If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

The primary factor in obesity is behavior, not genetics, particularly in regards to the above scenario. So the answer in a strict sense would be no, it is not Evolution. However, there are also theories regarding the evolution (lower case e) of ideas and this might be applicable.

How do you figure? There are about 4000 species of cockroaches. Obviously they have evolved somewhat from the genesis of the original cockroach. If their basic form remains similar it is because that form is successful. Evolution does not mandate that a species must change dramatically over time; change is driven by environmental pressures. If a species is already suited to a wide range of conditions it is likely to remain somewhat constant in form.

Even the title demonstrates ignorance of the science of Evolution. First of all to address Darwin's theory as representative of contemporary Evolutionary science is no more valid than addressing pre-Islamic Arabic culture as representative of contemporary Islamic society. The second problem is the given conclusion 'Life is conflict' which is not solely indicated by Evolutionary theory; survival requires adaptive and cooperative solutions as well as combative ones. To typify even 'Darwinism' as driven by conflict alone simply ignorant.

While admittedly I did not read everything the site has to offer a quick scan of several pages provided no argument that has not been resoundingly refuted dozens of times on this board alone. If you have what you think is a formidable argument why don't you present it?

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First paragraph of the book's chapter on The Mechanisms of Darwinism:

That is not darwinism.

The book can't even get its first paragraph right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

blah blah blah.........and more BLAH.

You HOPELESS ATHIESTS attack the site the way you wishes, the fact that this site is now a REFERENCE when refuting the pathetic athiesm or the moronic evolution nonesense is enough certificate of its excellence.

As regarding Muslims believing evolution !! where did you get that from James ???????? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TO ALL HOPELESS ATHIESTS AND DARWINISTS, SAY HI TO YOUR BROTHERS

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How Pathetic !! How stupid to believe that we came from above animals ??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is utter Nonesense, This great Muslim scholar spend 20 years studying and researching, why you dont watch his amazing documentry called:

THE COLLAPSE OF ATHEISM
A Documentary Film Based on the Books of Harun Yahya

We are at a turning point in the history of mankind. Atheism, that has so influenced the world of science and thought since the 18th century, is now undergoing an inevitable collapse.

In this film you will see how the most basic assumptions of atheism collapsed with scientific, political and sociological developments in the past decades. From the theories of Charles Darwin or Sigmund Freud, to the fall of communism or the hippie dream, see how the atheist dogma falls at the dawn of the 21st century.

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_atheism.php

 

But who is addressing Darwin's theory as represenatative of contemporary evolutionary Science ??? certainly not Harun Yahya.

I agree with you and that is why Darwin was ignorant.

No one refuted anything regarding this very knowledgable Muslim Scholar, why you did is just ranting and indeed attacking the site and harun yahya personaly.

As why I dont present my argument about the invalidity of the evolution nonesense , it is because my Scientific English is not good and second, I am the only one here refuting this evolution rubbish, I cant answer 10 hardcore militant athiests are the same time.

But I can put my case very simply:

1- Since God (Allah ) Almighty told us in the NOBLE QURAN that it is HE who created Adam from clay and gave him his soul, the matter is solved, because for us Muslims, Allah's words cant be compared with someone mortal and limited in every aspect compared to God.

2-Since NO FOSSIL of half man, half monkey were EVER found, I delcare evolution to be invalid nonesense.

 

That's not all that true. While some birds are scavengers, such as vultures and pigeons, the majority are not, and neither are lizards. They generally rely on movement of prey to even recognise it is prey. Neither of them are "sniff" hunters. Now quite often they will also rely on sound along with sight, and thus a non-moving silent cockroach is better than a moving noisy one.

I have noticed this attitude from you on just about every post you've made here. It's no better than racism. You seemingly can't give credibility to your beliefs, and can't offer anything of substance to deny an atheists beliefs, so instead you just end up making stereotypical attacks on all atheists in the vicinity. I have seen many other sites that promote creation over evolution, and the majority do a far better job, (although still severely lacking), than the site you have pasted. The video goes on to say that it's "a fact that there is an all powerful creator". That shows just how truly worthless that site and everything else on it is. They quite clearly do not have the slightest understanding of science or evolution, instead making the most obscenely pathetic statements one could ever not-hope to see.

