NOVA documentary on Human Evolution

Sam Sam

Senator (1k+ posts)
جنوبی افریقہ میں سائنسدانوں نے انسانوں سے ملتی جلتی ایک نئی مخلوق کے ڈھانچے دریافت کیے ہیں۔ یہ دریافت ایک گہرے غار میں تدفین کرنے والے چیمبر سے کی گئی ہے۔

15 جزوی ڈھانچوں پر مشتمل یہ دریافت افریقہ میں اپنی نوعیت کی منفرد مثال ہے۔

محققین کا خیال ہے کہ اس دریافت سے قدیم انسان کے بارے میں ہمارے خیالات تبدیل ہوجائیں گے۔

سائنسی جریدے ایلائف میں شائع ہونے والی اس تحقیق میں یہ اشارہ بھی دیا گیا ہے کہ یہ افراد مذہبی رجحانات کے حامل بھی تھے۔

اس نسل کو نالیڈی کا نام دی گیا ہے اور اسے حیاتیاتی گروہ ’ہومو‘ میں شامل کیا گیا ہے، جدید انسان کا تعلق بھی ایسی حیاتیاتی گروہ سے ہے۔

جن ماہرین نے یہ تحقیق کی ہے وہ یہ بتانے سے قاصر ہیں کہ یہ مخلوق کتنا عرصہ زندہ رہی تاہم محققین کی ٹیم کے سربراہ پروفیسر لی برگر نے بی بی سی نیوز کو بتایا کہ انھیں یقین ہے کہ یہ اپنی نوعیت (جینس ہومو) کے اول ترین ہیں اور یہ ممکن ہے کہ وہ افریقہ میں 30 لاکھ سال پہلے تک قیام پذیر رہے تھے۔

دیگر محققین کی طرح انھوں نے ’گمشدہ تعلق‘ کی اصطلاح کے استعمال سے گزیر کیا ہے۔ پروفیسر برگر کہتے ہیں کہ نالیڈی کو دو ٹانگوں پر چلنے والی ابتدائی مخلوق اور انسان کے درمیان ایک ’پل‘ خیال کیا جا سکتا ہے۔

وہ کہتے ہیں: ’ہم ایک فوسل کی تلاش کے لیے اندر گئے تھے۔ وہاں کئی فوسل سامنے آئے۔ اور پھر یہ کئی ڈھانچوں اور کئی افراد کی دریافت کے طور پر سامنے آئے۔‘

پروفیسر برگر کے مطابق ’چنانچہ 21 دن کے بعد، ہم نے افریقہ کی تاریخ کی انسان سے ملتے جلتے فوسلز کی سب سے بڑی دریافت کر لی۔ یہ ایک غیرمعمولی تجربہ تھا۔‘

نیچرل ہسٹری میوزیم کے پروفیسر سٹرنگر کہتے ہیں کہ نالیڈی ’ایک انتہائی اہم دریافت ہے۔‘

انھوں نے بی بی سی کو بتایا: ’ہمیں زیادہ سے زیادہ یہ شواہد مل رہے ہیں کہ قدرت انسانی ارتقا کے لیے تجربات کر رہی تھی، جس کے باعث مختلف قسم کی انسان سے ملتی جلتی مخلوقات افریقہ کے مختلف حصوں میں سامنے آئیں۔ صرف ایک قسم کی نسل بچی رہی جو بالآخر ہم تک پہنچی۔‘

میں ان ہڈیوں کو دیکھنے کے لیے گیا جو وٹواٹرزریبڈ یونیورسٹی کے ایک محفوظ کمرے میں رکھی گئی تھیں۔ اس کمرے کا دروازہ کسی بنک کی تجوری کی طرح مقفل تھا۔ پروفیسر برگر نے کمرے کا دروازہ کھولتے ہوئے مجھے بتایا کہ ابتدائی انسان کے بارے میں ہمارے علم کا انحصار ان جزوی ڈھانچوں اور کھوپڑی پر ہے۔

15 نامکمل ڈھانچوں میں مختلف عمروں کے مرد و خواتین کی باقیات شامل ہیں، جن میں شیرخوار بچوں سے بڑی عمر کے افراد شامل ہیں۔

افریقہ میں ہونے والی یہ دریافت بے مثال ہے اور یہ انسانی ارتقا کے بارے میں مزید رہنمائی فراہم کرے گی۔

پروفیسر برگر نے مجھے بتایا: ’ہم اس نسل کے بارے میں سب کچھ جان لیں گے۔‘

’ہم یہ جان لیں گے کہ کب بچوں کو دودھ چھڑایا گیا، وہ کب پیدا ہوئے، ان کی نشو و نما کیسے ہوئی، کس رفتار سے ان کی نشو و نما ہوئی، نشو و نما کی ہر سطح کے دوران نر اور مادہ میں ہونے والی تبدیلیوں سے لے کر بچپن سے نوعمری تک وہ کیسے بڑھے اور ان کی موت کیسے ہوئی۔‘


میں محفوظ کی گئی ہڈیوں کو دیکھ کر حیرات زدہ رہ گیا کہ وہ کس قدر بہتر انداز میں محفوظ رکھی گئی تھیں۔ کھوپڑی، دانت اور پیر ایسے دکھائی دیتے تھے جیسے وہ کسی بچے کے ہوں، اگرچہ وہ ڈھانچہ کسی بڑی عمر کی مادہ کا تھا۔

اس کا ہاتھ بھی انسانوں جیسا تھا، تاہم اس کی انگلیوں پر بل کسی بن مانس جیسے تھے۔

ہومو نالیڈی افریقہ سے ملنے والے کسی بھی ابتدائی انسان سے مماثلت نہیں رکھتے۔ ان کا دماغ چھوٹا ہے، کسی گوریلے کے دماغ کے برابر۔

تاہم انھیں انسانوں کے حیاتیاتی گروہ میں ہی شامل کیا گیا ہے ، ان کی کھوپڑی کی شکل، نسبتًا چھوٹے دانتوں، لمبی ٹانگوں اور جدید تر دکھائی دیتے ہوئے پیروں کی وجہ سے۔

پروفیسر برگر نے بتایا: ’میں نے دیکھا تو میں نے سوچا میں اپنے پورے کیریئر میں ایسا کبھی نہیں دیکھ سکوں گا۔‘

’یہ وہ لمحہ تھا جس نے 25 سال بطور پالیونتھروپولوجسٹ مجھے تیار نہیں کیا تھا۔‘

یہ ایک اہم سوال ہے کہ یہ باقیات وہاں تک کیسے پہنچیں۔



میں نے دریافت کے مقام کا دورہ کیا جسے ’رائیزنگ کیو‘ کہا جاتا ہے، اور یہ یونیورسٹی سے ایک گھنٹے کی مسافت پر ’انسانیت کی آغوش‘ نامی علاقے میں ہے۔ یہ غار ایک تنگ سرنگ تک جاتی ہے جس کے ذریعے پروفیسر برگر کی ٹیم کے کچھ ارکان رینگتے ہوئے اندر گئے۔ اس کام کے لیے نیشنل جیوگرافی سوسائٹی نے امدادی تعاون فراہم کیا تھا۔

اس کام کے لیے چھوٹی خواتین کا انتخاب کیا گیا کیونکہ سرنگ بہت تنگ تھی۔ وہ اندھیرے میں رینگتی گئیں اور انھیں صرف ہیلمٹ پر نصب ٹارچ کی روشنی میسر تھی۔ بالآخر 20 منٹ کی مسافت کے بعد وہ ایک چیمبر تک پہنچیں جہاں سینکڑوں کی تعداد میں ہڈیاں موجود تھیں۔

انھیں میں مرینہ ایلیٹ بھی شامل تھیں۔ انھوں نے مجھے غار کا تنگ داخلی راستہ دکھایا اور بتایا کہ انھیں کیا محسوس ہوا جب انھوں نے پہلی بار چیمبر دیکھا۔

انھوں نے بتایا: ’جب میں پہلی بار کھدائی کی جگہ پہنچی تو مجھے ایسا لگا جیسا ہاورڈ کارٹر نے توت عنخ آمون کی مقبرے کو کھولنے پر محسوس کیا ہوگا۔ آپ ایک تنگ جگہ پر ہیں جو ایک کھلی جگہ پر کھلتی ہے اور اچانک آپ یہ تمام حیرت انگیز چیزیں دیکھتے ہیں۔ یہ ناقابل یقین تھا۔‘

مرینہ ایلیٹ اور ان کے ساتھیوں کو یقین تھا کہ انھوں نے تدفین کا ایک چیمبر دریافت کیا ہے۔ ہومو نالیڈی لوگوں میں بظاہر اپنے مردوں کو ایک گہرے غار میں دفن کرنے کا نظام تھا اور وہ انھیں اس چیمبر میں دفن کرتے تھے، ممکنہ طور پر کئی نسلوں سے۔



