/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Where does God fit in?



IsamBitar
10-21-2011, 05:31 PM
Hello everyone.

Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. The evolution of life and its origin, the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be, why storms happen, what causes illness, where life came from, how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this. My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?

Thanks.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
IsamBitar
10-21-2011, 05:34 PM
EDIT: and what do you think of the view that says God initiated the first cause (if there's any) and then let everything else form spontaneously and naturally through the laws of the universe?
Reply

czgibson
10-21-2011, 06:24 PM
Greetings,

There is a great deal that science still cannot explain. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why did the Big Bang occur? What happened before it? Will the universe continue forever? Are humans inherently good? How should we live our lives? And many other questions.

As long as questions like these remain, I think people will still find room for belief in religion and god. Striving to explain the unknown is also, of course, one of the main reasons for continuing with science.

I would make a slightly different argument from yours. Many phenomena that used to be attributed to a deity, such as crops failing, disease or earthquakes, now have entirely empirical and material explanations attached to them. As a result, god appears to have less and less to do with these events. As human knowledge has developed, the role of god has become increasingly marginalised, and the suspicion that god was the creation of primitive human minds going on the only information they had at the time has become more and more widespread.

Peace
Reply

Dagless
10-21-2011, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Hello everyone.

Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. The evolution of life and its origin, the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be, why storms happen, what causes illness, where life came from, how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this. My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?

Thanks.
The question doesn't really make sense, since all the things you've mentioned require God. Just because you believe you know a mechanism to some predictable degree does not somehow preclude God.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
IsamBitar
10-21-2011, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
[A]ll the things you've mentioned require God.
Not really, no. When you say something requires God then you mean that this certain something is impossible naturally and needs the direct involvement of a law-breaking supernatural being. It happens that all the things I described above require no such involvement.
Reply

Dagless
10-21-2011, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Not really, no. When you say something requires God then you mean that this certain something is impossible naturally and needs the direct involvement of a law-breaking supernatural being. It happens that all the things I described above require no such involvement.
No I don't mean that. If something is possible or impossible naturally it requires God all the same. Nature and laws are not independent of God; they are created.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-21-2011, 07:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
There is a great deal that science still cannot explain. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why did the Big Bang occur? What happened before it? Will the universe continue forever? Are humans inherently good? How should we live our lives?
Actually, all these questions have been answered by science, except for what was before the Big Bang. Other than that, I totally agree with what you're saying. I'm just wondering if guys here have something else to say about it.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-21-2011, 07:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
No I don't mean that. If something is possible or impossible naturally it requires God all the same.
Please explain.
Reply

Iconodule
10-21-2011, 07:34 PM
Modern science, by its very methodology, is designed to explain things without God. God is never an acceptable explanation, even if all the evidence pointed directly to him, because God cannot be quantified nor given any definition that would be satisfactory to this methodology. Therefore it should be neither surprising nor impressive that modern science has provided materialist explanations for so many phenomena. There is nothing new here; philosophers have been providing materialistic explanations for phenomena since Epicurus. The question is not, "can x be explained?" but whether that explanation is the true or complete one, and an explanation will never be complete without taking account of the divine work to which all that there is, in heaven and on earth, owes its existence.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
10-21-2011, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Hello everyone.

Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. The evolution of life and its origin, the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be, why storms happen, what causes illness, where life came from, how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this. My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?

Thanks.
Everything you have mentioned, has it all happened of its own accord? Did the universe decide to create itself through a big bang? What can science tell you about what provoked the big bang? Did it happen without a causing?

God fits perfectly into the picture. He created everything and made it what it is today.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-21-2011, 08:10 PM
Greetings of peace IsamBitar ..for some weird reason i've been reading your name as 'IslamBitar'

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Hello everyone.

Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. The evolution of life and its origin, the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be, why storms happen, what causes illness, where life came from, how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this. My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?

Thanks.
Well, it is man who discovered the creation of God because the creation of God is proof of his existence, but scientists gave it a name such as 'science' as it is what they discovered..

Things such as the human body, the human eye or the planets etc etc.

God fits into the picture because something is certainly not created out of nothing, rather it has a creator, it is created some way. In the case of the universe or how the planet was formed, it all came into existence by God.

It's like you've answered your own question but in the most confusing way ever, either way the answer is pretty much in your post.. 'Where did this come from?" or "how was it formed", your answer is by a creator or God, depending what you are discussing. The universe, the planets, you and I, and those who exist in this world, the rivers, mountains, oceans, foods etc are all actual God's work. If you do not accept this or have trouble accepting that a river can be created out of nothing or the sky or even the universe can be created of nothing, then that is completely your understanding or your decision.

The evolution of life, we are provided many things in life that help us evolve as humans, from babies to infants to childhood, to teenagers to adulthood and then old age ..and then finally death, after all that, one would seriously realise one has a purpose right? unless, they lose themselves in the world caring less about why they exist or 'or we do what we like' ..To grow we require food and water, good health, exercise etc etc, what a magnificent creation, if one were to have no water for a number of days they would not have survived.


Greetings of peace

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
There is a great deal that science still cannot explain. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why did the Big Bang occur? What happened before it? Will the universe continue forever? Are humans inherently good? How should we live our lives? And many other questions.
As long as questions like these remain, I think people will still find room for belief in religion and god. Striving to explain the unknown is also, of course, one of the main reasons for continuing with science.
I would make a slightly different argument from yours. Many phenomena that used to be attributed to a deity, such as crops failing, disease or earthquakes, now have entirely empirical and material explanations attached to them. As a result, god appears to have less and less to do with these events. As human knowledge has developed, the role of god has become increasingly marginalised, and the suspicion that god was the creation of primitive human minds going on the only information they had at the time has become more and more widespread.
Peace
Yes, you are right, there is a lot science cannot explain because they are not the ones whom created this or that.
I don't understand your question "why is there something rather than nothing?"

'Are Humans inherently good?'..this question is pretty much common sense, a baby can never be born bad..all you can see on a baby is pureness. Unless, one believes it to be so due to various beliefs e.g. we are all accountable for someone elses sin or we are born sinners therefore making a baby impure or other reasons..

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Actually, all these questions have been answered by science, except for what was before the Big Bang. Other than that, I totally agree with what you're saying. I'm just wondering if guys here have something else to say about it.
Actually, since you or an 'islamic forum' you would recieve answers in accordance to the Islamic beliefs, but you may however feel free to believe what you desire. Here is my attempt to answering 'Czgibson's' questions as you have mentioned this 'I'm just wondering if guys here have something else to say about it.'

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Why is there something rather than nothing?
The question is confusing. so I hope someone else can reply unless they are confused also..

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Why did the Big Bang occur?
Not sure, not looked into this, i assume that is when they say that the earth came out of nothing..If that is the case I shall say that this earth, universe was created.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
What happened before it?
The earth was created, so whatever happened before the creation, only God knows, and this knowledge is with God Alone. Nor does this take our belief away from focusing on God, it hasnt no concern to us, especially when we cannot comprehend this.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Will the universe continue forever?
Well this earth for sure will not remain for ever, the Qur'aan does tell us that Hell and Heaven are eternal. not only does the Qur'aan but also various other religions carry this belief, so it is quite certain between many 'thiests' that there is Hell and Heaven..

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Are humans inherently good?
Nope. Living in this world amongst humans of various characters does or can change ones beliefs and values. As muslims we are told that there is satan/shaytaan who likes to carry people on the wrong path, away from the path of righteousness, Allaah informs us that he (shaytaan) is a plain enemy to mankind and not a friend. So we either follow the righteous pure path by obeying our Lord or we follow our desires and lead ourselves to hell knowingly..note I did not state the word 'unknowingly' because God is not injust, he knows well what is in the hearts.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
How should we live our lives?
In accordance to the law of God, to obey him. Firstly, one knows very well that the path to obey God is not of harm to one it is only of good and enjoyment, so one will know what God has commanded is correct. Secondly, none of that which God commands us to do i.e. do the good and forbid the evil .. is only for ourselves, so we are obeying God by this we are not benefiting God but only ourselves. God is allmighty, he does not need our deeds or food or blood, or anything, that is why one of his names attributed to him are the All-aware, All-wise, The king..and these are just a few of his 99 names attributes to him. I am not sure if ive explained well, so hopefuly someone can explain clearer than myself. So in other words one knows that the creator who created knows very well how his creation works.

I hope ive made sense , if i stated anything incorrect anyone please be sure to correct me inshaa'Allaah - God Willingly..
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-21-2011, 08:36 PM
science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect
Who created the nature and the natural laws? Who created the cause and who created its effect as we know it now?
Reply

IsamBitar
10-21-2011, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iconodule
Therefore it should be neither surprising nor impressive that modern science has provided materialist explanations for so many phenomena.
But the fact that those explanations are there makes God redundant.


format_quote Originally Posted by Iconodule
[A]nd an explanation will never be complete without taking account of the divine work...
This might be your point of view, which of course has absolutely no evidence, but unbiased science says otherwise.


format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
Did the universe decide to create itself through a big bang?
Super moderator O.O sweeeeeet what the hell is that?
Anyway, well, quantum fluctuations explain how and why the Big Bang might have happened. And it perfectly explains how the universe came from nothing.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
for some weird reason i've been reading your name as 'IslamBitar'
Yeah people do that all the time. :/


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
Not sure, not looked into this, i assume that is when they say that the earth came out of nothing.
The earth actually naturally formed from star dust that condensed by the influence of its own gravity to eventually form the earth (other planets were formed by the same way). Life exists on earth because Planet Earth happened to be in what scientists call the habitable zone. This is the zone where water does not boil nor freeze, which is several thousand miles wide. The Big Bang was the initial expansion of a singularity (a single dot that contains all matter, energy, space and time) followed by rapid cooling and forming of basic elements (hydrogen and helium) as well as basic stars, where the rest of the elements were formed. Tell me if you want to know more.


format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
Who created the nature and the natural laws? Who created the cause and who created its effect as we know it now?
Yeah I think this makes a pretty good argument.
Reply

czgibson
10-21-2011, 10:07 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Iconodule
Modern science, by its very methodology, is designed to explain things without God. God is never an acceptable explanation, even if all the evidence pointed directly to him, because God cannot be quantified nor given any definition that would be satisfactory to this methodology.
If all the evidence pointed towards God, scientists would have no choice but to assume his existence.

Peace
Reply

MustafaMc
10-22-2011, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty.
I beg to differ!
The evolution of life and its origin,
Sorry, but it doesn't even come close. If ToE was an exploding hand grenade, I wouldn't be worried about getting injured.
the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be,
Wrong again! It does pretty good after the Big Bang, but what about before?
why storms happen, what causes illness,
OK
where life came from,
Wrong, again!
how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this.
You proved absolutely nothing with most of this because science DOES NOT adequately explain it!
My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?
As I have said, science does not explain 1) the precursor to the Big Bang, 2) the origin of life, or 3) the origin of higher life forms and species from a common unicellular, prokaryotic ancestor. The creation itself is evidence of the Creator for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear with and for those whose hearts are sealed against faith in Allah (swt) they will hold on to their foolishness and refuse to see the obvious to their own detriment.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-22-2011, 09:58 PM
LOL MustafaMc, All you did was deny everything without even providing an alternative. The ONLY thing you got partially right was that science is not yet sure about what preceded the Big Bang. And even that you didn't provide adequate alternative answers to.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-22-2011, 10:55 PM
Sorry to tell you, but I am a scientist and I know more than a little about genetics and biology, as Allah (swt) has willed. I don't intend to enter a debate with anyone who can't understand the basics of what I have to say. You can save your insults for someone who gives a rat's ass about what you think about the nonexistence of Allah (swt).
Reply

*Yasmin*
10-22-2011, 11:34 PM
recommendation: in case you're interested to have a debate with scholars about Tawheed to find out the TRUTH not just to be argumentative, there is an awesome site where you can debate, it's called montada eltwhed, you might want to check it out! (it specializes in Tawheed matters)
it's in Arabic too.
it's good to debate here, but there you can ask to have a debate with one person who happens to be a scholar!

Greetings to Nabulus and its people.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
10-22-2011, 11:45 PM
There is no need for any rude responses from anyone. Please keep things civilized.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-22-2011, 11:46 PM
I don't know where you get your information from, but they are most certainly not from science books:

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
The evolution of life and its origin
The evolution of life is not proven.
And even more so with the origin of life.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
the origin of the universe itself
Science proposes the theory of probable initial phases of the universe, but science does not explain the origin of the universe.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
where life came from
Science does not explain where life came from.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
how our planet was formed
There are still several competing theories on how planets were formed, not a single one is proven as yet.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I could go on forever with this.
I could go on forever picking apart your false information.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang)
Quantum physics does not explain the big bang. Quantum physics may be able to explain some phenomena in a "vacuum", but vacuum is not an absolute nothingness which was the pre big bang condition.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-23-2011, 12:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I would make a slightly different argument from yours. Many phenomena that used to be attributed to a deity, such as crops failing, disease or earthquakes, now have entirely empirical and material explanations attached to them. As a result, god appears to have less and less to do with these events. As human knowledge has developed, the role of god has become increasingly marginalised, and the suspicion that god was the creation of primitive human minds going on the only information they had at the time has become more and more widespread.
How perfect it is that czgibson's assertion is fully answered by Dagless' next post although Dagless intended it to answer the OP:

format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
The question doesn't really make sense, since all the things you've mentioned require God. Just because you believe you know a mechanism to some predictable degree does not somehow preclude God.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-23-2011, 04:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza Asadullah
There is no need for any rude responses from anyone. Please keep things civilized.
Sorry MustafaMc. Please accept my genuine apologies.

format_quote Originally Posted by *Yasmin*
montada eltwhed
That forum is useless. They wouldn't answer any questions no matter how genuine they are, they wouldn't explain, they wouldn't let me explain and they have a ban-fetish that makes them ban non-Muslim users any time they even remotely refer to atheism or evolution. My time there was a nightmare and honestly my time here was much better and much more tolerated.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
I don't know where you get your information from, but they are most certainly not from science books:
Actually, they are. I could list a hundred books here that contain my information. As for the rest of your post, you did what MustafaMc did; denied everything but provided nothing in return.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
absolute nothingness which was the pre big bang condition.
Actually, it's quantum nothingness that preceded the Big Bang. Almost all cosmologists agree on this.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
I could go on forever picking apart your false information.
Please do. All you did so far was just say "science does not do this, science does not do that." Well, that's not picking apart anything.


So far, everyone's been just denying proven science and saying that God did it. Forget it, I don't think my question will ever be answered here.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-23-2011, 06:57 PM
You did not answer my question.

What do you define science as?

Isn't it clear that the laws that govern science were created? The cause was created and a definite effect was given to the cause?
Reply

IsamBitar
10-23-2011, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
What do you define science as?
Well, to me, science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about our world.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
Isn't it clear that the laws that govern science were created? The cause was created and a definite effect was given to the cause?
Yeah that could be true.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-23-2011, 10:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
So far, everyone's been just denying proven science and saying that God did it.
No, we are not denying proven science only speculative theories with the sole motivation of providing some answer (however far fetched) to counter 'God did it'.

Do you know the difference between mitosis and meiosis? If so, can you provide a reasonable scheme for the evolution of meiosis from mitosis and the simultaneous evolution of male and female sexual organs that are useless without the other?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-24-2011, 12:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Actually, they are. I could list a hundred books here that contain my information. As for the rest of your post, you did what MustafaMc did; denied everything but provided nothing in return.
Actually, I did more than you did:
You need to look yourself in the mirror; all you did was: science prove this, science explains that, saying everything but provided nothing to back up your claims.
So I figured out that you are already satisfied with that kind of method.

