This guy, Harun Yahya, preaches against evolution:

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ - http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

I wonder how popular are his views among muslim believers ...

You have to rather careful in saying things like 'the theory of evolution is correct' (or 'wrong' for that matter) since there are several theories of evolution (Lamark, Lysenko, 'punctuated', 'gestalt'....) many of which are wrong, probably all of which will be proven wrong eventually, since they are scientific theories.

The contrast between scientific theories of evolution and stuff like creationism and ID is that the latter are not testable and therefore totally useless to any attempt to understand the universe.

Ah Lysenko evolution, that brings back memories... Giraffe wanting to stretch their necks.

In science class at school we were taught this theory instead of Darwin. Or rather as what Darwin really meant to say. Fortunately we we're sent to gulags if we disagreed. However shows the ILEA really was controlled from Moscow as everyone suspected.

Homo erectus, our ancestore, dated befor 1.7 million and 300,000 years

Darwin's theory may not be perfect, but it is more logical and acceptable than believing in Adam and Eve myth or God has created the univers befor 6000 years in only 6 days.

Yes my friend i know that, but here i mean religions generaly, also christianity included. And yes i am an ex-moslem.

Where can I find a copy of the Qu'ran? I would like to see for myself how "scientific" it is. Is there a site where I could read the Qu'ran? 

I really doubt that it has plenty of "scientific facts". I think it's as full as the Bible (OT, NT, whatever). Why are the islamic fundamentalists not posting? Their christian counterparts seem to be doing it.

Are you casting slurs on my avatar?

And sorry, Omar, while I personally appreciate your remark, if you go around calling the Librarian a man (as opposed to an ex-man) you are likely to have trouble reconnecting your head to your neck

Oh, very difficult question and indeed difficult to answer. It hadn't happened in a one night, i has taken many years. But something is sure, i always had doubt, even on my childhood. I always had to hide my doubt, but now in Germany there is no reason to hide.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Of course this means if an Ape is a Librarian and a senior faculty member in a certain university, he would count as a man. This raises a most interesting question. There are no ape librarians obviously Are you casting slurs on my avatar? And sorry, Omar, while I personally appreciate your remark, if you go around calling the Librarian a man (as opposed to an ex-man) you are likely to have trouble reconnecting your head to your neck I love your avatar. Although I can't recall an incident where anyone called the Librarian a man, most of the head reconnection incidents involve monkeys.

Of course that is more common. I'm just very careful about whom I meet when I'm wandering around the little piece of L-space that my cellar has turned into.

Thanks for the links Omar. I must admit that I like Quran style rather than the Bible's. But that doesn't make it different. It's better written IMO and that's about all. Sorry I'm not getting any faith from it. To take a few words from whatever holy book and state that they are congruent with some scientific theory is pure interpretation. I could quote both the Quran and the Bible and consider the words as being at least hilarious. Keep your faith as long as you don't feel like hurting people because of it.

*BTW what happened to Iblis?

Omar, for once I must agree with you.  I have often wondered this same thing.  I've always thought that, if evolution does exist, then it is a process that God uses for his purposes.  I don't know why it has become a science versus religion battle.  Proving the existance of evolution (I doubt the scientists have come even close to figuring it out, if exists at all) does not mean that God does not exist.  It simply means that we now know a method he has used to create the life forms we see today.  Of course, I am speaking from a christian standpoint.

Evolution theory is just that, a THEORY.

Charles Darwin was a rasist. He claimed that the white race is higher then all othersand that all other races are the inbetween of Human's and Ape's. It led to evil ideologies such as Nazism and Fasism.

The missing link has yet to be found.

Below is a statement by an evolutionist:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.

The following is by a creationist:

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today". http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php#28 - 28

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php - http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

-------------

Evidence?

That's it: it is a scientific theory and not just the babbling of a monk in his hallucination.

Learn before you talk.

So called "Social-Darwinism" and racism pre-date Darwin. You're mixing apples with elephants.

Hundreds of "mising links" have been found.

Genetics allows us to prescind largely of fossils anyhow.

As I say, with genetics you can skip all that.

Also, we know two things now:
a/ evolution islargely puntuated: it doesn't happene gradually but by sudden jumps
b/ most fossils just can't be found. It's a miracle that we can see some of them

Originally posted by TeldeIndus Originally posted by Maju Also, we know two things now: a/ evolution islargely puntuated: it doesn't happene gradually but by sudden jumps Gradual speciation cannot account for historical events. Rectangular speciation doesnt make any sense to me - you can prove anything theoretically. b/ most fossils just can't be found. It's a miracle that we can see some of them   I dont see why. It's too coincidental that you dont find any intermediate species fossils, only distinct ones.  You do find many intermediate fossils, just not enough to satisfy the always challenging fundmentalist demand: "more, more". Let's see that I am proving that Yellow and Red are related. You say: "that's theory" I wnat an intermediate fossil. So I "discover" Orange. But you say then, so what? Where is the intermediate fossil between Orange and Yellow, and I discover Yelowish Orange... and so on. Obviously posing a question is a lot easier than finding "the intermediate fossil". Anyhow lots and lots of intermediate fossils have been found not just for human species but for many others. We know a lot about evolution now but you can remain beliveing whatever you prefer because there's not enough emphasis in educating people. ------------- NO GOD, NO MASTER!

