So? There’s a difference between believing something isn’t true despite evidence and believing that it is true and isn’t true at the same time.
He believes what evidence shows to be true, as long as it doesn’t contradict absolute truths given to him by god.
I don’t see how this refutes the evolution of man from the common ancestor. It sounds to me like you’re saying that God made man from “clay”. Bit rudimentary but it doesn’t mean that God didn’t guide His creation throughout time until “perfection” reigns. In fact, sounds to me like you’re certifying the evolution of man through the Qur’an, not negating it.
Do correct me if I’m wrong, though.
Guess what? Gravity is a theory too, and and we have a far greater understanding of biological evolution than we do of gravity.
Err… yes… no-one was saying otherwise.
Also, doesn’t god or allah or whatever you want to call it exist out of time? Would things like evolution over time therefore not be meaningless in that context?
What if (if you’re religious) he didn’t “guide” evolution? What if he “created” evolution, all in one go. Since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he would not be constrained by time, and the entire evolutionary process would be his perfect creation, including us. The clay could just be a metaphor for the elementary building blocks everything is made of.
And I’ll say it again, humans are apes.
I’ve posted that somewhere before, maybe not this thread though… hive mind all the same.
It was this thread.
ok I got another question again 
, what’s your opinion on Islamic science ?
Shadi: Are you asking Muslims?
no, our dear atheists around here…
I didn’t realize that this was “Ask an Atheist”.
Looks like somebody is on wrong thread 
nope , I meant it here, this is what I’d like to discuss with you “about Islamic Science” but I started by asking a question, is that wrong ?
Let me answer that question by asking a question of you (you’re the Muslim so I’m going to “Ask a Muslim”):
What is the difference between “science” and “Islamic science”?
ok ok, the only real difference between them is that the “Science” you’re talking about is based on “there is no God, and everything started by chemical reaction which evolved into a cell and so on…” universe, but Islamic science is a “mere science” with a religious touch on it…at least that what I believe.
You might want to update your knowledge about science then because that’s not where everything started.
That is also not how science works. Science is logically explaining observed phenomena, god has nothing to do with it (unless you can observe god).
In other words, there is absolutely no distinction between science and “Islamic science.”
There is… This thread is evidence.
Science is science. Science are facts and nothing but facts. The last few pages in this thread has shown us for a fact (hey, science) that Muslims don’t care for facts when it goes against what the Qu’ran states.
So in short: Islamic science is pseudoscience. Science that’s twisted and shaped to fit a personal belief.
That’s not science, though.
Science is about observable phenomena. It doesn’t discount religion at all. Unless religion has some observable evidence, then science doesn’t take religion into account at all, but it doesn’t negate it.
i.e. not science
“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.”
So Islamic science is indeed not science, because in several cases they never correct previous information but rather stick to the old information for the sake of faith.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.