If you want more detailed replies, could you also give evidence to your assertions?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Actually, it's quantum nothingness that preceded the Big Bang. Almost all cosmologists agree on this.
Actually, before Big Bang, there was no quantum whatsoever as there was nothing. Almost all cosmologists agree on this.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Please do. All you did so far was just say "science does not do this, science does not do that." Well, that's not picking apart anything.
Well, when all you did so far is "science do this, science does that", mustafamc's and my succinct responses are good enough.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
So far, everyone's been just denying proven science and saying that God did it. Forget it, I don't think my question will ever be answered here.
Oh, did you actually ever ask a question?
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-24-2011, 03:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Well, to me, science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about our world.
I am sure you know that not everything in science is based on testable explanations and a lot of it is based on assumptions and speculations. Many established scientific explanations get invalidated by later scientists. So how can you accept science to be a basis for your belief?


Yeah that could be true.
It is true. Do you still doubt?


Allah SubHanahu wa Ta'ala is recognised by the bounties He has favoured on us. I recommend you to read this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/manners-...lessed-us.html
Reply

Flame of Hope
10-24-2011, 04:27 AM
Hello there IsamBitar! This is a most fascinating thread you've started.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty.
"Science" is a subject.... a thing.... a tool.... a body of information.... facts and figures, classified and put into categories by PEOPLE. It is not science that does any explaining. It's mute... it cannot think, reason or rationalize.

So let's take out that word "science" and replace it with the words: "some scientists."

So we get: "Some scientists today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty."

Now you might object to the use of the word "some". You might want to say "ALL scientists"...

But that wouldn't be a true statement at all if you meant all scientists.

The truth is.... not all scientists are in agreement about many things in life.

All scientists cannot say with certainty that they know the truth behind everything.

The fact will always remain that no matter how much knowledge man gains about the world in which he lives, there will always be tons more that he will be in ignorance about.

Where does God fit into all this? Well, He is the One who determines who will acquire knowledge.... and who will wander around in the darkness of ignorance.

He is the One who is in complete control of all things.

And if it is not His will, you will never ever get to know a single thing about Him.
Reply

Insecured soul
10-24-2011, 05:03 AM
lol, funny post

no offence to OP though

May allah guide you to the truth

salaam alaikum
Reply

czgibson
10-24-2011, 06:54 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I would make a slightly different argument from yours. Many phenomena that used to be attributed to a deity, such as crops failing, disease or earthquakes, now have entirely empirical and material explanations attached to them. As a result, god appears to have less and less to do with these events. As human knowledge has developed, the role of god has become increasingly marginalised, and the suspicion that god was the creation of primitive human minds going on the only information they had at the time has become more and more widespread.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
How perfect it is that czgibson's assertion is fully answered by Dagless' next post although Dagless intended it to answer the OP:
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
The question doesn't really make sense, since all the things you've mentioned require God. Just because you believe you know a mechanism to some predictable degree does not somehow preclude God.
The point is that the explanations work just as well whether you include God or not. If we believe we have a full understanding of, for instance, tidal phenomena, what purpose does it serve to add the phrase "and God did all this" to an explanation of them? Saying "God did it" does not explain anything; in fact, since God is a complex idea, that assertion actually requires further explanation itself.

Peace
Reply

Perseveranze
10-24-2011, 07:36 PM
The concept of the imperceptible is a decisive factor in distinguishing man from animal. Materialist thinking, ancient as well as modern, has tended to drag man back to an irrational existence, with no room for the spiritual, where everything is determined by sensory means alone. What is peddled as 'progressive thought' is no more than dismal regression. - Syed Qutb(ra)
Reply

*Yasmin*
10-24-2011, 08:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
That forum is useless. They wouldn't answer any questions no matter how genuine they are, they wouldn't explain, they wouldn't let me explain and they have a ban-fetish that makes them ban non-Muslim users any time they even remotely refer to atheism or evolution. My time there was a nightmare and honestly my time here was much better and much more tolerated.
Hmm, It may be useless for you i see. but many brothers reverted to Islam in that forum.
yeah they ban when you don't obey the rules and they are very strict towards these issues, and I second them.

If you like it here more and you can gain benefits, please stay, you're very welcome!
wish you the best.
Salam.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-25-2011, 12:54 AM
Hey, IsamBitar, I am still waiting for how science proves how meiosis evolved from mitosis. The unicellular Common Ancestor can be assumed to be prokaryotic with asexual reproduction with no need or capability for meiosis because it would also be haploid. Meiosis is essential to the development of male and female gametes required for sexual reproduction of higher life forms.

In addition to the mitotic processes of cellular division, meiosis uniquely has 1) pairing of replicated homologous chromosomes from its respective parents into bivalents, 2) crossing over and recombination between homologous chromosomes, 3) random separation and segregation of the 2 sets of homologous chromosomes in the first cellular division, and 4) separation of the 2 replicated strands in the second cellular division that results in 4 haploid daughter cells from the diploid mother cell.

This process occurs only in reproductive organs of plants and animals such as anthers/testes and ovules/ovaries. Now this process must operate in toto for it to function properly. Evolution can be assumed to occur gradually with each step supposedly conferring a progressively enhanced competitive ability. The problem is that if the first difference noted above occurred first without the subsequent steps also 'evolving' simultaneously then the temporary pairing of replicated homologous chromosomes would confer no selective advantage for it to become passed on to progeny for natural selection to act upon. Note that there is no homologous pairing in prokaryotic organisms as they are haploid and by definition have only one set (actually only one) of chromosomes. The somatic diploid body cells of an organism are genetically identical, but each and every sperm within a man's testes is genetically unique. Furthermore, every sperm that has ever existed is worthless with regards to producing fertile offspring unless it unites with the egg of a female of the same species. Therefore, not only would all of the steps of meiosis need to evolve simultaneously, but so also would male and female sexual organs need to simultaneously evolve for meiosis to confer any selective advantage.

Perhaps you have a better understanding of genetics and cellular biology and can explain how meiosis evolved. Since you have said that science can explain almost everything, then I am sure there is a simple logical explanation for such a basic question.
Reply

Eric H
10-25-2011, 03:34 PM
Greetings and peace be with you IsamBitar;

where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?

Thanks
It seems that nature can make everything happen without help from any God, but what tools does nature have to create life and fuel the evolutionary process?

As I understand life started some four billion years ago in the seas, so there are tides to move chemicals about, tempreture variation in the sea, sunlight. But what other tools does nature have to make 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a 1,000 tendons. What tools does nature have to join all these things together to create movement

In the spirit of searching

Eric
Reply

IsamBitar
10-25-2011, 07:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
If so, can you provide a reasonable scheme for the evolution of meiosis from mitosis and the simultaneous evolution of male and female sexual organs that are useless without the other?
Your two questions are linked together. You cannot have sexual reproduction evolve if there was no meiosis. So, how did meiosis evolve? Right, I'll keep this very simple and short for the convenience of others. If you want more information, I could recommend one or two reads.


Now we need to understand that the beginning of sex was simply two cells fusing and mixing their DNA and then separating. Two haploids fusing into a diploid, which then undergoes meiosis, cell divison and then you get four haploid cells. But which one evolved first? Meiosis or cell fusion? Or did they have to simultaneously evolve?


Well, scientific studies show that meiosis evolved first. Because it was a mechanism to correct errors when DNA replicated but the cell didn't divide. Another plausible theory is the asexual ploidy cycle, where sometimes it is more beneficial to be a haploid rather than a diploid, and on other times they would benefit from being diploid. To go from haploid to diploid, you only need DNA replication, no cell divison. But to go back you need to go through something like meiosis. Now how did this mechanism evolve? Now in yeasts and many other eukaryotes, the proteins responsible for meiosis are either similar to those responsible for normal DNA replication (mitosis) or DNA mutation-repair proteins or chromosome condensation. Now all those evolved way before meiosis did. Evolution makes use of pre-existing systems for new functions. Cell fusion was the result of evolving from prokaryotes into eukaryotes. So, at first, cell fusion would have been an act of chance; an accident which meiosis could correct. But then again that accident had a great effect: sex. Now seeing how beneficial sex is to accelerate evolution, it had to stay. There are many other benefits to early sex as well I'm not going to discuss (this post is too long already). Now how is this fusion sex? DNA cross-overs cause some DNA pieces to be mixed and recombined. And when the two cells de-fuse, they are the product of sex. You can find examples of this in today's Volvox, by the way.
I hope that makes sense.

