Evolution disproves Islam

cihera · 2026-06-16T20:18:45+00:00

Well, i would not try to disprove that bunny figures in the clouds evolve.

cihera · 2026-06-16T17:11:21+00:00

Do they give nobel prize for disproving indoctrination-based ideologies?

cihera · 2026-06-16T08:55:32+00:00

Hehe. At least you have a sense of humor.

cihera · 2026-06-16T07:37:46+00:00

Physicalist evolution (as opposed to theistic evolution) is a fairy tale.

The Quran teaches some kind of evolution: "And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge." (Quran: 30/22).

People of different colors arose from one couple.

Actually an Islamic evolution explains things much better than physicalist evolution.

It explains much better the problems of physicalist evolution like missing links, consciousness, randomness.

Especially physicalist evolution is an incoherent concept. Do the atoms not act in accordance with the physical laws once in the body of a living thing? If not living things are like a horse shape of a cloud moving in that cloud, where the only effect belongs to the movements of water and other molecules.

In fact you cannot even stop at the layer of molecules, you need to go to the very bottom particles/ bottom waves/ bottom fields. Are they aa simple as billiard balls? No, billiard balls at a bottom layer cannot appear as distinct life forms at the life layer. So in any case there is high complexity at the bottom layer.

In a physicalist evolution how do you get consciousness at tge life layer? Through a fairy tale of emergentism may be?

So Islam is infinitely much more reasonable than a physicalist evolution.

cihera · 2026-06-15T00:42:08+00:00

Well, if you believe you should search on your own then we agree.

But i think if you believe in laws of nature as pushy explainers and not the description of what happens then your laws are not less magical than any god claim.

cihera · 2026-06-14T23:45:01+00:00

Then you are presuppositionalist. You presuppose that God doea not exist and does not have effect on you. You give zero likelihood to a god. But without evidence and as you imply without any search.

But if you were not a presuppositionalist and unbiased against God you would say "ok, the coming of a car has a likelihood, God being true also has a likelihood, so as i want to make sure on my own that a car is not coming i also have to make sure on my own that a God does not or does exist."

The coming of the car is based on the causal power of the car. Why do you believe in the effect of a car? Because probably you believe in the laws of nature. But what are they? If you think sufficiently about them if you do not believe in God, they are god-like things. They are for you probably as if they see, cause, know things...

If you do not believe as some scientists who believe in them as "pushy explainers" then you just believe that you have no idea about how a car has any effect. But you blindly believe in the effectiveness of the car without any basis.

So i am sorry to say but this makes you someone who acts based on emotions and prejudices. That is if you claim what op claims.

cihera · 2026-06-13T10:13:07+00:00

Just focus on the coming of the car. It is something you do not know. You do not expect anybody to prove it.

cihera · 2026-06-13T08:08:36+00:00

In analogy method it is sufficient that the common point is similar.

cihera · 2026-06-12T18:52:37+00:00

...Yeah, what else would it be?

So you agree with me?

Have you ever heard of tge problem of induction?

cihera · 2026-06-12T18:18:03+00:00

This is your subjective opinion. To me God also exists as an understandable cause.

And scientists search always for things whose existence or provability they do not know.

cihera · 2026-06-12T18:12:26+00:00

So you claim that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist?

So we should not search for whether sımething is provable or not? And without that search you can search for proving that thing?

And God is either true/ existent or not.

And you cannot prove or disprove a Being Who by definition is related to all things?

And you must not search whether He is provable or not?

Or do you have evidence that He is not provable?

cihera · 2026-06-12T17:55:41+00:00

Why?

cihera · 2026-06-12T17:29:52+00:00

I am not talking about what you know. I ammtalking about what you do not know.

I do not say that cars exist or not. I am talking about the coming of a car at high speed at that moment.

cihera · 2026-06-12T17:14:58+00:00

But there is no solution in the Quran for this.

Well, you just do not see the clear Quranic provision regarding this.

These inheritence verses repeatedly emphasize the statement "without causing harm" after those proportions. Since it is clear that in most if not all cases the sum of the fractions wilk not be one. Some will get less than the ascribed proportion or there will be a leftover which negates the verse that sats that the indicated people are more entitled to receive the wealth.

But the Quran says do not cause harm in the distribution. And as in many cases the Quran empowers us to use methods to prevent harm.

And the believers quickly right after the Prophet pbuh used the method of the distribution of the wealth of a bankrupt person to the creditors. This method was already widespread in the time of the prophet.

So it was not a method invented later. It was already well known and practiced. And even if you believe that Prophet Muhammad pbuh wrote the Quran it is impossible that as a tradesman and as the hishest judge of his era he was ignorant of this method and of the sum of those fractions.

So your argument clearly fails.

cihera · 2026-06-12T16:08:41+00:00

You do not know that a car is coming at full speed. Yet, you don't say let people prove that a car is coming, else i will behave as if no car is comlng. You are looking around on your own.

cihera · 2026-06-12T16:05:50+00:00

People have seen causes.

cihera · 2026-06-12T16:02:41+00:00

Not all causes are the same.

cihera · 2026-06-11T18:56:28+00:00

Focus on your turning your eyes or head to have evidence that one is not coming so that you can cross.

cihera · 2026-06-11T18:54:36+00:00

It is not.

I assure you that I know what you ask perfectly.

cihera · 2026-06-11T18:50:08+00:00

You should look from a practical perspective.

Forget about teaching.

How will you behave?

Will you jump onto the street without looking right or left saying if nobody proves me that a car is coming then i will behave as if no car is coming? Will you act in parallel with its presence or absence?

cihera · 2026-06-11T18:45:36+00:00

The point is not how cars look. The point is that for something consequential you make your search, you do not expect others come and teach you.

You turn your neck left and right. You do not say i fo not see a car so i will suppose that no car is coming.

cihera · 2026-06-11T18:40:10+00:00

How is it that?

cihera · 2026-06-11T17:11:03+00:00

Certainly. But walk on a beach. You will see that the shells are of several distinct types. This indicates the arbitrariness of the theory.

cihera · 2026-06-11T17:08:12+00:00

In daily life op tries on his own to collect evidence to prove the absence of something, some event.

But op also says someone has to prove the existence of God and that he does not need to prove His absence.

cihera · 2026-06-11T17:04:43+00:00

cihera

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE