Philosophical Vegan Forum

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful,

First of all I would like to start by saying that many of the comments that are satirised in this video are indeed very stupid, but then again, we are on Youtube, so to expect anything else would in my opinion be idle hope. Please do not take them as in any way representative of an educated muslim viewpoint (at the end of the day, the video is called STUPID muslim comments). Now onto the real subject of my comment: the disprovement of the counter-Islamic statements given in this video. First of all to the absolutely abhorrent and untrue statement that the prophet married Aisha when she was six years of age. Though at the time of marriage Aisha (may God bless her) was quite young, she was already an adult as Islam only recognises marriages between two consenting adults. The sources you cite may reject this, but I will not be convinced by merely two sources. Furthermore, the first wife of the prophet, Khadija (may God bless her) was much older than the prophet when they married (there was a 15 year difference between them), which would indicate the prophet did not care much for the age of a woman, especially not the point where he would be anything close to a paedophile.
Secondly, with regards to women’s clothing, the guidelines and rules set out by God for women and how they should dress are part of the greater design of Islamic society, where we believe in protecting women from rape, assault, theft… and this can only be achieved by making them cover their beauty from men in public in order not to incite lust in those men who would break the law and commit acts of violence against women in order to quell that lust. On wonderlist.com I found a list of the top 10 countries by amount of rape that occurs in them. None were muslim countries (even though modern muslim society is in no way as good or well-functioning as the perfect Islamic state and society).
Onto the next subject: the evolutionary theory and the so-called ‘god of the gaps fallacy’. I want to start by saying that, though many members of local Islamic clergy may not know the details of the evolutionary theory because of their circumstances (they live in third world countries), many Islamic theologians and thinkers do and both these groups are smart enough to know one ultimate, undisprovable scientific truth: if empirical science, where rules and laws are determined on the basis of reoccurring reactions and events, is to be believes, something can never come from nothing. That is just impossible. And whichever way you turn it, the Big Bang theory, which is kind of the epitome of all scientific theories, cannot function unless something can come from nothing, which we have already established is impossible. So, in that case, the only alternative is an entity which somehow exists beyond the boundaries of time and existence itself (it’s hard to contemplate, I know, but just bear with me), that creates creation, that creates ‘something’. That entity we call God, Allah, Elohim, Ye, Unkulunkulu, etc. Furthermore, the very plan and design of the universe cannot have come from nothing, because ordering things, again according to the empirical model, requires intelligence.
Now onto calling out for God in situations of fear. I think you misunderstood the point the gentleman was trying to make. He wasn’t trying to point out that believers, when put in dangerous situations, call out to God, but rather that it is in the nature of any human being to call out to God when put in a hopeless situation. Such has God made the human species that it always has a concept of God or a higher entity. Have you never wondered why all peoples believed in a higher entity before the 20th century even though most of them had never met each other? It is because it is in their nature, the human nature, to do so. Then with regards to the meaning of life, again I believe you misunderstood the gentleman’s point. I think he was trying to point out that the life goal of atheists is a material one (symbolised by the most material of all things, money): the acquisition of wealth, social success, gratification of desires, etc. These things should be rejected as valid goals because they are not pertinent to that which makes humans stand out from all creation: the intellect. How are materialist people, chasing after the relics of this world, any different from animals? The only way to fulfil one’s intellectual goal is to look for ultimate truth and try to spread that to his fellow man. After all, man remains a spiritual and intellectual being.
About your point that science provides a defensible position: I agree totally, however, reason, which is not entirely based on the empirical method of repeated testing and experimentation but rather on a combination of both that and the use of irrefutable arguments (as described in the philosophy of Al Farabi), is also a perfectly defensible if not more defensible position and is in fact the position from which good theological and religious arguments should and do come.
Lastly, on your disprovement of the absolute scientific truths in the holy Quran, you actually had me laughing quite significantly at your ‘huge’ list of half-baked disprovements. First of all, the verse about the lamps that drive devils away is symbolic, as I think you should know, and has no relation to meteorites. The second item, the one stating that the Quran describes the moon as emitting light, is also false, as the Quran actually states that the moon REFLECTS light, as explain by Dr. Zakir Naik in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWkJtIhBAB4 In fact, this is an argument I often use to debate with my atheist friends.
About the embryotic stages as described in the Quran, they are accurate: first the baby is ‘Alaq’, literally something that hangs, alluding to how the cell ‘hangs’ from the ‘wall’ of the womb, since it cannot completely nest in it (a part is still exposed). Then the cell is transformed into ‘Mudga’, literally chewed meat, an accurate description of the embryo in this stage. Then, after some time, the bones are formed and they are then adorned with ‘lahm’, unchewed meat, alluding to the muscles. Then the whole completes its transformation into a new being. As to your accusation that the Quran states that the semen is implanted directly in the womb, this is not true, as the Arabic word used there, Nutfah, can describe semen, ovum or the mingling of the two (see this site: http://www.islamicbulletin dot org/newslett ... ience.aspx for more information).
On your comment about estuaries, there IS a separation between saltwater and freshwater as explained on this site: http://www.islam-guide dot com/ch1-1-e.htm.
With regards to the preservation of the body of the pharaoh, what you say is a flat-out lie, here is the passage from the quran to prove it: "What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs." (Qur'an, 10:91-92)
On geocentricity in the Quran, I would like to see the verses that describe this (hint: there aren’t any). The opposite is true, though the evidence for it is more subtle, as is that of the sun finally dying (though it is present): http://www.miraclesofthequran dot com/scientific_104.html
With regards to the mountains stopping earthquakes, several researches have shown that mountains (as well as other large objects), due to their weight, exercise enough pressure on the external layer of the earth in order to keep the movements of tectonic plates within the earth from causing regular earthquakes by constraining the forces they emit from going through their layers to the ground we stand on.
Lastly, on Haman, Arabic, like Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Hebrew and other Semitic languages, also doesn’t know vowels as letters (they are applied through punctuation), so the HMN are the most important things here. The vowels may be interpreted in different ways if they are not punctuated (such as JHWH in Hebrew which is interpreted as Jahwee by Jehova’s witnesses).
Thank you for your time and please stop paying attention to Youtube comments that are badly-formulated or posted by people that don’t know what they are talking about.
May the peace and blessings of God be with you
A devout muslim

I'm less inclined to be critical of Muhammad as a person; he was a product of his time, and did some good and bad things. Overall, an interesting historical figure, and I have respect for a guy who can unite an entire region of warring tribes -- that was pretty bad ass. But he wasn't a god, and Muslims don't even believe he was (or usually even that he was perfect, as Christians believe of Jesus), so the relevance to Islam as a religion is questionable.
As such, I'll leave that alone.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:Onto the next subject: the evolutionary theory and the so-called ‘god of the gaps fallacy’.

These are not the same thing. Biological evolution is a completely different subject from the origins of the universe.

I will not argue for the truth of evolution for the same reason I will not argue for the truth that the Earth is not flat, or that the sun is the center of the solar system. These are matters of fact, of overwhelming empirical scientific evidence.

If you do not accept evolution is true, you just need to study more on the subject. There are many resources that can help you with this.

First, see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
If you have a question that is not answered there, I will answer it for you.
But you won't have a question about evolution that isn't answered there.
That list is very complete.

Now, if you accept that evolution is true, but just don't accept that the Universe could come into being without the intervention of a god, THEN we can have a great discussion on the matter.
But if somebody can't accept something as obvious as Evolution, I hold out no hope of him or her accepting evidence on the origin of the universe.

So, further discussion on more important topics (the origin of the universe) depends on your acceptance of something much more mundane (evolution of biological life).
You can even believe that your god influenced evolution in subtle ways to ensure that humans resulted. The issue is the basic fact as demonstrated by DNA, the fossil record, geological dating, and ongoing experiments and observations that have proven the process of biological evolution beyond doubt.

As to science in the Qur'an, you may or may not be right on some of those points, but consider:
1. Humans of that age were not as ignorant as commonly believed. Many of these things were already known at the time of dictation, from the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, as well as local traditional medical and astrological knowledge.
2. Through creative interpretation of symbolism and metaphor, you can read almost any notion out of any text, particularly a large one that is as poetic as the Qur'an and other scripture. This is why I don't consider textualism meaningful; it comes down too much to interpretation.
So, I also won't comment on those points individually, since it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong.

The only issue I feel ready to discuss here is the metaphysics of the origin of the universe. But I can only do that if you show a sign of good faith in examining the evidence and accepting at least that biological evolution is true.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:I found a list of the top 10 countries by amount of rape that occurs in them. None were muslim countries

How are raped women treated in Muslim countries? Is there incentive to report the crime to authorities?

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

I will commence by responding to brimstoneSalad. First of all on evolution: I do not like that you impose upon me the condition that I must first believe the THEORY of evolution before attributing to me the ability to engage to in debate over how the universe came into being, even as you probably wouldn't like it that I ask of you to first believe in God before being able to discuss with me. I have looked at the theory of evolution very carefully in both past and present and have noticed a couple of things. First of all, a lot is assumed in it. It is true that we have witnessed changes within the same species that could be called evolution (like the beaks of birds changing in form and size in order to adapt to the place where they are or the food they eat), but never has a change of SPECIES been observed, A. E. a bird evolving into a lizard. Believers of evolution find skeletons of different species or variants within a species that resemble each other and assume they evolved into each other, for instance an ape that resembles another ape, that resembles another ape, that resembles an old human, that resembles another human, etc. You see my point. This is not empirically grounded, since no changes in species have been observed. It is not testable and therefor remains just what is says on the tin: a theory. So, this is my argument for refuting evolution and its theory and I will accept to be called stupid or somehow intellectually inferior for holding this view since I have evidence to support it.

With regard to the relevance of Islam, first of all I believe not only that it is relevant, but that it is the best way of life and the only viable religion on earth, as do 1.5 billion of my fellow muslims. And with regards to the prophet, yes in Islam we believe that he was a perfect human being (a human being nonetheless) and that he didn't merely 'unite all the warring tribes of a region', but rather that he brought to earth from God the best way of life and the final faith. And, finally, we believe that everything he did was unquestionably good.

Now on your points about science in the Quran. It is true that there were many smart people in that time period and that their intellectual achievements are praiseworthy, but the prophet didn't live in a region where such people had ever been present. Arabia at that time was one of the 'stupidest' and most morally bankrupt regions on earth. Also, consider that the prophet was illiterate (this was done by God so that the scientific statements in the Quran would be so much more impressive) and that he lived in the 6th century. However you approach it, someone in that time-period couldn't have known about embryology, astronomy, anatomy, biology, etc., not in the quantity displayed in the Quran and certainly not all those areas at the same time.

On your second point, it is true that, to get some scientific facts from the Quran, one has to look deeper into the text and utilise metaphors and other textual means, but the ones I've listed are pretty straightforward textually (go look at the references in an online Quran (www.quran.com), it is available in English).

I would be very pleased to discuss with you the creation of the universe, but I'm not ready to accept evolution. Besides, the two don't have to do with each other that much anyway (except that they're both part of the big atheist theory on how the universe came into being without a creator).

In response to Jebus: unfortunately, in a lot of muslim countries today, woman that are raped are not treated well: they're discouraged to report it, are often forced to marry their rapist (awful, I know) and, all in all, are the ones upon which the blame is put. This, however, is not the fault of Islam, since in the perfect Islamic society which we aim to achieve in Islam, rape is punished by flogging (which is rather painful) or death (if the raper was married). The legal system and the society in modern muslim countries, unfortunately, has become a huge mess of colonial, western and tribal influences with a superfluous muslim touch rather than a true Islamic society, grounded in Islamic values and morality.

May the peace and blessings of God be with both of you

A devout muslim

ElHammouchiOthman wrote: I will commence by responding to brimstoneSalad. First of all on evolution: I do not like that you impose upon me the condition that I must first believe the THEORY of evolution before attributing to me the ability to engage to in debate over how the universe came into being, even as you probably wouldn't like it that I ask of you to first believe in God before being able to discuss with me.

I do not require you to accept any particular theory of evolution (there are several, some with subtle, and some with not-so-subtle variation). I require you to accept the scientific facts of evolution.

There are facts, and then there are interpretations of those facts which provide predictions that can be empirically verified (theories). There is the fact that species have evolved over time, and there are theories as to HOW that happened.
Some people even think a god guided evolution (this isn't a theory, since it's not empirical), as I said, I would even accept if you believed that. The important thing is that you accept the facts as they are.

The two are different, and that you do not know that and are unwilling to admit that is proof you are unwilling to engage in an honest discussion and consider the 'other side'. You don't even understand what 'theory' means, which is a problem in itself. Theory deals with process, the mechanics of how at thing works.

I gave you a link to a website. On that site is an answer to your ignorant criticism of evolution. It's a criticism you would not have made if you had first looked at that site. As such, I can conclude you are unwilling to actually look at and consider the facts.
At best you have been misinformed about evolution; if it is an honest mistake, you have the chance to correct that now.

I impose this condition on you because I would only be willing to debate you if you are an honest person. You are showing me now that you are not.
If you want to show me that you are honest, then look at that site, which already answers your challenge.
As I said, if you have a problem with evolution not mentioned on that site, I will help answer it for you.

Your ignorance on evolution is extreme. It is as if I believed the Qur'an were written in Greek by Henry VIII in the 1980's and is the basis of Raëlianism, and I wouldn't consider any evidence you presented to the contrary. How can you trust somebody like that to consider anything you say? You can't.

Although History is a weak analogy, the difference in fact and theory are like this:
Fact: The Qur'an is written in Arabic, it was dictated by Muhammad from around 610 - 632, and was canonized less than a decade after his death.
Theories deal with: HOW Muhammad came up with the Qur'an, who wrote it out, and how rigorous were they in preserving it. How was it canonized, and how rigorous was that process. Is there anything missing or lost? etc.
Different ideas about how the process went may be substantiated by examining the text, comparing ancient versions, and corroborating with historical accounts.

We can debate theory. You are rejecting the basic FACTS themselves.

If you are open minded enough to educate yourself on evolution and correct your misunderstandings on it (and stop misrepresenting evolution as something it isn't), then I'd consider you an honest person and would be glad to have a discussion with you.

If you are not, and will not, then I have no reason to trust that you will do that with other matters which we would discuss. As such, I would be wasting my time try to have a discussion with somebody who will not accept facts no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote: I have looked at the theory of evolution very carefully in both past and present and have noticed a couple of things.

No, you have not looked at evolution carefully. Your criticism is proof of that. You completely misrepresent evolutionary theory AND evolutionary fact, and you ignore the evidence that is there (and don't even understand the type of evidence that is required to verify evolution).
You are so, completely, totally wrong about what you think you know about evolution.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:It is true that we have witnessed changes within the same species that could be called evolution (like the beaks of birds changing in form and size in order to adapt to the place where they are or the food they eat)

This is the only correct statement you made in all of that. It's also not the evidence I was talking about (I wouldn't present something so trivial as that, as evidence). Read that site I linked you to.

Here are a couple direct links to your claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

If you skim the list, you will find every claim you may attempt to make:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:I will accept to be called stupid or somehow intellectually inferior for holding this view

It doesn't make you stupid, it makes you ignorant. It doesn't make you intellectually inferior, it makes you intellectually dishonest. And that is the problem. You could choose to understand, but you choose not to.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:With regard to the relevance of Islam[...]

We could talk about all of that, and have an interesting discussion, if you will show that you are honest first.

[quote="ElHammouchiOthman"]In response to Jebus: unfortunately, in a lot of muslim countries today, woman that are raped are not treated well: they're discouraged to report it, are often forced to marry their rapist (awful, I know) and, all in all, are the ones upon which the blame is put. This, however, is not the fault of Islam, since in the perfect Islamic society which we aim to achieve in Islam, rape is punished by flogging (which is rather painful) or death (if the raper was married). The legal system and the society in modern muslim countries, unfortunately, has become a huge mess of colonial, western and tribal influences with a superfluous muslim touch rather than a true Islamic society, grounded in Islamic values and morality./quote]

Why then do you attribute the low rate of reported rapes to the fact that women wear veils? Muslim countries comparatively have a low rate of many crimes, such as shoplifting, cyber crime, and child abuse. Do you attribute this to women wearing veils as well? There just might be other reasons.

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

In response to brimstoneSalad:
To start off with, I would suggest you leave your high-handed and arrogant tone out of the discussion, since this is not worthy of any form of intellectual discourse, and that you stop equating the rejection of a theory, which is an attempted explanation of a certain phenomenon through the use of evidence that is then interpreted and ordered in function of explaining the phenomenon (it is an attempt, not an absolute truth), with intellectual dishonesty and ignorance. I do not, contrary to what you are insinuating, reject the facts, I reject the theory that links them. To relate this more closely to the website you so stubbornly insist I haven’t looked at (even though I did), it says the following:
Most of the evidence of evolution is not the sort about which interpretation is in question. The evidence consists of such things as the following:
• certain trilobite species are found in certain geological formations;
• many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than elsewhere;
• bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over time;
• flies share some traits that other insects do not;
and millions of other such facts, none of which are in dispute.
The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.

However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories. (Ideally, the theory should predict the fact before the fact is known, but that is not essential for the fact to be evidence.) The millions of facts referred to above fit this criterion, so they qualify as evidence for evolution.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
This quote from the site you suggested disclaims that evidence may be used in function of a certain theory when it fitted that theory. That does not make the theory right. I can create thousands of theories using the evidence cited above, yet that does not make all of them right.
Before I forget, I would also like to ask of you that you cite the facts and the evidence you refer to concretely instead of referring to a site which has lots of articles, most of them not pertinent to our topic, so I can refute your interpretation of those facts more easily.
You say that all facts, if interpreted in a certain way, support evolution, and this is also what the site says, as is apparent from this quote:
Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
While I understand your point of view, you must consider that interpretation of evidence, which is the basis of the theory of evolution, is not absolute, however, the presentation of miracles to prove one’s point of view is. What I mean by this is the huge amount of scientific material contained within the Quran, much of which has only been discovered in recent history through the use of sophisticated tools, is proof that it comes from God and that God does exists. If an analphabetic prophet from 6th century Arabia, a place in which, according to many accounts, only 12 people could read and write, working as a merchant can present such scientific facts as embryology, astronomy, biology, medicine, etc., then surely he must have received it from an external, all-knowing source. What other possible explanation could there be? If we follow this line of thought, considering the ample evidence that has just been presented for the existence of God, should one then not listen to the all-knowing source and reject what that source rejects, i.e. evolution?
Proceeding to your point on the passing down of the Quran through history, I would like to inform you that Islam has a very, very strict tradition of scholars which know the entire Quran by hearth from the time it was revealed (not ‘compiled’), far before it was assembled, and that this tradition exists even unto this day. Tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people know the Quran by hearth as it has been passed down to them from the previous generation, going back to the prophet and his companions themselves. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a version of the Quran that is not letter by letter identical to today’s Quran… there isn’t one, at least one that has been used and revered by muslims.
Your analogy of theory by using the example of the revelation is not needed (and false anyway) since I never misunderstood theory for being anything else than how facts are structured and how a phenomena are to be explained. Rather, I was pointing to the fact that theories present a POSSIBLE explanation and are in no way absolute, however much evidence you have for them, since, in the words of your own site, the evidence only needs to fit the theory and thus can be interpreted in function of that theory in order to fit it.
So, I hope that clarifies my stance on and rejection of evolution. I see the evidence presented for it and recognise that it would seem logical to those who don’t believe in God, however, it is rejected by the all-knowing and thus is to be rejected by me. To stir the discussion in another direction, maybe I could first try to convince you of the existence of God (and you me of the opposite), since then, whoever is right will also be right on the issue of evolution.
In response to Jebus:
I attribute the low rate of rape to the veil, since that is one of the elements of Islamic societycraft that has survived (mostly) and that continues to fulfil its purpose: the prevention of the rape and assault of women. Its purpose is not to encourage women to report any assault of them, that should be influenced by a good society in general, which today’s muslim countries are not completely reminiscent of, unfortunately. I do not attribute other low-crime rates to the veil, but to other measures, some Islamic, some not, such as corporal punishment (which proves very effective in deterring thieves) and other things. The veil is not pertinent to these issues.