As for sex itself, its evolution is simple. Once it started like I demonstrated above, all the extra stuff are just refinements to make sex more efficient.

Now I know I left out some detail but I really don't want to make this too hard to read. But if you want to know more you could watch those videos I really recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM.


format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Almost all cosmologists agree on this.
Source?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Oh, did you actually ever ask a question?
Yeah, read the title of the post you're replying to.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
lot of it is based on assumptions and speculations.
Well, nothing in science is based on that stuff. But speculations do exist in the form of hypotheses. And they are not taken as seriously as theories until they gather enough evidence to make them true.

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham
You might want to say "ALL scientists"
Actually I would say most scientists. Saying "all" would be just false, like you said. Yeah scientists don't claim to know the truth about everything. But they claim (and provide evidence for it) that they know many things about many things. And science happens to work, correct? The computers we're using are a product of science that works. Medicine, mechanics, flight, TV and almost everything you can imagine. You can't just dismiss all of science because it doesn't know absolutely everything. And thanks for answering where you believe God fits in. At least you took the effort to answer my initial question. Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
where everything is determined by sensory means alone.
But this isn't a reliable way to reach the truth of something. If we rely on our senses alone, we would think the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. This shows how senses are not evidence for something as they are often misled. Remember, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by *Yasmin*
If you like it here more and you can gain benefits, please stay, you're very welcome!
Thanks Yasmin. Yeah it's pretty good here I like it, and the people are great.

Thanks Eric H. Great answer.
Reply

Eric H
10-25-2011, 08:31 PM
Greetings and peace be with you IsamBitar;

Thanks Eric H. Great answer
I think you may have read the first line from my post, and skipped over the rest.

What tools does nature have to create life and fuel the evolutionary process?

As I understand from ToE life started some four billion years ago in the seas, so there are tides to move chemicals about, tempreture variation in the sea, sunlight. These simple tools might create some simple life like a sponge.

But what tools does nature have to make 200 bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a 1,000 tendons. What tools does nature have to join all these things together to create movement

In the spirit of searching

Eric
Reply

IsamBitar
10-25-2011, 09:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
I think you may have read the first line from my post, and skipped over the rest.
Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question..

Right, the set of tools nature has to develop such complex systems is the set of random mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift. You could read a lot about those anywhere on the internet. If you want, you could check this out as a start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY.

And if you want more, you're more than welcome to come to my page here: https://www.facebook.com/libraryofevolution, there's loads of information down there and you could watch, read and analyse all you want.
Reply

Eric H
10-25-2011, 10:18 PM
Greetings and peace be with you IsamBitar;

Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question..
Sorry, on reflection I was not very clear.

Right, the set of tools nature has to develop such complex systems is the set of random mutation, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift.
When you say random mutation, what tools does nature have to bring about these mutations?

Can I try and explain my understanding of tools in this way. With stoneage tools, a carpenter might be able to chisel out a very crude canoe. In a modern workshop, a carpenter is able to make beautiful and intricate furniture, simply because he has specialised tools.

I can accept that 4 billion years ago chemicals wondered around aimlessly in the oceans, and they will come together, because the tides keep moving chemicals about. Fine so far, I could almost accept this process is enough to make simple sponges, possibly worms or jelly fish.

According to the evolution time line there were no vertabrate 600m years ago, then within a period of about four hundred million years there is a vast aray of life. Many species have two hundred bones, 500 muscles, 500 ligaments and a thousand tendons.

The biochemical life then takes on a mechanical role involving about two thousand moving parts. You mention RANDOM mutaion which must also take error into account. Just supposing there is a two to one chance against each of these two thousand components being the right shape and size. Just supposing there is only a two to one chance that each of these two thousand components joined together in a way to advance movement. If you compound all these odds together, there seems to be no way nature could do this without help.

In the spirit of searching

Eric
Reply

Ramadhan
10-25-2011, 11:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Source?
I will give my sources when you provide your sources on your previous claims.
FYI, I didn't provide my sources as I assumed that's how you accept things, evidenced by your previous claims which were not backed by any source whatsoever.

It is so interesting that you never acknowledged most parts of my replies to you that refuted your "science explains this, science explains that". Are you now conceding that your information about science were false?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Yeah, read the title of the post you're replying to.
That was already succinctly answered by Dagless in post #4 and #5.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-26-2011, 03:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Well, scientific studies show that meiosis evolved first. Because it was a mechanism to correct errors when DNA replicated but the cell didn't divide.
If the unicellular organism had a mitotic failure and the spindle fibers didn't attach to the centromeres to divide resulting in a diploid, that implies a deleterious mutation had occurred that would continue (haploid>diploid>tetraploid>octaploid) indefinitely or be eliminated immediately as conferring a selective disadvantage.
Another plausible theory is the asexual ploidy cycle, where sometimes it is more beneficial to be a haploid rather than a diploid, and on other times they would benefit from being diploid. To go from haploid to diploid, you only need DNA replication, no cell divison. But to go back you need to go through something like meiosis.
I am unaware of any real world examples for this. Can you give a few?
Now how did this mechanism evolve? Now in yeasts and many other eukaryotes, the proteins responsible for meiosis are either similar to those responsible for normal DNA replication (mitosis) or DNA mutation-repair proteins or chromosome condensation. Now all those evolved way before meiosis did. Evolution makes use of pre-existing systems for new functions. Cell fusion was the result of evolving from prokaryotes into eukaryotes. So, at first, cell fusion would have been an act of chance; an accident which meiosis could correct.
...but the unique steps of meiosis can be assumed to have occurred sequentially over time with each change conferring a slight advantage for the latter ones to build upon. You are assuming that the change went instantly from mitosis to fully functional meiosis which is counter to the ToE MO.
Now I know I left out some detail but I really don't want to make this too hard to read. But if you want to know more you could watch those videos I really recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM.
Insha'Allah I will watch later when I have more time.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-26-2011, 12:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
...Another plausible theory is the asexual ploidy cycle, ... You can find examples of this in today's Volvox, by the way.
I hope that makes sense ...Well, nothing in science is based on that stuff. But speculations do exist in the form of hypotheses. And they are not taken as seriously as theories until they gather enough evidence to make them true... But they claim (and provide evidence for it) that they know many things about many things.
My perspective and opinion is that ToE is no more than a semi-plausible theory that is actually more of a hypothesis. Now what is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm Based on these definitions I think you would agree that ToE is yet a hypothesis that is based on some observations such as fossils and speciation of isolated communities such as the Galapagos Island. What repeatable scientific testing has been conducted and what data has been collected to support ToE on a macro scale?

What I understand from what you write is an offer of a possible explanation that is not supported by evidence for how species and processes have evolved naturally over time. You are attempting to use scientific phrases to make broad, sweeping claims in 'plausible theories' as an alternative to 'God did it'. You are comfortable with the mythical creating capacity of 'Mother Nature' and 'Father Time' while I am comfortable with a supernatural, unperceivable 'Creator'. I look at our collective scientific knowledge of life and life processes and I say, 'Praise be to Allah, Glory to Allah, and Allah is Great.' I am literally amazed at how DNA is transcribed into a mirror strand of mRNA and then translated into a protein by a tDNA codon of three specific nucleic acids attaching to a specific amino acid and going over to the mRNA and matching with it and the amino acids sequentially forming peptide bonds that results in a functional protein. I have no need to understand how this process came to be as I find it enough to understand and to use the process. I admit that there are some things that I can't explain or even understand as I am only a limited human being. I am content to leave it be that 'God did it' as I have no need or desire to prove that He didn't do it. You have faith that natural processes over a vast amount of time explains the origin of species from a Common Ancestor, while I have faith that Allah created the various existing and extinct species of life. I don't necessarily have to believe that this creative act was instantaneous, even though it could have been or it could have taken place over a span of time. The difference between you and I is that I believe that Allah was essentially the Creator of life and of every species while you exclude Him as being beyond the scope of the scientific method as He is not observable or subject to experimentation.

To you your religion (or lack thereof) and to me mine.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-26-2011, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
When you say random mutation, what tools does nature have to bring about these mutations?
You just need self-replicating genetic material. Errors in replicating these materials are mutations. Have a look at the page I provided, it should help a lot.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
You mention RANDOM mutaion which must also take error into account.
And it does. Like I said, random mutation is giving you a piece of new trait. If this trait is beneficial to the organism, it will help it survive, reproduce and become dominant (over time of course). If it is harmful, it'll die and with its death, the mutation will disappear.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
If you compound all these odds together, there seems to be no way nature could do this without help.
Evolution doesn't work that way at all. Nothing is instantaneous, nothing is built up fully-functioning by chance. If you want, I could provide some more information to clarify things out.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
If the unicellular organism had a mitotic failure and the spindle fibers didn't attach to the centromeres to divide resulting in a diploid, that implies a deleterious mutation had occurred that would continue (haploid>diploid>tetraploid>octaploid) indefinitely or be eliminated immediately as conferring a selective disadvantage.
This would kill the cell, stopping the mutation from spreading.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am unaware of any real world examples for this. Can you give a few?
Well, the ploidy cycle is a characteristic of any cell undergoing meiosis. It's doubling the amount of DNA in a cell, and meiosis, which halves it. The result is a 'ploidy cycle' of alternating diploid and haploid phases. This would have been beneficial to early cells as doubling the amount of DNA would give the cell the advantage of having "spare parts" in case a molecule gets damaged, so it could fix it. You can read more here (it's short but got loads of sources): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v370/n6486/abs/370213a0.html

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You are assuming that the change went instantly from mitosis to fully functional meiosis which is counter to the ToE MO.
No, I didn't. It probably sounded that way but what I meant was not today's complicated process of meiosis, but a basic ancestral process.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Insha'Allah I will watch later when I have more time.
Please do. I assure you they explain things WAY better than I do, as the person who made the videos is an actual biologist, I'm not.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
My perspective and opinion is that ToE is no more than a semi-plausible theory that is actually more of a hypothesis.
It really isn't, though. There's loads of evidence supporting evolution and loads of evolutionary predictions that are met by nature. It makes the best explanation of life given the evidence. And it is one of the world's most influencial theories since, as the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution. If you'd like me to present examples of evidence for evolution, please say so.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
What repeatable scientific testing has been conducted and what data has been collected to support ToE on a macro scale?
There is a lot of pieces of evidence for evolution everywhere. Forget fossils and physical similarities. DNA evidence shows it (the way DNA diverges and changes between species which evolution predicts recent common ancestry for), physical, anatomical and behavioural vestiges, ERVs that match in two species' genomes, chromosomal fusion in, for example, humans, and many more. Once again if you want to know more I'd love to provide info.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You are comfortable with the mythical creating capacity of 'Mother Nature' and 'Father Time' while I am comfortable with a supernatural, unperceivable 'Creator'.
The thing is, the theories I propose are tested and verified in labs. Scientists have won Nobel Prizes over these. That is how we know that these theories are plausible and highly possible. But there is no such procedure or evidence for a supernatural. Otherwise, it wouldn't be supernatural, would it? Remember that what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am content to leave it be that 'God did it' as I have no need or desire to prove that He didn't do it.
I respect that but such attitude would never mean progress. Had we stuck to God did it, we'd still be reading blessings upon sick people and asking God to forgive them and raise the curse off them, as God put that curse. But thanks to the opposing attitude, we now know that germs did it. And sure as hell we can kill those germs, correct?

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You have faith
It is anything but that.. I do not have faith with science, I acknowledge it. If a scientist came to me and claimed something without showing me how he knew such thing or how he got to it, I wouldn't believe them. That's the difference between faith and acknowledgement/acceptance.

Thanks for your participation MustafaMc. Much appreciated.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-27-2011, 02:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
And it does. Like I said, random mutation is giving you a piece of new trait. If this trait is beneficial to the organism, it will help it survive, reproduce and become dominant (over time of course). If it is harmful, it'll die and with its death, the mutation will disappear.
However, most mutations are deleterious and lead to an impaired as opposed to improved function. Furthermore, most mutations are recessive and expressed only when homozygous. This means that the mutation would not be expressed unless it was passed on from both parents, both of which did not benefit (or be harmed) by the mutation. Let's say the frequency of a mutation in the population is 1:1,000 (0.001) and the frequency of both parents carrying the mutation would be 0.001 X 0.001 or 1:1,000,000. The frequency of a progeny from this mating (1 normal:2 heterozygous:1 mutant) being homozygous for the mutation is 1/4. In other words the frequency of an individual expressing the mutation that occurs at a frequency of 1:1,000 is 1:4,000,000. As evidence for mutations mostly being deleterious, when was the last time that close incest resulted in a child that was more fit, stronger or smarter than the parents?
Evolution doesn't work that way at all. Nothing is instantaneous, nothing is built up fully-functioning by chance.
However, the fossil record indicates that speciation has occurred in leaps as opposed to gradually.
No, I didn't. It probably sounded that way but what I meant was not today's complicated process of meiosis, but a basic ancestral process.
Yes, I understand that the change would need to be gradual, but as I indicated earlier, I don't see a selective advantage unless we have a fully functional process. It is sorta like building a car and stopping at putting the tires on. The car is worthless as a mode of transportation without the tires.
It makes the best explanation of life given the evidence. And it is one of the world's most influencial theories since, as the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.
I don't deny that ToE is widely known and reasonably well accepted in the scientific community; however, I disagree with your statement that 'nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution'. I am a plant geneticist and I work with some pretty amazing stuff. For example, I work with genetically engineered plants that express genes isolated from bacteria. In a strange sense of the word, I am a practicing evolutionist.
The thing is, the theories I propose are tested and verified in labs. Scientists have won Nobel Prizes over these. That is how we know that these theories are plausible and highly possible. But there is no such procedure or evidence for a supernatural. Otherwise, it wouldn't be supernatural, would it? Remember that what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
I personally don't get the big deal about trying to prove the origin of things. Assuming that someone is able to eventually prove ToE beyond a shadow of doubt and it becomes the Law of Evolution, what will be the practical application of it to everyday life. Is the objective to prove there was no creation and everything that exists just happened to come into being by natural processes and chance occurrence? Is the objective to prove that God does not exist except in the minds of theistic people? For myself, the world as we know it is evidence enough of a Creator and my choice is to believe in Allah as the One God without father, mother, son, daughter or equal. I accept Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last messenger of Allah and the Quran as the literal Word of Allah. I accept what the Quran says about the creation of the worlds without having a need to know the how of it.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-27-2011, 07:12 AM
To ask 'Where does God fit in?' is actually a blasphemous question. God does not fit in the works of nature. It is in fact quite the opposite. Allah SubHanahu wa Ta'ala is the One who created the nature. He is the One who assigned different roles to the forces of nature. He is the One who created the outcomes of the different activities. He is One who controls each and every activity of His creations. He is the One by Whose permission any creation can produce an effect. As we already agreed earlier, He is the One who created the cause and He is the One who assigned the effects of the cause as we know them now.

He is the One Whose knowledge encompasses everything. He is the One who created everything out of nothing. He is One who designed everything which had no design. He is the One who kept everything in its perfect measure.