There seems to be an assumption that Macro-evolution is a fact. POINT 1: Micro-evolution is the only type of evolution that has been observed. Micro-evolution are the changes within kinds that we observe in domesticated animals. As hard as it may be to believe, a Great Dane and a Chihuahua can be mated, however size is a problem! Micro-evolution is why we have different types of dogs, horses, cows, pigeons, guppies, ect. Micro-evolution is also seen in nature, finches, iguanas, tortioses all found on the Galapagos islands. MICRO EVOLUTION is thus EMPIRICAL as it has been tested and observed. Macro evolution is NOT EMPIRICAL. Originally posted by OSMANLI Below is a statement by an evolutionist: A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56. POINT 2:The fossil record has always been a problem for MACRO EVOLUTION, as the quote of the above Macro evolutionist shows regarding Darwin's theory. The fossil record as Osmanli correctly points out has ALWAYS been a problem for Macro-evolution, as missing links of living animals have never been found. In fact some "missing links" have been found, the coelacanth, however, this missing link was found ALIVE off of Africa. So much for the speculation in Macro evolution. Originally posted by Maju As I say, with genetics you can skip all that.  POINT 3: DNA has and will continue to make problems for MACRO EVOLUTION too. Maju must be aware of the latest DNA studies which confirm the Bible, the WORD of GOD. However it is NOT surprising that a MACRO evolutionist, like Maju wants to skip the FOSSIL evidence that contradicts Darwin's theory of Macro-evolution. FACT 1: The Bible, thousands of years old, and it is, said all humans came from one couple! GENESIS 3:20 Thus the Bible, a document written by God stated a truth! All humans related to one original couple! FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the BIBLE and proves what it has always said! All humans related to original couple Adam and Eve. Who would have believed humanity came from one women or man before this discovery? The answer is no one! it is interesting since there was a disregarded theory in an ancient book known as the BIBLE that said all humans were decended from one pair and thus they named them Y chromosome "Adam" and Mitochrondia "Eve"! What could they do with this competing theory but give it grudging recognition? Obviously SCIENTISTS recognise which is the more credible account of CREATION! As you must know the theory advanced before this discovery was that humans evolved from different groups and different parts of the world. Who would dare endorse that theory today?

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc There seems to be an assumption that Macro-evolution is a fact. POINT 1: Micro-evolution is the only type of evolution that has been observed. Micro-evolution are the changes within kinds that we observe in domesticated animals. As hard as it may be to believe, a Great Dane and a Chihuahua can be mated, however size is a problem! Micro-evolution is why we have different types of dogs, horses, cows, pigeons, guppies, ect. Micro-evolution is also seen in nature, finches, iguanas, tortioses all found on the Galapagos islands. MICRO EVOLUTION is thus EMPIRICAL as it has been tested and observed. Macro evolution is NOT EMPIRICAL. That's just rethoric. First micro-evolution is enough to explain macro-evolution, you just have to wait enough time. Micro-evolution actually demonstrates macro-evolution, the same that satellites demonstrate Relativity. You don't need to directly observe everything: you create a model based in empirical observation and then you prove the model as far as you can. You cant go back to the past physically, you can't stay watching evolution for milennia or evos... but you can check other implications - and that proves the model. Theories include propositions that may or not be demonstrated. If they are, then the theory is solid; if they aren't, the theory would remain a hypothesis; if they are shown false (and only then), the theory would be demonstrated false or imperfect... ... and a new theory would need to be built and reality-checked. That's science. ------------- NO GOD, NO MASTER!

Another thing, Cuauhtemoc: evolution is punctuated and accelerated by catastrophes. That explains very well, why the fossil record lacks some intermediate steps that presumably existed. First the fossil record in incomplete (by definition), it only includes a tiny part of what once was alive and roaming over there. Second, only the most populous species are likely to be found - those transitional (sub)species that lived in small numbers in rare niches are not so likely to be found at all. You must be reasonable about that. For instance, a future paleontologist that would study our era, would find lots of homo sapiens, cow, dog and sheep fossils... but wouldn't find many of the related species: chimpanzee, auroch, wolf or moufflon. Particularly chimpanzee and moufflon are much less likely to be found at all, because their natural niches are small, while humans and sheep live in virtually all the planet and in incredible numbers. ------------- NO GOD, NO MASTER!

Still,Creationists have absolutely NO evidence or proof that a God created anything,except writings from books that were written years after their messenger or prophet's time.Evidence leans toward Evolution more than it does Creation,but evidence,however,is not proof.Creationists can say what they will,show us scriptures and writings,but those were all written by humans,and humans can lie,exaggerate,imagine,and dream.Fossil Records,Numbers,Facts and Figures,all those don't mean a damn thing when it comes to finding out what really had a hand in making us what we are today.Logic,and Irationality,what are they really? A Creationist's Arguement will never change,it'll always be about the Quran,or the Bible,or the Torah,or whatever Religious Book they hold sacred,but the Quran doesn't contradict Evolution directly,so there is some comprimise there.They'll always quote from the book,but Evolutionists will always find something new to back them up.It seems a century old theory is gaining more ground than a two millenia old religion.Thats funny. ------------- In Honor

^^^Great, now you just found out god isn't perfect and the universe is going to implode... ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu Still,Creationists have absolutely NO evidence or proof that a God created anything,except writings from books that were written years after their messenger or prophet's time.Evidence leans toward Evolution more than it does Creation,but evidence,however,is not proof. Tianshu says creationists have No evidence, however, offers no evidence at all for what he is advancing. Apparently Tianshu is not aware of the honest assessments of Darwinian evolutionists regarding Macro evolution. These Darwinian evolutionist are disillusioned with the theory of Macro evolution. Here is a quotation from a renown evolutionist.   Pierre-Paul Grassé - distinguished evolutionist, Chair of Evolution (The Sorbonne, Paris), and past-President (French Acadamie des Sciences). Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering whether they agree or disagree with their theories. Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." Written by Pierre-Paul Grassé in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:8.. As we can see men who know more about macro evolution then Tianshu and I, are disillusioned with the theory. Many people unfortunately choose to disregard the honest statements by disillusioned darwinian, macro evolutionist, and like Tianshu lapse into blind faith to continue to believe in a collapsing theory. Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu  Fossil Records,Numbers,Facts and Figures,all those don't mean a damn thing when it comes to finding out what really had a hand in making us what we are today. Tianshu is thowing what is supposely the support of evolution out of the window. It does not surprise me Tianshu says the fossil record, among other things does not matter, because the fossil record, among other things, in fact contradicts the theory of macro evolutionist and actually supports creationists. Tianshu has "blind faith". He does not need evidence or facts for his beliefs. Tianshu must agree with the above dillusioned darwinian macro evolutonist for like Tianshu, he finds there is no evidence for the myth of macro evolution? Tianshu must realize from the above quote in my previous post that the fossil record by another evolutionist, instead of supporting macro evolution, the fossils actually supports creationists or actually the Intelligent Design position. Here is the quote in question,Quote: Below is a statement by an evolutionist: A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.  As we see, Tianshu and I and this darwinian macro evolutionist agree that there is no evidence for darwin's theory of evolution. Instead the above quote shows the fossil record supports intelligent design as "species appear and disappear abruptly" That is what a creationist would expect to find in the fossil record. Yet Tianshu says there is "no evidence" for the creationist or intelligent design position?  Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu  Arguement will never change,it'll always be about the Quran,or the Bible,or the Torah,or whatever Religious Book they hold sacred I have advanced a scientific point, and as all know who have been reading my posts, I have been advancing the evidence from DNA studies that say all men and women come from one original couple and we all know that is a scientific fact. How can Tianshu say I have not advanced a scientific point? I have also pointed out in this thread the fact that GENESIS 3:20 also says humanity came from one original couple. Thus science has confirmed what a book written thousands of years ago is true.  Science now agrees with the Word of God, the Bible that all humanity came from one couple. Who would believe such a thing, before these DNA studies showed we are from one original couple? In fact the most popular theory, was that humanity resulted from separate populations in different areas. These conclusions were drawn as a result of fossil evidence and based on interpretations of skulls and cranial size. Who would believe that now, after these DNA studies today? Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu  always quote from the book,but Evolutionists will always find something new to back them up.It seems a century old theory is gaining more ground than a two millenia old religion.Thats funny. The problem with what Tianshu is saying here, is it is not true. In fact as I quoted Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse above, they are saying the opposite of Tianshu and that the theory of macro evolution should be dropped. Maybe another quotation from a disillusioned darwinian evolutionist will help.   "I know that, at least in Paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data." David Pilbeam in his article "Rearranging Our Family Tree" in Human Nature, June, 1978 p:45 I would Tianshu rather have a discussion on the facts in order to arrive at logical conclusions. http://www.bible.ca - www.bible.ca

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy ^^^Great, now you just found out god isn't perfect and the universe is going to implode... Hi SearchAndDestroy, God is perfect and as He wrote in the Bible, in Genesis 3:20, which is thousands of years old, all humanity is related to one original couple. As we know that original couple is Adam and Eve. Science through DNA studies, SearchAndDestroy, now confirms what the Word of God has always said. Science now agrees as it traces humanities ancestry to one original couple, Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. These are facts that can't be disputed as anyone can check out the verse I cited in the Bible and do a search for the studies on DNA that confirm it. The previous theory, before this discovery as a result of DNA research, was that humanity arose from different groups in different parts of the world. This theory was advanced because of fossil discoveries and the interpretation of skulls and cranial size. However the fossil record does not support darwinian macro evolution. Here is a quote, Quote: Below is a statement by an evolutionist: A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.

You are repeating yourself Cuauhtemoc. Believe what you wish... but I suggest you to study the matter in depth and give authority to scientists (serious people) not to tele-preachers (Bible-sellers who would sell their own mother if that would give them money or power). ------------- NO GOD, NO MASTER!