May the peace and blessings of God be with both of you

A devout muslim

Hi ElHammouchiOthman,
brimestonesalad seems well capable to address issues regarding your discussion of evolution, big bang/origin of the universe and the scientific method, so I will mostly address the other points you bring up.

In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful

I understand that you say this in respect to your god, but do you think allah reads forum posts? just curious.

. First of all to the absolutely abhorrent and untrue statement that the prophet married Aisha when she was six years of age. Though at the time of marriage Aisha (may God bless her) was quite young, she was already an adult as Islam only recognises marriages between two consenting adults.

What is your source of this information?

The sources you cite may reject this, but I will not be convinced by merely two sources.

Why would you reject those two sources? What sources do you have that makes those worthy of rejection?

urthermore, the first wife of the prophet, Khadija (may God bless her) was much older than the prophet when they married (there was a 15 year difference between them), which would indicate the prophet did not care much for the age of a woman, especially not the point where he would be anything close to a paedophile.

I don't see how that is relevant. A person who fancies young children is perfectly capable of desiring adult women at the same time. I see no reason to conclude that since his first wife was an adult, he therefore had no attraction to young girls.

Secondly, with regards to women’s clothing, the guidelines and rules set out by God for women and how they should dress are part of the greater design of Islamic society, where we believe in protecting women from rape, assault, theft… and this can only be achieved by making them cover their beauty from men in public in order not to incite lust in those men who would break the law and commit acts of violence against women in order to quell that lust.

I reject that you have demonstrated that a god does exist, and that he has set out any guidelines and rules for how women should dress. You have all your work ahead of you to first demonstrate the existence of your god, before you can then articulate what his wishes and rules are.
How have you come to the conclusion that these rules are the ONLY way to protect women from assault, theft? Please demonstrate how every other possible method has been tried and failed. How would you account for the large majority of men not raping the large majority of women in non-muslim countries? Seems to me if men are taught to behave and respect others, they are not some uncontrolled sexual predators that must have the women hidden from sight.

On wonderlist.com I found a list of the top 10 countries by amount of rape that occurs in them. None were muslim countries (even though modern muslim society is in no way as good or well-functioning as the perfect Islamic state and society).

You later admit that women are discouraged from reporting rapes in Islamic countries, so any statistic you have regarding the prevalence of rape (in Islamic countries) is automatically questionable. If you have in place a system to discourage reporting, is it not reasonable to assume that the reports that do come in, are but a tiny fraction of the true number? Ultimately we do not know what the rate of rape is in Islamic countries. For all we know, it could be far higher in Islamic countries then in any other country, which would then suggest that covering women is not the solution to the problems of assault and theft.

many Islamic theologians and thinkers do and both these groups are smart enough to know one ultimate, undisprovable scientific truth: if empirical science, where rules and laws are determined on the basis of reoccurring reactions and events, is to be believes, something can never come from nothing.That is just impossible.