He is the One who, when he decided to create man, created everything for his sake. He is the One who perfected the conditions of earth before sending the man to earth. He is the One who kept the distance between the sun and the earth optimal for man's survival. Was it science that measured the optimal distance? Or was it nature that rolled the earth at its optimal distance? What is nature but the command of Allah?

He is the One who created the blanket of atmosphere on the surface of the earth. Who decided to create the ozone layer to protect man from harmful rays?
He is the One who created the perfect gravitational pull of earth required by man to walk. He is the One who provided the means of life to man on earth. He is the One who created oxygen in its fixed proportion. He is the One who tilted the axis of the earth to cause change in seasons, and prevented the global glaciation. He is the One who fixed the duration of day and night and keeps increasing and decreasing it slightly throughout the year. Was it nature that decided the day to be of 24 hours on its own?

He is the One who created the moon, a light for the night, and adorned the sky with stars. He is the One who knew man would marvel at the sparkling stars so created them hundreds and thousands of light years before man. He is the One who created the rivers to irrigate the land, and drain the waste in sea. He is the One who created the sea salty and keeps the salinity in fixed proportion. He is the One who prevented the mixture of salt and sweet water. Who would have provided you water to drink had He not kept the land water palatable?

He is the One who granted you eyes to see and ears to hear. He is the One who granted the eye lens the ability to adjust its focal length to focus properly on distant and closer objects. He is the One who limited the human hearing range in terms of distance as well as in terms of frequency. Had it been unlimited, the noise pollution would have made it impossible for man to live.

He is the One who allows the sun to evaporate water and then holds it high above the ground in the clouds. He is the One who allows the wind to push the clouds to waterless areas. He is the One who creates the potential difference between the clouds by which the clouds attract themselves and collide on to each other. He is the One who sends down rain in the form of droplets. He is the One who controls the speed of droplets falling on crops and land. Had He not controlled them, they would have completely altered the landscape by their forceful impact.

He is the One who created each and everything to serve man. He is the One who sent man as His vicegerent on earth. He is the One who sent Prophets and Messengers to guide mankind whenever they went astray. He is the One who sent Muhammad :saws1: as the last and final Messenger. He is the One who completed His religion on Muhammad :saws1:. He is the One who gave us a perfect way of life through Muhammad :saws1:. He is the One who will gather us all on the Day of Resurrection. He is the One who will judge our actions on that day. He is the One who created everlasting paradise for those who believe in Him. فَالْيَوْمَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ يَضْحَكُونَ


Allah SubHanahu wa Ta'ala is recognised by His signs and bounties. I already linked a thread to you. Here's another one: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...gns-allah.html

سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا
Reply

IsamBitar
10-27-2011, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
However, most mutations are deleterious and lead to an impaired as opposed to improved function.
Actually, most mutations are neutral. And beneficial mutations aren't that scarce. We've seen too many within our own lifetimes. The mutation that gave bacteria the ability to digest nylon, mutations that occur to pathogens that make them resistant to antibodies (biggest example is HIV). I could give plenty more if you'd like.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
This means that the mutation would not be expressed unless it was passed on from both parents,
Not necessarily. Mutations are changes in the DNA. A mutation can change a gene slightly, giving a different allele. The new allele can code for a slightly different protein. If the normal allele codes for an active enzyme, the new allele may still code for the same active enzyme, may code for an inactive protein, or may code for an active enzyme that catalyzes a different reaction. Of these options, coding for the same active enzyme may be the most common, but then we don't usually notice there's been a mutation. Coding for an inactive protein is the next most likely outcome. So, most of the time when there is a mutation that produces any noticeable effect at all, it produces an allele that codes for an inactive protein. A heterozygote Aa produces some active enzyme and some inactive protein. Most often, one "dose" of active enzyme catalyzes the normal reaction enough to produce a normal appearance, so we say that the allele A is dominant, and the mutant allele a is recessive. Remember that not all genes are Mendelian. And you forgot that most mutations occur after fertilization, and this negates the need of both parents having the same mutation. In future generations, the offspring that express that mutation (if beneficial) the most, would have survival advantage over the others.
Nonetheless, there are plenty of exceptions. Certain types of dwarfism in humans are caused by a dominant mutant allele, for instance.
Just a side note.. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations. Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations.
These are real scientific findings produced by real scientists. You can find the above numbers in these two books:
Drake, J. W., B. Charlesworth, D. Charlesworth, and J. F. Crow. 1998. Rates of spontaneous mutation. Genetics 148: 1667-1686.
Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
However, the fossil record indicates that speciation has occurred in leaps as opposed to gradually.
The fossil record has huge gaps. We are lucky enough with what we find, seeing how hard the process of fossilisation is. However, still though, we do find many, MANY intermediate fossils that show gradual evolution in almost every single class of animals out there. You ask for it, I name it.



format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I don't see a selective advantage unless we have a fully functional process.
Each step along the way had its own selective advantage, like I briefly explained above. Did you watch the two attached videos? It really is useless to discuss this point before you do.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I don't deny that ToE is widely known and reasonably well accepted in the scientific community
Well over 99.85% of biologists in America alone accept evolution as a true theory. (Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation.)


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I disagree with your statement
Not mine, mate. It's Dobzhansky's. And he's a biologist.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
In a strange sense of the word, I am a practicing evolutionist.
True. That makes me even more surprised that you don't accept evolution. o.O


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Assuming that someone is able to eventually prove ToE beyond a shadow of doubt and it becomes the Law of Evolution
No no no no no no no.. First of all evolution IS proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be true. Ask any honest biologist and they will tell you so, even the religious ones. Second, theories don't become laws.. Theories use laws to explain facts, in the broadest sense. Evolution is a theory. And even if you had a time machine and fast-forwarded the last 65-million years to see mammals and birds evolving from reptiles with your very eyes, it would still be called a theory. A law is a law, like the law of natural selection, which the theory of evolution uses to explain the many relevant facts.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
what will be the practical application of it to everyday life.
Here's some of what understanding evolutionary theory is good for:
1. Wider biology: The evolutionary approach is key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, that is evolutionary, approaches. The field of evolutionary developmental biology investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved.
2. Medicine: Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony. Also, understanding the changes that have occurred during an organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders. For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.
Computer science: As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection. Artificial evolution became a widely recognised optimisation method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.

I could write a whole book on what benefits we gain from understanding evolution.. Just Google "Applications of evolution."


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Is the objective to prove that God does not exist except in the minds of theistic people?
Not at all. God and evolution are perfectly compatible. Even Islam and evolution are compatible. Evolution only contradicts the literary interpretation of the Bible.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
without having a need to know the how of it.
This is the only part I don't agree with. Even the Quran tells Muslims to work out the how's of things..
Reply

IsamBitar
10-27-2011, 06:44 PM
That's very poetic, AabiruSabeel. Thanks.
Reply

Flame of Hope
10-27-2011, 09:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Actually I would say most scientists. Saying "all" would be just false, like you said. Yeah scientists don't claim to know the truth about everything. But they claim (and provide evidence for it) that they know many things about many things. And science happens to work, correct? The computers we're using are a product of science that works. Medicine, mechanics, flight, TV and almost everything you can imagine. You can't just dismiss all of science because it doesn't know absolutely everything. And thanks for answering where you believe God fits in. At least you took the effort to answer my initial question. Thanks.
Hi there IsamBitar!

You started this thread to know where God fits in.... so I'd like to stick to the topic.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that "all scientists" are not in agreement about many things in life.

But there are many things that "all scientists" are in agreement with. All scientists are in agreement that the earth is round in shape... that the earth is not at the center of the universe.... that the universe is expanding.... that hot air rises, that milk is white, etc. etc. etc.

Where "all scientists" are in agreement.... "all people" are also in agreement. This happens when you are faced with the 100% truth. You cannot but agree with the 100% truth. If you disagree with that truth, it won't mean the truth is going to change and be what you want it to be.

But in cases where the truth isn't so clear and "all scientists" cannot agree upon it, we cannot say, "Well, the majority of scientists are in agreement regarding so and so... therefore, so and so has got to be the 100% truth."