اگر ایسا ہی تھا تو اس سے ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ نالیڈیوں میں رسم و رواج کا رجحان موجود تھا اور ممکنہ طور پر علامتی خیالات بھی تھے، یہ پہلو ابھی تک گذشتہ دو لاکھ سال سے انسان سے منسوب کیا جا رہا ہے۔

پروفیسر برگر کہتے ہیں: ہمیں یہ گہری سوچ وبچار کرنا ہوگی کہ یہ کیسے انسان تھے۔ کیا ہم اس رجحان کے بارے میں غلط تھے کہ یہ صرف جدید انسان سے ہی منسلک ہے؟‘

’کیا ہم نے یہ رجحان قدیم وقتوں سے وراثت میں پایا ہے اور کیا یہ ابتدائی انسان ہمیشہ سے کرنے کے قابل تھے؟‘

پروفیسر برگر کا خیال ہے کہ اس مخلوق کی دریافت جدید اور ابتدائی انسان کا ملغوبہ ہے جس پر سائنسدانوں کو انسان کی تعریف پر دوبارہ غوروفکر کرنا چاہیے۔ وہ خود بھی نالیڈی کو انسان کہنے سے اجتناب کرتے ہیں۔

دیگر محققین جیسا کہ پروفیسرسٹرنگر کا خیال ہے کہ نالیڈی کو ابتدائی انسان قرار دینا چاہیے۔ تاہم وہ اس امر پر یقین کرتے ہیں حالیہ نظریات کو دوبارہ جانچنے کی ضرورت ہے اور ہم نے صرف انسانی ارتقا کی پیچیدہ اور بھرپور کہانی کی سطح کھرچی ہے۔
 

Nice2MU

President (40k+ posts)
You demonstrated your ignorance of the definitions of theory and law in your reply to a fellow forum member. I corrected you and gave you the definition. Instead of thanking me for my time, being ignorant that you are you decided to ignore it.

Man there are laws exist in Biology as well. I know the difference between Law and Theory. Theory has just supportive evidence which could be wrong as well as right at the same place. I was pointing to him as Law mean the actual facts but the Aye Bye Shay.

I gave you evidence for evolution, Homo Erectus is a transitionary species humans, you do not argue against my claim nor do you concieve the point you just ignore it.

This is just a statement not the evidence. If I say your Name James, will you agree to it? No the same here, the Home Erectus or might be the transition state but one species can't make the bridge between us and any animal which is claimed to be 'second' in everything to Human. I mean to say there would be many species between Human as the most advance animal and another animal which might be 2nd to human in brain complexion.

Because evolution can't be abrupt from an animal who can't even speak, or think and then converted into human? I need the evidences for those species, their life style, their any inventions etc as there many species exist between Fish and amphibians and between amphibians and birds. And the strange things it that there is NOT a single species exist today who even can speak or have some other resemblance with human character. Very Strange! No?


I told you that we share 95% DNA with Chimps and the more further back our ancestor is the less dna we share, what does this mean?

Again just statement. What is proof that 95% DNA of human and Chimps are same because I know it is wrong. It is around 81% or less. And BTW it is not a big deal, I will show below. Previously they reported as 98.5% similar but then they rectify it by further studies putting more data of sequences of DNA and concluded:



....In 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002). (meaning this difference will grow further.

Reference: Britten, Roy J. (2002), “Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%, Counting Intels,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99:13633-13635, October 15.


Then another scientist says:

Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

Therefore a human and any earthly
DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA. Marks went on to concede:


Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans (B-7, emp. added).

Further:

In 2003, the completed human genome study is scheduled to be published. Before this massive project was created, scientists estimated that humans possessed 90,000 to 100,000 genes (a gene is a section of DNA that is a basic unit of heredity, while the genome constitutes the total genetic composition of an organism). With preliminary data from the genome project now in hand,
scientists believe that the actual number of genes is around 70,000 (Shouse, 2002, 295:1447). It appears that only about 1.5% (as per old study) of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of “non-coding” DNA (frequently referred to as “junk DNA”) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.



Read Further:


Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry.

Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin.
Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).



You do not argue against it that it could mean something else, nor do you concede that its evolution, you just ignore it. If you do not trust me and think that I am making stuff up, you can verify it yourself, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus are real their brains are bigger than Chimps and Gorilla but small than ours, then who were they if they were not our ancester and why do they share 99% of our DNA?

Mr Aqalmand, I had told you that between human and 'ancestors', there shouldn't be just two species but many more. I think you have just heard the word evolution but don't know its actual meaning? A true Evolution must involve step wise changes not leaps and bounces. When a child born, he is transforms from a small baby into a full fledge man no in one month or year but needs many years involving many observable changes.

And about the DNA claim, I have given detail about. It is useless analogy. If DNA is even 99% same, at least Chimpanzee should talk or any of its organs should be used in human being by transplantation etc. Come'on man, what a non-sense. If there are even 100% identical person, with 100% DNA matching but still they will look like different, their colour, their hair, their thinking, their brain intelligence and in many aspects and you are talking about 95% (which is also very wrong because the scientists have hidden many facts and data in it and compare only identical regions.)



How am I suppose to talk sense with such an irrational and ignorant person?


All your answer are just statement not proves. You are asking me to search. Why should I search? You are claiming hence you provide the proof not me.

At end of my post, I had asked the question that in how much Fish had been transferred into amphibians and in which conditions? Plus is this process still continue? If it is still continue give the proof if not then answer me why?..........But you have ignored this question and blaming me irrational...
 
Last edited:

Nice2MU

President (40k+ posts)
You are running from one topic to another then to another like a pig running from the farmer. Lets focus on one topic. There is no reason to discuss evolution with you, you hhave demonstrated countless times that you have no knowledge on it, nor the interest or intellegence to understand it.

Lets focus on something that you are interested in and I am genuinely curious so please enlighten us maybe we can learn something. How do you know what will happen to you after you are dead, you said you are interested in this question what is your conclusion?

Mr Aqalmand, I am here and answering every of your non-sense statement (not any prove). You have completely ignored my post number 52. Answer me word by word like I did.

Forget about the life of my death, first prove yourself that your ancestors were aps and if your interested in life of death, read plenty of Hadith books.
 

Tyrion Lannister

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
چوپنا کام تمھارا ہے جو ڈارون کے ساتھ چمٹے ہو؟
پھر کہتے ہو کہ مولوی جاہل ہیں۔ تم لوگوں کے پاس جب جواب نہ تو بک بک شروع کردیتے ہو۔
tmhari language pchle comments me dekh k mene prpoer jwab dene ka time xaya nae kia ku k tme ghr walo ne tmeez ne skhai, now FUCKKK OFFF
 

Mojo-jojo

Minister (2k+ posts)
Acha Gee, calling other as Jahil and **** off is very 'official' language of your home?
[h=1]Muslim thought on evolution takes a step forward[/h]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/jan/11/muslim-thought-on-evolution-debate
 

Mojo-jojo

Minister (2k+ posts)
Islam and evolution
Can science and religion coexist harmoniously?

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/10/islam-and-evolution/



Dajani notes, “Evolution doesn’t counter the existence of God. Darwin never discussed the creation of life but rather its evolution.” This demonstrates the need for healthy questioning in both religion and science to dispel false notions and encourage intellectual growth. Although today many Muslims accept evolution, there are still misconceptions.
Muslims who refuse to believe in evolution often cite their interpretation of religious verses from the Holy Quran such as the creation of Adam. The story of Adam and Eve, if taken literally, is thought to imply the instant creation of humans as we are today. However, Dajani believes the story of Adam and Eve is metaphorical and cautions against using holy scriptures as scientific textbooks.
The Holy Quran is a guide, not a science textbook, meant to inspire humanity to seek knowledge; supporting scientific claims through associating verses from holy scripture sets a dangerous precedent. First, discussing and questioning the claims can become taboo due to its association with a religion. Secondly, scientific theories could be disproven as time passes and in the process undermine the religion. Dajani noted “that the beauty of the Quran is that people can have different opinions.” In Islam, personal interpretations of religious texts are allowed and encouraged. It is also acknowledged that interpretations may change over time. Dajani strongly advocates for the need to separate religion from the scientific process to avoid contradictions and pseudoscience.

 

Nice2MU

President (40k+ posts)


Though I will read it later but let me tell you that there are many Muslim Scholars who had given Fitwa for Riba as 'Halal'.... Religious is personal understanding. I don't want to understand religion with the eyes of the current time scholars. Most of them are Haram Khor and Sinners. They can do everything for $$$ and ...
 

Mojo-jojo

Minister (2k+ posts)
Though I will read it later but let me tell you that there are many Muslim Scholars who had given Fitwa for Riba as 'Halal'.... Religious is personal understanding. I don't want to understand religion with the eyes of the current time scholars. Most of them are Haram Khor and Sinners. They can do everything for $$$ and ...

یہ بڑی سخت بات کہہ دی آپ نے

آپ جس دور میں جی رہے ہیں اس دور کے انسانوں کی جو دین اور دنیا کی انڈرسٹینڈنگ ہے اس کو جاننے میں کوئی حرج نہیں
آپ کی یہ بات بالکل درست ہے کہ مذہب کی انڈرسٹینڈنگ ایک بالکل ذاتی معاملہ ہوتا ہے لہٰذا آپ بھی دوسروں کو ان کی اپنی رائے رکھنے کی آزادی کا احترام کریں
 

Nice2MU

President (40k+ posts)
Islam and evolution
Can science and religion coexist harmoniously?

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/10/islam-and-evolution/



Dajani notes, “Evolution doesn’t counter the existence of God. Darwin never discussed the creation of life but rather its evolution.” This demonstrates the need for healthy questioning in both religion and science to dispel false notions and encourage intellectual growth. Although today many Muslims accept evolution, there are still misconceptions.
Muslims who refuse to believe in evolution often cite their interpretation of religious verses from the Holy Quran such as the creation of Adam. The story of Adam and Eve, if taken literally, is thought to imply the instant creation of humans as we are today. However, Dajani believes the story of Adam and Eve is metaphorical and cautions against using holy scriptures as scientific textbooks.
The Holy Quran is a guide, not a science textbook, meant to inspire humanity to seek knowledge; supporting scientific claims through associating verses from holy scripture sets a dangerous precedent. First, discussing and questioning the claims can become taboo due to its association with a religion. Secondly, scientific theories could be disproven as time passes and in the process undermine the religion. Dajani noted “that the beauty of the Quran is that people can have different opinions.” In Islam, personal interpretations of religious texts are allowed and encouraged. It is also acknowledged that interpretations may change over time. Dajani strongly advocates for the need to separate religion from the scientific process to avoid contradictions and pseudoscience.


This Dajani is now actually doing his own interpretation of Qurani Verses which strongly contradicts with many verses of Quran
 

Mojo-jojo

Minister (2k+ posts)
This Dajani is now actually doing his own interpretation of Qurani Verses which strongly contradicts with many verses of Quran

She is a Jordanian scientist. I have read many scholars having similar views about interpretation of religious text particularly certain sections of Quran. Like universe created in 6 days but then Allah says that His one day is equal to thousands of years we have ( in an allegorical way ).
 

Bret Hawk

Senator (1k+ posts)
Ok first of lets do away with your first claim that faith is not irrational so that we can get to the real stuff.
Rationality is when a person only believes something if there is a reasonable proof/evidence to believe it.
Definition of Faith from Google: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
A rational person cannot believe in anything without proof or evidence. If you claim to me that you are a messenger of God, I am sorry I need proof otherwise I am not buying. There is no proof for religion there fore it requires faith to believe in it therefore faith cannot be defined by rationality.


When you say that there is no support for human evolution then my question to you is this:
Who are Homo Erectus, and who are Neanderthal man? If they are not related to us why is our DNA is similar to them? Why does DNA evidence show that we have same paternal DNA as Homo Erectus but not as Neanderthal man? Do you know how accurate DNA evidence is? Its enough to convict criminals in murder case.
How come the farther back we shared a common ancestor with someone, the less similar our DNA is?(We share over 95% of our DNA with chimps but much less with crocodiles why? then even less than that with fish and even less with banana[70%]) Why does it seem that all the older fossil remains of man found are primitive versions of us, why all the older fossils of humans have significantly smaller brain size than modern humans? but larger than chimps? Who were those people?

Hmm this shows how good your reading comprehension skill is and you have the gall to talk about Rationality, a concept that consumes the huge chunk of active intellectual lives of imminent scholars.

Open your eyes clearly and have a good look on my words as Im not a disbeliever of the process of Evolution. What Ive said in my response is that;

I do not subscribe to the atheistic version of Evolution at all, Period.

I do however feel myself more aligned to the classic approach of some Muslim scientists of the past who conjoined the evolution of Humans with Divine supervision and intervention at some critical juncture of history.

Now coming back to your so called point of adjusting the complex notion of Faith with Rationality then let me make it clear to you this point as well that matters of faith are related with supra-rational domain. The plane of religion is quite different than the materialistic plane of natural sciences.

Natural sciences rely heavily on the natural faculties of Human Being whereas religion primarily deals with the soft endowment of Humans which is called spirit. This spiritual domain is currently out of the domain of study of Natural Scientists but with the passage of time I do have a hunch that, that time is not far when both of these domains (Spiritual & Scientific) will eventually deal with matters that impinge on their respective constructs.

Islam at least never contradicts the principal synthesis of rationality and if you want to contradict this focal point of mine then be my guest and share your misgivings on this matter.
 

Mind_Master

MPA (400+ posts)
Though I will read it later but let me tell you that there are many Muslim Scholars who had given Fitwa for Riba as 'Halal'.... Religious is personal understanding. I don't want to understand religion with the eyes of the current time scholars. Most of them are Haram Khor and Sinners. They can do everything for $$$ and ...

So basically you are a person who believe that some Magical creature was responsible for creation of Humans in a blink of an eye, then without giving any evidences how he created this Human, He placed him on earth, location still unknown and through a process of incest the world population was grown up to this point where you are living and denying a Scientific Theory of Evolution? right.......

By the way could you also please tell us, if God only created humans, Homo sapiens, then what about all other species which are discovered so far ? Who created them? And why God forgot to mentioned those in his Holy Book?
 

غزالی

MPA (400+ posts)
Ok first of lets do away with your first claim that faith is not irrational so that we can get to the real stuff.
Rationality is when a person only believes something if there is a reasonable proof/evidence to believe it.
Definition of Faith from Google: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
A rational person cannot believe in anything without proof or evidence. If you claim to me that you are a messenger of God, I am sorry I need proof otherwise I am not buying. There is no proof for religion there fore it requires faith to believe in it therefore faith cannot be defined by rationality.


When you say that there is no support for human evolution then my question to you is this:
Who are Homo Erectus, and who are Neanderthal man? If they are not related to us why is our DNA is similar to them? Why does DNA evidence show that we have same paternal DNA as Homo Erectus but not as Neanderthal man? Do you know how accurate DNA evidence is? Its enough to convict criminals in murder case.
How come the farther back we shared a common ancestor with someone, the less similar our DNA is?(We share over 95% of our DNA with chimps but much less with crocodiles why? then even less than that with fish and even less with banana[70%]) Why does it seem that all the older fossil remains of man found are primitive versions of us, why all the older fossils of humans have significantly smaller brain size than modern humans? but larger than chimps? Who were those people?

ایک سادہ سے سوال کا جواب درکار ہے

کیا ایک عقلیت پسند یا عقلی انسان کیلئے مکمل یا جزوی ذہنی خلا کے ساتھ ایک نارمل زندگی گذارنا ممکن ہے؟


Is it possible for a rationalist to live a normal life with/in a complete or partial mental voidness?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
There is no demonstrable evidence that anything such as a spirit exists. If you can demonstrate that spirits exist then there is a guy called James R-A-N-D-I (why is his last name censored here??) if you contact with him he will give you $1000,000.

Hmm this shows how good your reading comprehension skill is and you have the gall to talk about ‘Rationality’, a concept that consumes the huge chunk of active intellectual lives of imminent scholars.

Open your eyes clearly and have a good look on my words as I’m not a disbeliever of the process of ‘Evolution’. What I’ve said in my response is that;

I do not subscribe to the atheistic version of Evolution at all, Period.

I do however feel myself more aligned to the classic approach of some Muslim scientists of the past who conjoined the evolution of Humans with Divine supervision and intervention at some critical juncture of history.

Now coming back to your so called point of adjusting the complex notion of Faith with Rationality then let me make it clear to you this point as well that matters of faith are related with supra-rational domain. The plane of religion is quite different than the materialistic plane of natural sciences.

Natural sciences rely heavily on the natural faculties of Human Being whereas religion primarily deals with the soft endowment of Humans which is called spirit. This spiritual domain is currently out of the domain of study of Natural Scientists but with the passage of time I do have a hunch that, that time is not far when both of these domains (Spiritual & Scientific) will eventually deal with matters that impinge on their respective constructs.

Islam at least never contradicts the principal synthesis of rationality and if you want to contradict this focal point of mine then be my guest and share your misgivings on this matter.
 
Last edited:

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
People who are ignorant and people who are religious are generally happier than people who are rational and or atheist.

ایک سادہ سے سوال کا جواب درکار ہے

کیا ایک عقلیت پسند یا عقلی انسان کیلئے مکمل یا جزوی ذہنی خلا کے ساتھ ایک نارمل زندگی گذارنا ممکن ہے؟


Is it possible for a rationalist to live a normal life with/in a complete or partial mental voidness?
 

Back
Top