How have you (and those smart Islamic theologians) determined that something can NEVER come from nothing and that its IMPOSSIBLE? I would not even begin to attempt to discuss with a physicist these issues because as a laymen, my limited understanding and education would not contribute to the discussion. A person may know their theology very well, but that does not give them credibility in any other field of study.

the Big Bang theory, which is kind of the epitome of all scientific theories

please explain. How have you reached that conclusion?

cannot function unless something can come from nothing, which we have already established is impossible

where have we already established this? From my understanding, there is a strong case being made that the big bang was not the beginning of everything.

o, in that case, the only alternative is an entity which somehow exists beyond the boundaries of time and existence itself (it’s hard to contemplate, I know, but just bear with me), that creates creation, that creates ‘something’. That entity we call God, Allah, Elohim, Ye, Unkulunkulu, etc.

Have you eliminated the possibility of every other possibility? How have you concluded that the ONLY alternative is god? To make such a claim, one must address every other possibility and dispute them, otherwise this is a clear example of the God of the Gaps Fallacy.

Furthermore, the very plan and design of the universe cannot have come from nothing, because ordering things, again according to the empirical model, requires intelligence.

When I look out at the universe, I see nothing plain and I see no design. The universe operates within certain parameters (which we have partially discovered). Please demonstrate your assertion that the universe 1) cannot come out of nothing 2) the universe's beginning REQUIRES intelligence.

it is in the nature of any human being to call out to God when put in a hopeless situation

Is it nature or nurture? Would a person who was never introduced to a concept of a god, call out to one if he was in a hopeless situation? If yes, then provide evidence for that assertion.

Have you never wondered why all peoples believed in a higher entity before the 20th century even though most of them had never met each other?

All people? Another unsubstantiated claim. Are you suggesting that prior the the 20th century, not a single person ever was an atheist? I highly doubt that. If people were not open about their lack of a belief in god, I can imagine a bunch of reasons why that might have been the case, with this one topping the list: for centuries the church/religious organizations and government were closely intertwined, and so If you came out as an atheist in such a community, you would surely be killed or ostracized.

I think he was trying to point out that the life goal of atheists is a material one (symbolised by the most material of all things, money): the acquisition of wealth, social success, gratification of desires, etc. These things should be rejected as valid goals because they are not pertinent to that which makes humans stand out from all creation: the intellect

Do you think that is all that atheists strive for? Is that the extent of your perception of who atheists are? Would not the promise of eternal life if a person follow Islam strictly be a supernatural carrot that is ultimately selfish? Why are so few theists intellectually honest if the meaning of life is to flex our intellectual muscles?

How are materialist people, chasing after the relics of this world, any different from animals?

Humans are animals, just more intellectually capable. It is reasonable to conclude that some characteristics we share with other species will be common among all species, while others (like our intellect) will distance ourselves.

The only way to fulfil one’s intellectual goal is to look for ultimate truth and try to spread that to his fellow man. After all, man remains a spiritual and intellectual being.

What do you mean by "ultimate truth"? What do you mean by "spiritual being"?

the one stating that the Quran describes the moon as emitting light, is also false, as the Quran actually states that the moon REFLECTS light, as explain by Dr. Zakir Naik

Why should I take Zakir Naik's word on it? He is but one man with one strong bias to make the quran seem more scientific then it is. The arabic word for "reflected does not appear in the quranic verse. Instead the word "Noor" is used, which denotes an entity that emits light.

For your other claims regarding embryology, estuaries and egocentricity, you site muslim apologist websites as evidence. This would be equal to a Christian creationists pointing to Kent Hovind as proof of his beliefs. I reject the sources you provide to prove your points.

I will tackle your other comments at a later date as this took a bit of time.

but never has a change of SPECIES been observed, A. E. a bird evolving into a lizard

why would you expect this to be directly observable? Evolution works through small changes over a LARGE amount of time. Our lives are too short, and evolution takes place so slowly that we cannot possibly observe a species change directly. This is similar to staying that since we cannot see that weather slowly erodes mountain ranges, therefore it does not happen. For processes that take millions of years, we have to look at the evidence of the processes through means other then direct observation. Their is overwhelming evidence of evolution (and erosion of mountain ranges) that makes it reasonable to believe that both processes take place. To deny those lines of evidence is to be intellectually dishonest.

Believers of evolution find skeletons of different species or variants within a species that resemble each other and assume they evolved into each other, for instance an ape that resembles another ape, that resembles another ape, that resembles an old human, that resembles another human, etc. You see my point. This is not empirically grounded, since no changes in species have been observed.

That is evidence of a change. If you can date the age, and track the changes in structural changes, you can see an evolution from one species to another, given enough time.

It is not testable and therefor remains just what is says on the tin: a theory.

Please define what a scientific theory is. I would like you to demonstrate that you understand the meaning of that term.

With regard to the relevance of Islam, first of all I believe not only that it is relevant, but that it is the best way of life and the only viable religion on earth, as do 1.5 billion of my fellow muslims.

2 billion Christians would disagree, and 3.5 Billion non-christian/non-muslims would disagree. The number of people believing something doesn't make it true. That is argumentum ad populum fallacy.
How have you OBJECTIVELY determined that Islam is the only viable religion and the best way of life?

