While you are on it, can we have the original (default) font back? EDIT: To be clear, I'm referring to the one before the big upgrade.

Coofle;738149 wrote: I guess there should be a rule against Copy and Paste....It kills debate and creativity.......Read what ur fellow nomads think, it is a rare commodity those days... Couldn't agree more.

burahadeer;737111 wrote: you could still be a shabab leader...no intellect required....Mr. Pauper. That made me laugh! It's almost comical how the guy drooled in a legitimate thread and basically turned it into a tool of self-ridicule.

genius pauper.;735595 wrote: @voltaire, i didnt represent you, atleast. i was talking for myself. So, plz dont come on board. Having said that, its high time to appreciate the fact that, evolution is not scientific leave alone being a science. and that is known to all the sciencetist, who have faith. infact its wrong to think of it as science. P.s.'science of evolution' doesnt not exist at all. May be to atheist. Oh, please, writing a single coherent sentence is obviously such a pain for you, let alone constructing a well-reasoned and cogent opinion on whether evolution is science or not. To be fair, if this assertion of evolution not being a scientific theory was made by someone little more literate, I would have asked them why they think so for amusement, but you come off as so hopeless that I won't even bother!

genius pauper.;735430 wrote: This is the source. all he did was to copy paste. in literature, using the work of a someone, without attributing to him/her is called plagiarism http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/03/complex-islamic-response-to-evolution-emerges-from-study.html As if anyone was under the impression that the thread starter was the author of the article! Johnny B;735454 wrote: For me it's the other way around , i'm puzzled by the rational stand of those secularly eduacted Muslim Doctors, hence my question at the bottom of the article , isen't it a cognitive dissoannace to believe in one thing and deny it on the next breath? Well, I think we should view these particularly weird responses under the light of social and authoritarian pressures. If someone had said to me that she/he accepts evolution scientifically and denies it religiously or something along those lines, I would take it to presumably mean that there are social and authoritarian pressures in place to force one in keeping this acceptance under the radar, as if it were. More intresting, Can a Muslim stay Muslim and believe in the Science of Evolution? I would say yes, it's perfectly possible for one to remain Muslim yet still accept evolution. It might be bit tricky, though. Reconciling a modern theory of science and, with a lack of a better phrase, an old faith, isn't exactly an easy thing to do. Good luck to anyone who tries!

Johnny B;735115 wrote: Complex Islamic response to evolution emerges To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this. The people in the survey are obviously very well-educated and, as such, I would have expected the given responses more or less. It's very hard for anyone to have a decent biological training and yet still reject the theory of evolution - though, strange enough, some still manage to (not to mention that medical doctors usually have little or no training in biology). It still remains that the general Muslim population, even those in positions of religious authority, are largely unconvinced - for one, because there is a wide spread scientific illiteracy in the Islamic world. Even in the West scientific awareness is very low in the Muslim community. I once had the delight of asking a sheikh, who was on roll at mocking evolution and science, whether he could explain what 'natural selection' is, and he ended-up stuttering. I like the responses of the Turkish doctor and the Pakistani medical student, by the way.

AYOUB;682622 wrote: ^ What's your take on the topic itself? Can you be bit specific, please?

Did it ever occur to you that he might not after all exist?

Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris;682401 wrote: One of the main arguments invoked in support of some form or other of atheism has always been the claim that the world, or some part of it, is eternal and, as such, needs no creator. Thus, some Greek thinkers believed that the heav*enly bodies, and especially the sun, were eternal. The main ar*gument of one of them, Galen, was, according to Al Ghazali, that it had continued for eons and eons to have the same size, which shows that it is not perishable, because if it were, it would have shown signs of decay which it doesn't. Al Ghazali says that this is not a good argument because: ... There are many things wrong with this! First, Galen was justifying the sun's unchanging nature not because he was a sceptic, but rather because he was a Platonist. He was adherent of the so-called Plato's notion of God (look up 'the metaphor of the sun'), which is explains why he felt the need to argue that the sun is unchanging. In fact most of those who held the view that the world is eternal in antiquity were classical theists. Aristotle was the champion of this view, yet he was the one who formulated what we call today the 'first cause' argument. What's even more wrong and careless of the author is that Galen did not subscribe to the eternity of the world. R. J. Hankinson explains in Furley's From Aristotle to Augustine that, although Galen was 'consistent in his expressed view that the pinnacle of all wisdom is to be sought in Plato', he we would not follow him slavishly, as he 'refuses to commit himself one way or the other on questions such as the eternity of the world or the soul's immortality,' being of the view that such questions are 'beyond the reach of human knowledge'; a commendable position for a man of antiquity. Al-Ghazali would be the last person to have an impartial view on this matter because he's the one who wrote the entire book of attempted refutation just because he was uncomfortable with Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi adopting Aristotle's philosophy, a vital one of which was this subject matter itself – the eternity of the world. If I were to grade this as an essay of sorts, I would have given Sheikh Idris a big U. The rest of the piece is riddled with as much inaccuracies, with the use of non sequiturs on the top of that.

Somalina;681280 wrote: Somali doctor exemplifies Islam's progressive side She 'exemplifies Islam's progressive side' just because she happens to be a Muslim? Horrible article!

Jacaylbaro;681053 wrote: No Wonder your name is "Mad Mullah" ........ Touché.

Whoever said the obsession with trivial matters is a vital sign of a backward society!

Ismalura;680471 wrote: I understand that it is all relative and that you may not feel the same way. Fair enough.

Ismalura;680220 wrote: What is not immoral about this video? Horta is weydii what is defined as immoral and you will find the answer right there. Stop mixing languages. It was a simple question, dear!

FatB;680145 wrote: bring back old SOL Don't. One had to have a doctorate in SOLology to use it. I've been a member of this site for quite sometime, and I can safely say the reason I've somewhat 'under-posted', if that is the term, was that the site was too confusing, old, and somewhat weird. I guess I risk that being resented by those who got used to the old site, but whatever!