You would call it excellence because it's readily apparent that you have more time just to bash atheists than you do to actually look at the evidence and provide your own that can offer some worthwhile refutation.

And what does the site found this on? Ah yes, as the movie says, it's because it's a fact that there's a god. C'mon, my four year old daughter can do better than that.

Ah, because a book says so. And you call atheists pathetic?

Yeah, nobody ever said man was alive 65 million years ago. What, you really expect to find the fossil of a half-man, half-ape sitting alongside the tyrannosaurs? However, we do have bones:

Here

Of course we can sit and debate some of these things, which is what science does because it is interested in the truth, the facts. It does not say "well, a book says so, so it must be true."

 

Well, we now have proof of de-evolution - PM's pea sized brain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Barkhorn.

 

Are you a fucking idiot or something? We didn't derive from these animals. These animals and humans had the same ancestor. Try reading a book first MORON!



(yes, I adapted your style of 'debate'. I thought it might penetrate your thick skull better).

 

YOU BRAINLESS MORON. The closest ancestors to humans are not monkeys. They are APES. YOU HAVE TO LOOK FOR A HALF APE HALF MONKEY!

Oh yes...THEY WERE FOUND!!!!

wow...

let's send an email to the webmaster of that site. He can take it down


(I'm still using your style of debate, because I like to be consistent in my behaviour once in a while)

 

Nah Spurious, you need to study his styles a bit more. You forgot to use

Big Coloured Text!

 

It's like this... you walk into the bathroom (they're almost always in the bathroom) and you see one scurrying about on the floor or in the shower tray, so you immediately leave the room and come back with a suitable weapon (usually a sandal) and you notice that said cockroach is now 'dead' (but you know it's not MWA..HA), you creep up to it, raise your weapon and the thing's fuck'n gone in a blink!

 

Let us see who is the MORON here Mr MONKEY !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:

1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus)

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"

Furthermore, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_01.html

Dont you monkies show the world your pathetic evolution nonsense using this very famous picture !!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even your own brother disagree with you !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And since no fossil of angel, demon, giant, cherubim or seraphim has ever been found, I declare creationism to be invalid nonsense.

 

But we dont claim the angels are made of bones. YOU MORON !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that's an interesting point actually. i didn't know that.
could you provide a reference for this?

PM you surprise me. a good point from you at last.

but still
something is "probably" "raising the possibility" ?
those are not most convincing arguments

 

What are they made of then? Oh I know; made of spirit... spirits with human features, human names and feathered wings. Why would they need huge cumbersome wings if they were simply made of air? What about the others I mentioned, what are they made of?

And why are they all extinct?

 

I strongly urge you to read the link I provided PM. I do apologise, but unlike you I have no intention of pasting an entire webpage on this forum, (and them seemingly expecting credit for it). The link you have provided is seriously outdated. Science will tell you half of the things that site tried to use against science. I'm sorry, but you guys can't keep up.

Unfortunately that site doesn't go into details of human tail bones, wisdom teeth, goose pimples or the fact that our dna is 98.4% identical to chimps. That site also aids in eliminating any preposterous idea about a "young earth creation", as does science itself.

What you must also acknowledge, is that getting "absolute facts" instantaneously is an impossibility. It is also rather difficult to "stumble" upon the perfectly preserved remains of an ancient being, from some 500,000+ years ago. Science doesn't turn around and say "Well, that's that, case closed, what's next?" It is an ongoing process that has its mistakes and problems just like anything in this world.....

Aside from the creationist halfwits who consider the first scientific mistake as undeniable proof that the opposite is truth.

Now, kindly go to the link I provided.

 

Correct James, and I as a muslim find absolutely no contradiction between Islam and evolution. God or universal order has created us all from matters than are eternal and ever transforming from one stage to another...i.e. matters that evolve. I even think that hell and heaven are evolution states.

 

It doesn't surprise me that species overlap as they evolve, I mean, it's not as though a new species evolves in a day, while a previous one dies in a day. Except in cases of mass extinction, as when earth is hit by an asteroid. Then, it's feasible that high numbers of whole species are lost in a day and over time, the survivors evolve (if they are successful) to suit the changed circumstances.

Evolution is caused by environmental changes and overlap, by trans-migration, but these things take time.