And with regards to the prophet, yes in Islam we believe that he was a perfect human being (a human being nonetheless) and that he didn't merely 'unite all the warring tribes of a region', but rather that he brought to earth from God the best way of life and the final faith. And, finally, we believe that everything he did was unquestionably good.

Do you believe that his actions in his entire life's actions were perfect, or only after he received the quran?

It is true that there were many smart people in that time period and that their intellectual achievements are praiseworthy, but the prophet didn't live in a region where such people had ever been present.

Please provide evidence confirming that no person with sufficient knowledge ever travelled to or near Mohammad. Please provide evidence that he had zero contact with the outside world.

Also, consider that the prophet was illiterate (this was done by God so that the scientific statements in the Quran would be so much more impressive) and that he lived in the 6th century.

How do you know that Mohammad being illiterate was done on purpose? You know what would have been much more impressive... if very clear, scientific passages were found in the bible needing no interpretation, providing useful information. None of that is present in the quran.

However you approach it, someone in that time-period couldn't have known about embryology, astronomy, anatomy, biology, etc., not in the quantity displayed in the Quran and certainly not all those areas at the same time.

Im not convinced that 1) Mohammad wasn't exposed to people with sufficient knowledge 2) that the quran holds any of these supposed scientific pronouncements.

t is true that, to get some scientific facts from the Quran, one has to look deeper into the text and utilise metaphors and other textual means,

so in other words you have to extract the meanings you seek by whatever means necessary? Just like the bible, the quaran is a big book of multiple choice and vague language that you can read INTO it whatever you want to get out of it.

the perfect Islamic society which we aim to achieve in Islam

In this perfect Islamic society you strive for, what is the punishment for apostasy? What about people who critique the quran and Islam? What the legal equality of women (i.e. property rights, 1 women equalling 1 man in regards to testimony as a witness)?

talkorigins wrote: The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.

Some deny the facts directly (dishonest), some deny logic (dishonest), and others make up ad hoc excuses to reject the facts by coming up with another explanation for why those facts are there (questionable honesty).

The most comprehensive alternative explanation for all of the overwhelming facts, is to say that god planted those facts to make it look like evolution was true. That god created a universe in which there was deliberately placed overwhelming false evidence for evolution.

This is NOT an alternative theory. It's an ad hoc assertion. The reason is it not a theory is because it's unfalsifiable (empirically), and doesn't make any testable predictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

As the quote you gave said (and you seem to have missed), these aren't things that have questionable interpretations.
These are smoking guns. The only alternative is to assert that it's a frame-job, deliberately created to fool human beings.

I link that video because of something Ken Miller said (who is a Catholic):

Ken Miller wrote: How would intelligent design explain this? Only one way: by shrugging and saying, "that's the way the designer made it."
No reason, no rhyme, presumably there's a designer who designed human chromosome #2 to make it look "as if" it was formed by the fusion from a primate ancestor.

Um, I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm a theist, in the in the broadest sense I would say I believe in a designer, but you know what: I don't believe in a deceptive one. I don't believe in one who would do this to try to fool us, and therefore I think this is authentic and it tells us something about our ancestry.

If it's not YOU who is dishonest, then you are claiming that GOD is dishonest. And I didn't think you were going to claim that.

OK, so what if Allah exists, and he's dishonest? I won't trust anything he says. Even if I grudgingly admit he exists, I won't believe in him, I won't bend to his will. I will consider him evil, and untrustworthy. He peppers in just enough truth with his lies to gain credibility to deceive.

Is this the god you're trying to convince me exists?
Or are you trying to convince me not only that he exists, but that he is worthy of worship?

Because if you are, you just failed at the latter point before even succeeding at the former. By rejecting evolution, you've postulated a god that I have no interest in. Even if this being exists, I don't care about it, or have any interest in following it -- it is an evil being.

You can not win a convert with that kind of sales pitch, because even if you can convince me that you have anything to sell, I don't want to buy it.

Evolution is true.
That is the only HONEST interpretation of an HONEST universe.
If evolution is not true, then there is something fundamentally twisted and dishonest about the universe itself that prevents an honest interpretation (using reason and logic and looking at the evidence) from being true. A benevolent and honest god would not do this. A god that gave human beings the capacity to use science and reason would not be deceptive in providing counterfeit evidence, in embedding it into the core of that creation, to trick them.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote: I can create thousands of theories using the evidence cited above, yet that does not make all of them right.

You can create thousands of theories OF evolution, but there are not alternative theories TO evolution.
The only theories you can form are those that attempt to explain the details of HOW evolution happened.
That presupposes accepting the basic narrative, which is a matter of fact.

You can spend all day discussing how mutations happen, and the finer points of natural selection, and even believe that god had a hand in molding the evolution of man, or that aliens did.

But just asserting that evolution is wrong is not a theory, that's an assertion, at best a hypothesis (but usually not even that).

ElHammouchiOthman wrote: Before I forget, I would also like to ask of you that you cite the facts and the evidence you refer to concretely instead of referring to a site which has lots of articles, most of them not pertinent to our topic, so I can refute your interpretation of those facts more easily.

As I said, I will not attempt to argue evolution, or provide evidence of it for you. The evidence is overwhelming, and not subject to interpretation. Either evolution is true, or it was a frame-job.

If you don't understand how and why the evidence is so overwhelming, you need to do more research.

Read the book "why evolution is true"
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-Tru ... 1491577517

Likewise, I will not attempt to prove to you that the Earth is not flat, or that the sun is the center of the solar system. If you don't already know these things to be true, there is a serious deficit in your understanding of basic science that I don't have time to correct on an internet forum.
And there's MORE evidence for evolution than there is that the Earth orbits the sun.

It's actually to my advantage that you reject evolution, because it discredits your theistic arguments.
Nobody with any education will take you seriously while you're rejecting evolution.
Just as nobody would take you seriously if you went around claiming the Earth to be flat.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:Rather, I was pointing to the fact that theories present a POSSIBLE explanation and are in no way absolute, however much evidence you have for them, since, in the words of your own site, the evidence only needs to fit the theory and thus can be interpreted in function of that theory in order to fit it.

You completely misunderstand science (and you misunderstood the text you quoted from that site). What you're talking about is not a theory, but called an ad hoc hypothesis.

Watch some of these videos, and you may be able to understand:

http://bahfest.com/

Ad hoc hypotheses may sound scientific, but their nature makes them pseudoscience.
Are they possible? Maybe, but that doesn't make them science. And they are certainly NOT theories.

In science, you can't reinterpret pre-existing evidence to force it to fit into a "theory" (actually a hypothesis, which is a different sort of thing), and then call that evidence of the "theory". A real theory is only a theory when it makes explicit testable predictions that distinguish it, and those predictions come true through experimentation. A hypothesis is a theory minus the evidence -- a possibility, which is falsifiable. If it's non-falsifiable, it's not even a proper hypothesis.

ElHammouchiOthman wrote:So, I hope that clarifies my stance on and rejection of evolution. I see the evidence presented for it and recognise that it would seem logical to those who don’t believe in God, however, it is rejected by the all-knowing and thus is to be rejected by me.

If you take the rejection of evolution to be evidence for god, and god to be evidence that evolution is wrong, do you see the problem in that?

And yes, you are taking the rejection of evolution as evidence for god. Because if you accepted evolution, you would see the the Qur'an is WRONG on science, because it rejects evolution (a fact of science). And therefore the source of knowledge for the Qur'an was not all-knowing. Therefore its rejection of evolution holds no weight.

Your approach:

The Qur'an is true because it's right on science.
The Qur'an says evolution is false.
Therefore evolution is false.
Therefore the Qur'an is right on science because it is not wrong about evolution being false (which, if evolution were true, would have made the Qur'an wrong on science).

This is circular reasoning. A logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Here is how logic and reason really work:

Evolution is true (there is actual evidence for this, and that's how science works -- you can't pick and choose).
The Qur'an says evolution is false.
Therefore the Qur'an is NOT right on science.
Therefore the Qur'an was NOT revealed by an honest all-knowing source.
At best, it was made by a source which knew SOME things, but was ignorant of others. Or it was revealed by a dishonest all-knowing source. It may also be guessing (right about some things, and wrong about some things: which is what happens when you GUESS).

ElHammouchiOthman wrote: To stir the discussion in another direction, maybe I could first try to convince you of the existence of God (and you me of the opposite), since then, whoever is right will also be right on the issue of evolution.

As I said, I would only discuss that with you if I believed you to be honest, which I am not convinced of.

To point you in another possible direction, though, have you ever considered YOU might be wrong about your interpretation of the Qur'an?

Many Muslims believe in evolution, and assert strongly that the Qur'an does NOT say evolution is false. Some even say the Qur'an supports evolution.

Another article from that same site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov96.html

Written by a Muslim who is more honest, and has some respect for Science and reason.

Read that article, and then will you tell me arrogantly that only you can correctly interpret the Qur'an, and all other scholars who accept evolution and believe that the Qur'an supports it are wrong?


If the Qur'an rejects Evolution, then I reject the Qur'an. Either the Qur'an is false, or Allah is a deceiver, and not worthy of worship. End of story. No point in further discussion.

Do your own research. At such a time as you decide you are willing to accept evolution, I would be happy to discuss the other points.
If not, then that's all there is to it. You'll believe what you'll believe, and I can't change your mind.