Truth is not determined by the majority. It isn't dependent on the number of people agreeing with it. Thousands of years ago, people believed that the earth was flat. The majority of people believed it.... but did that mean that they were right? lol.

The majority of people in Arabia during the time of Muhammad (saws) believed in many gods. Did that mean that they were right?

You ask where does God fit in when science has progressed so much and has provided us with so much information.

Here's where God fits in. God fits in wherever there is any progress made in any field. He is the one who gives you life. A person who is dead can't make any progress, now can he?

Next, God is the one who gives you ability to think and reason. You can't learn anything and know the difference between true and false, without that, can you?

Next, God is the one who gives you the ability to speak... He is the one who gives you the power of language... which is the medium through which we acquire knowledge and information. Our thoughts are clothed in words... and words are part of the language you speak.

Therefore... all knowledge that has been acquired by man was GIVEN to him by God.

God controls all things and it is easy for Him. Some He leaves in ignorance. Some He brings out from the darkness of ignorance.

If science is something created by man... then science is also a thing created by God. Because God is the Creator of man AND what he makes.

The ultimate knowledge that a man may reach could be this: we are nothing.... and we own nothing. All things belong to God, the Lord of all the worlds... and to Him is our return.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-27-2011, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Riham
All scientists are in agreement that the earth is round in shape.
You mean geoidal. :P
And still, no. You'd still find those minority who believe earth is flat. Just as much as there are those minority of scientists and even geologists who still believe the earth is 6000 years old. But those people (along with scientists who don't accept evolution) are as little as less than 1% (read my last input for the exact figure).


format_quote Originally Posted by Riham
This happens when you are faced with the 100% truth.
Well, nobody disputes facts. Milk being white is a fact. Objects falling on the ground is a fact. Hot air rising is a fact. However, gravitational theory is a theory. Air density and expansion is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Theories are explanations of facts. Those are things that people are allowed to think differently of. (as long as they offer an alternative theory). Newtonian gravity was partially replaced for Einstein's relativity theory. It didn't turn Newtonian gravity up-side down, it just refined it. Like you sharpen a pencil.


format_quote Originally Posted by Riham
Truth is not determined by the majority.
That's right. Don't be fooled by numbers. But what those majority say about what they accept is what makes it true. Not because they are a majority.

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate that.
Reply

czgibson
10-27-2011, 11:08 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Riham
Where "all scientists" are in agreement.... "all people" are also in agreement. This happens when you are faced with the 100% truth. You cannot but agree with the 100% truth.
Please have a look at the Flat Earth Society's website. Read a few forum posts there. Strange as it seems, these people are not kidding.

Peace
Reply

Ramadhan
10-28-2011, 11:15 AM
2,000 years ago, the scientists (or philosophers, basically the smartest people around of the day) concluded that earth was flat.
And people who trust and have belief in those smart people also believed that earth was flat. There were civilizations who believed that their science and technology were all there is (witness egyptians even thousands of years earlier)

fast forward 2,000 years.

Today, there are also people who believe what scientists concluded and think that science is all there is and human knowledge has reached pinnacle.

in the past half century people believe that absolutely nothing can travel faster than light, thanks to Einstein.
This year, CERN found out through data from their experiments that some particles traveled faster than light.

What's new?
Reply

IsamBitar
10-28-2011, 05:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
This year, CERN found out through data from their experiments that some particles traveled faster than light.
Not really.. http://news.yahoo.com/faster-light-p...210205193.html
Reply

Ramadhan
10-28-2011, 05:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
That is the opinion of one scientist, van elburg, which seems to be false if we follow the article.
I wished you read the article all the way through.

Here's what's written towards the end:

OPERA responded to van Elburg's accusation. "The author [van Elburg] is not really taking into account special relativity (SR), but he is trying to compose the speed of the satellite with the speed of the radio waves, which makes no sense in SR," spokesman Pasquale Migliozzi told Life's Little Mysteries. "Composing speeds" is a special way of adding them together in special relativity.

Migliozzi also asserted, "The author does not know that relativistic effects are accounted for in the GPS system." To this, van Elburg said he is checking his facts and will follow up with additional details soon.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-28-2011, 06:07 PM
I read the whole article, thank you. I don't need you questioning that.
My point is that this is not yet a confirmed scientific finding, as opposed to what you suggested.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-28-2011, 06:18 PM
As'Salaam Alaaykum

Can you post reference to where the Qur'aan states muslims should work out the 'how' to everything?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is the only part I don't agree with. Even the Quran tells Muslims to work out the how's of things..
Yes it seems you seem to rely on science because most of it seems to be accurate, but not all that science has stated is correct, reason is as humans are not perfect and they will make mistakes regardless because at the end of the day it is only research done by scientists/humans, and even if this research is correct it is only their research, they will only provide evidence to what they conclude, it is their research and not their creation. now, if this isn't the creation of man then whose creation is it? do you not believe most of the research provided is amazing?

Now, if the creator stated this earth is his creation and all that within this earth, well ofcourse because he is the one who created it, so who would know better than the creator! I am not sure if you believe there is a god because of the thread title so you may or may not agree, but the point i am trying to make is that just because science said so and so, does that not make you think, where did that which they discovered come from? for example the brain alone, how messages are passed, the speed of sending the messages to the brain and so on, is it not amazing, but it leaves doubt in ones mind that there must be a creator for something such amazing! Sorry for my lack of good explanations.

The only difference between you and most of the members on this forum is that you believe all that science says (as this is how it seems from my perspective) whereas, most of the members here believe all that which is similar to the Qur'aan and that which isnt is rejected. so it is knowing what God said or confirms vs the research of man. I believe there shall always remain this difference unless one understands that man doesnt know everything nor did man create that which is found.

Now I have a question for you, apologies if it seems a little off topic.. how was the very first human or even living thing placed on this earth? What does your science say about this? does it have an answer? keep in mind that your main question is 'How does God fit into this?'..and i'm sure this is just what you came here to figure out or maybe just discuss..
Reply

IsamBitar
10-28-2011, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
Can you post reference to where the Qur'aan states muslims should work out the 'how' to everything?
2:164: Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason.

22:46: So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.

3:190: Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.

Just to name a few..

And there are literally tens of verses in the Quran that end with "will you not reason?" and "will you not remember?" and Muslims at some point were masters of the art of discovering the what, the how and the when of everything they knew from medicine to engineering, from chemistry to astronomy. Don't try to tell me that the Quran discourages critical thinking. In fact, if it did, it would be a big black mark on Islam, dear.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
and even if this research is correct it is only their research, they will only provide evidence to what they conclude, it is their research and not their creation.
There is a strict scientific method which every single scientific hypothesis has to pass through if it is to be taken seriously. One of the rules in the scientific method, is that the tests done should be re-done by other scientists all over the world and yield the same result. Otherwise, the hypothesis would be binned.
As for the certainty of a scientific theory, there is a mathematical theorem called the Bayesian Inference in which evidence is used to infer the probability that I hypothesis is true. Using this theorem, the theory of evolution, for example, passes the test with an astonishing near-100% probability to be true. That is because evolution makes predictions that are later confirmed. Evolution makes hundreds of predictions that are confirmed day in and day out. If you want to learn more about evolutionary predictions or the Bayesian Inference, let me know.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
who would know better than the creator!
And how would you know that it is the creator that's talking to you?


