at home. No problem with any of it except with humans.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #43 - September 08, 2013, 10:15 AM
    In the interest of fairness there are some Muslims who do accept human evolution. Whilst they may not be apologist they are, in their own words, Muslims and see no issue with accepting human biological evolution and Islamic doctrine.

    I know, cognitive disonnance alert right?

    But, as long as science is accepted this is someway towards rationalising a great many people.

    Source:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbynBJVTWKI

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #44 - September 08, 2013, 11:17 AM
    So they believe that Adam had a mother? and that this mother was rather hirsute (to put it kindly)?.
    Or they disagree with Allah that Adam was a real person and prophet?


    i cannot watch that video because im using an internet dongle, but I have seen both of those people speak on the topic before.
    the guy on the left says that evolution is all good, apart from humans.
    the woman on the right tries to say that mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam sort of might correlate with adam and eve, which is really strange because she is actually some kind of scientist. She gets it all completely wrong.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #45 - September 08, 2013, 12:03 PM
    Didn't Mtochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam live thousands of years apart. Oh yeah, I forgot people lived really long bakc then and were really tall too. 90  feet perhaps.
    Don't read all those science books bro, you'll just get more confused.

    That's funny. The more science I read, the less confused I get.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #46 - September 08, 2013, 12:13 PM
    yeah, but even if they lived at the same time, they still have nothing in common with biblical adam and eve.
    They are complicated concepts to grasp, but she should understand them.

    Quote
    Fatimah Jackson (full name Fatimah Linda Collier Jackson) is an African-American biologist and anthropologist who is a professor of biological anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC)


    maybe she does. Maybe she is just telling them what they want to hear, for some reason.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #47 - September 08, 2013, 12:23 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on September 08, 2013, 11:17 AM
    She gets it all completely wrong.


    No she doesn't. Both of the scientists explicitly states that humans share a common ancestor with apes and chimpanzees. That evolution is a scientific fact. That Islam is compatible with evolution.

    That guy, I think his name is Yasir Qadri, is on the opposing side of the argument.

    Fatima Jackson and her colleague (who had a brilliant list of Top 10 Misconceptions of evolution) should be applauded for their bravery. As unfortunate as the case maybe.
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #48 - September 08, 2013, 12:29 PM
    How the scientists reconcile the 90 feet tall hadith with their faith I don't know.
    Don't read all those science books bro, you'll just get more confused.

    That's funny. The more science I read, the less confused I get.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #49 - September 08, 2013, 12:32 PM
    ^^^^^

    Quote from: Jedi on September 08, 2013, 10:15 AM
    I know, cognitive disonnance alert right?


    Right?  wacko

     cognitive dissonance
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #50 - September 08, 2013, 12:37 PM
    I know why Tzortzis and co. are on TV tyring to disproe evolution using the philosophy of science. Because from a scientific perspective they can't argue with the evidence. Watch these tow videos LOL

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydlrg7zFP6w

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGK-dPRJC8&list=UUQvGIo3YTNonPqiasDF239Q
    Don't read all those science books bro, you'll just get more confused.

    That's funny. The more science I read, the less confused I get.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #51 - September 08, 2013, 12:37 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on September 08, 2013, 12:23 PM
    No she doesn't. Both of the scientists explicitly states that humans share a common ancestor with apes and chimpanzees. That evolution is a scientific fact. That Islam is compatible with evolution.


    Qadi denies human evolution (and is not a scientist). As i said i cannot watch videos atm, but from i remember, his exact words in some lecture were that "we draw the line" at that point.
    It is Usama Hassan who accepts human evolution. Like Jackson, he thinks mitochondrial eve/Y chromosome Adam has some relevance, and even lends some support to the idea.
    Jackson is saying that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret mitochondrial eve as Hawra/Eve (and/or Y-adam as Adam, I dont remember exactly). She is completely wrong about that, and gives the strong impression of not understanding the topics she is talking about.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #52 - September 08, 2013, 12:47 PM
    I don't see anything wrong with believing that so long as you accept evolution.

    It is a myth, but if she wants to call mitochondrial Eve Hawa then good for her.

    You accept evolution from common descent, you say that at a certain point when homo sapiens branched off that Allah inspired the first female homosapien and call her Eve. I prefer this than the 'No, there was no evolution, no common descent. Allah created humans as humans, distinct from all other living beings.'

    People are entitled to believe what they wish....but facts are facts. So long as you believe in evolution that's fine with me. One myth busting at a time.

    Remember that they were talking to a Muslim audience who are hugely sceptical of evolution. That may have been an issue on how something is language. She may have tripped up semantically now and again. But when it comes to the science, I'm sure she has her shit together.
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #53 - September 08, 2013, 12:50 PM
    Quote from: Jedi on September 08, 2013, 12:23 PM
    That guy, I think his name is Yasir Qadri, is on the opposing side of the argument.


    Ibn Umar reported that the Prophet of God, upon him be peace, said, 'When you see people read the whole post before replying to it, know then that Yawmul Qiyama draws near.'

    Bukhari Hadith No. 351, Vol. 6
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #54 - September 08, 2013, 12:51 PM
    but there was no first female homosapian, and a professor of Biology should know that. Even if there were, mitochondrial Eve is a (/one of the many) most recent common ancestor, and nothing to do with 'the first', and she is only a common ancestor of humans alive today, not for all humans who have ever lived.

    She of course can believe what she likes, but she is giving other Muslims a false sense of security by telling them that the science agrees with Islam. It does not.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #55 - September 08, 2013, 12:56 PM
    I think she knows that.

    I'm not going to waste my time researching her views just to get back to you.

    But she appears to have got her shit together in that lecture.
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #56 - September 08, 2013, 12:59 PM
    If Jackson 'appears' to have her shit together, then that is the precise problem. Many Muslims will believe that she does, and she does not. Mitochondrial Eve is not even relevant to topic of Hawra.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #57 - September 08, 2013, 01:19 PM
    http://io9.com/5878996/how-mitochondrial-eve-connected-all-humanity-and-rewrote-human-evolution

    Voice in the Wilderness?
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #58 - September 08, 2013, 01:24 PM
    i know what mt eve and y adam are. I also know that plenty of people misinterpret them as biblican/quranic adam and eve.
    Im just suprised that a biology professor is one of them, and im disappointed that she is contributing the persistence of mythology by giving it a veneer of science.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #59 - September 08, 2013, 02:47 PM
    Quote
    She of course can believe what she likes, but she is giving other Muslims a false sense of security by telling them that the science agrees with Islam. It does not.


    Exactly. The same is true for Qadhi's ridiculous argument. It will be used to keep less informed muslims shackled in the mental bondage of Islam when evolution can and should serve as a key to liberation.
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »