(May 30, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Harris Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Could you just explain, for my benefit if you would, how any of the above actually disproves the theory of evolution?

Forgive me but all I read is a mixture of personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance, so please point out where I'm misreading this as I presume you wouldn't have posted this in order to evidence something.

Please read all of my responses to Esquilax

I did, but I want clarification on how a mixture of arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity adds value to a perspective that seeks to discredit the theory of evolution.

If your first point is not conducive to your thesis, I have to ask, why did you post it?

Please explain for my benefit because I'm trying to understand what the fallacious opening your reply to esq was supposed to prove or add to the discussion.

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: I look at time in two different ways. One religious and second standard.

Religious view:
Allah is the creator of everything (including space). He regulates all events and actions in the universe. He determines to what extent His created beings would exist. In other words, He allocate age to every being. His creatures are time dependent, but He is not. Allah’s activities is time for His created beings. He is time Himself.

“Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 255-
Quran


Standard view:
Aging + Relative motions = Human sense of Time

Please also check my response to Pickup_shonuff below

In other words, you're playing fast and loose with the definition of "time" in order to disguise the fact that your claim is not scientifically nor philosophically sound.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: Everything in the universe has a Local frame of causality that means everything in the universe is reliant on the laws that run the universe. However, the cause (whatever it maybe) that prompted Big Bang, transcends the scope of universe.

Yes, everything in the universe has a local frame of causality, which is the universe itself. You have no reference point, i.e. no local frame of causality, that is relative to the universe to describe it in terms that we can understand and apply to every day life.

You're attempting to say that the first cause must have existed previously to the Big Bang, but we are talking about a quantum state completely absent of time where these macroscopic principles you're trying to use do not apply.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: Causality without time within the scope of universe is not possible but what about the causality that originated the universe. Is there any reason to believe that before Big Bang time exist in similar way how we perceive it today?

There is no reason to believe that causality is a valid principle when time does not exist.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: When to an evolutionist a genuine scientific evidence is presented as a fact against evolution, almost immediately he moved away from the scientific material and jumped into the areas of philosophy, theology, the worldview, etc. He just start throwing lots of smoke and name-calling and get people even not to listen to the message of science by essentially criticising the messenger.

Name one single documented instance of this actually happening.

There are openly creationist biologists, I don't see how such a claim makes any sense.

(May 30, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Great site; however he won't read it. It's not in Arabic so it can't be true.

(May 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Great site; however he won't read it. It's not in Arabic so it can't be true.

It's really hard not to stereotype the Muslims on this site, because... Damn.

(May 30, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm)Cato Wrote: Great site; however he won't read it. It's not in Arabic so it can't be true.

It's really hard not to stereotype the Muslims on this site, because... Damn.

There's nothing wrong with stereotyping, as long as you give each individual a fair chance to prove they aren't limited to the stereotype.

These guys have had plenty of chances. Nobody said, "Here's a Muslim. He's going to be an irrational Quran-thumper." They jumped right into their stereotype boxes of their own volition.

I do so hope that Harris returns to respond