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
the brain alone-
-has a complete record of an evolutionary past on which countless peer-reviewed books and papers have been published. We know EXACTLY how the vertebrate brain evolved from very primitive chemical compounds to its present state. Want more? Ask me for it.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
you believe all that science says
Correction: I believe all that science proves. i.e., hypotheses that pass the excruciating scientific method and are verified by predictions and falsified by none of the related facts and pieces of evidence. If a scientist comes up to me and says: X happened. I'd say: where's your evidence? Once they provide this evidence, I too can say: X happened and is true.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
how was the very first human or even living thing placed on this earth? What does your science say about this? does it have an answer?
Yes, it does. There is a whole branch of science called abiogenesis where Nobel-Prize-winning scientists make, test and verify hypotheses as to how life arose on earth. Now, humans evolved gradually from more primitive life forms over the past three and a half billion years. The very first form of life was a simple self-replicating organic molecule that was proven to form spontaneously within the pre-biotic environment. Dr Jack Szostak is one of the most noted scientists to work in this field. He won the Nobel Prize, by the way. If you want the full answer to your question (which would take an essay to write here), have a look at this video, which is a demonstration of Dr Szostak's confirmed work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Thanks for your reply.
Reply

Gator
10-28-2011, 07:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
2,000 years ago, the scientists (or philosophers, basically the smartest people around of the day) concluded that earth was flat.
And people who trust and have belief in those smart people also believed that earth was flat. There were civilizations who believed that their science and technology were all there is (witness egyptians even thousands of years earlier)

fast forward 2,000 years.

Today, there are also people who believe what scientists concluded and think that science is all there is and human knowledge has reached pinnacle.

in the past half century people believe that absolutely nothing can travel faster than light, thanks to Einstein.
This year, CERN found out through data from their experiments that some particles traveled faster than light.

What's new?
Just going to point out that the claim that all scientist believed the earth was flat 2000 year ago is incorrect. In fact, they were able to measure the circumference of the earth with pretty good accuracy.

Just a bit of fact checking.

Thanks.
Reply

Flame of Hope
10-28-2011, 08:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
You mean geoidal. :P
And still, no. You'd still find those minority who believe earth is flat. Just as much as there are those minority of scientists and even geologists who still believe the earth is 6000 years old. But those people (along with scientists who don't accept evolution) are as little as less than 1% (read my last input for the exact figure).
Hi! Alright.... I have no problem in accepting that the earth isn't entirely round.... it's geoidal.

There are quite a number of pictures of the earth taken from outer space. They are all beautiful. And they clearly tell us what is the shape of the earth. Now, if people still insist on thinking that the earth is flat.... well, I'm not going to argue with them.

Just as I don't argue with people who want to believe that there is no life after death... or that there are many gods... or that God doesn't exist..... or that people become stars after they die or that some man died for all the sins of mankind.

People are free to believe whatever they like... if they want to believe that the sun, moon, cloud, cow, bull, snake, ram.... is their god,I have absolutely no problem with it. Argue with them I won't. lol.

Truth is clear from falsehood. If they want to follow what is false, that isn't my problem.

To me, my way. To them, theirs.

Live and let live... is my motto.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-28-2011, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Riham
People are free to believe whatever they like... if they want to believe that the sun, moon, cloud, cow, bull, snake, ram.... is their god,I have absolutely no problem with it.
Neither have I. I only stand against these people if they start shoving their beliefs down their children's throats and down the throats of others, start demanding secular states to incorporate their religious beliefs into the state's laws and start holy wars just because their religion tells them to. As long as people keep it to themselves, they are free to believe whatever they like.
Reply

Flame of Hope
10-28-2011, 08:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I only stand against these people if they start shoving their beliefs down their children's throats and down the throats of others, start demanding secular states to incorporate their religious beliefs into the state's laws and start holy wars just because their religion tells them to.
Hi! Yes, I too think it's a big problem when people begin to shove down their beliefs down other people's throats.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
As long as people keep it to themselves, they are free to believe whatever they like.
Yes, if only people kept their beliefs to themselves. AND minded their own business. lol.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Greetings of peace

Well, this is pretty annoying, having all my post dissapear, and having to type everything over again! I will try bring up what I wrote before I lost my post.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Don't try to tell me that the Quran discourages critical thinking. In fact, if it did, it would be a big black mark on Islam, dear.
Thanks for posting the verses, also I was not trying to tell you that the Qur'aan discourages using the brain rather it encourages the muslim and the non-muslim to use their brain, and not follow blindly. The reason I asked you to provide references is to ensure you are aware of the references.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
There is a strict scientific method which every single scientific hypothesis has to pass through if it is to be taken seriously. One of the rules in the scientific method, is that the tests done should be re-done by other scientists all over the world and yield the same result. Otherwise, the hypothesis would be binned.
As for the certainty of a scientific theory, there is a mathematical theorem called the Bayesian Inference in which evidence is used to infer the probability that I hypothesis is true. Using this theorem, the theory of evolution, for example, passes the test with an astonishing near-100% probability to be true. That is because evolution makes predictions that are later confirmed. Evolution makes hundreds of predictions that are confirmed day in and day out. If you want to learn more about evolutionary predictions or the Bayesian Inference, let me know.
In my argument I was not trying to state that science is a whole false claim itself, but rather the point I was trying to make was that the amazing-ness of that which is mentioned must have an amazing creation. Much like how you mentioned in your very first post about science discovering which we never once knew about.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
And how would you know that it is the creator that's talking to you?
"And I created not the Jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me". [Al Qur'aan 51:56]

Not only speaking to me but all of mankind.
In the following verse the creator states..

"I seek not any provision from them nor do I ask that they should feed Me." [Al Qur'aan 51:57]

How is it that he asks to be worshipped, but it does not benefit him but rather it is benefit to you and I i.e. those of his creation that obey him. What is more amazing is that all that he commands is for our own benefit and that which he forbids is only of harm to us.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
-has a complete record of an evolutionary past on which countless peer-reviewed books and papers have been published. We know EXACTLY how the vertebrate brain evolved from very primitive chemical compounds to its present state. Want more? Ask me for it.
It just goes to show how amazing the creation of God is. That is just proof of the amazing creation.


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Correction: I believe all that science proves. i.e., hypotheses that pass the excruciating scientific method and are verified by predictions and falsified by none of the related facts and pieces of evidence. If a scientist comes up to me and says: X happened. I'd say: where's your evidence? Once they provide this evidence, I too can say: X happened and is true.
This is pretty much the case with anything, one needs evidence to gain the truth. Similarly, if someone states something regarding the Qur'aan i would be needing evidence, and an authentic explanation. Not just because so and so says this or that. Yes, the Qur'aan claims to be the truth, but one must study the authencity of it regardless, just like how you would expect evidence in return from a scientist.


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Yes, it does. There is a whole branch of science called abiogenesis where Nobel-Prize-winning scientists make, test and verify hypotheses as to how life arose on earth. Now, humans evolved gradually from more primitive life forms over the past three and a half billion years. The very first form of life was a simple self-replicating organic molecule that was proven to form spontaneously within the pre-biotic environment. Dr Jack Szostak is one of the most noted scientists to work in this field. He won the Nobel Prize, by the way. If you want the full answer to your question (which would take an essay to write here), have a look at this video, which is a demonstration of Dr Szostak's confirmed work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Thanks for your reply.
You are welcome and thanks for sharing your source of information.

I say good on the person who won a nobel prize in figuring out how life arose on earth. my question is who put this 'self replicating organic molecule' there in the first place? There must be a greater power there to be able to control everything? who created the way of life to function this way? I'm sure you know very well that you cannot function very well when you have food and water taken away from you, you have to have a good healthy diet and sleep well and exercise to remain in a good state, but even this cannot grant you a longer life always or atleast live on forever, but eventually death takes place, granted there must be a purpose, no? What does science have to say regarding this? even better what are your thoughts/answers on this?

Apologies if ive sounded harsh or not made sense.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-28-2011, 09:48 PM
Greetings of peace

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Neither have I. I only stand against these people if they start shoving their beliefs down their children's throats and down the throats of others, start demanding secular states to incorporate their religious beliefs into the state's laws and start holy wars just because their religion tells them to. As long as people keep it to themselves, they are free to believe whatever they like.
As far as I am aware, me nor anyone else on this forum is trying to shove anything down your throat, forget about any individuals, even the Qur'aan forbids this!

And ofcourse it is wrong to force your beliefs on anyone, your free to believe whatever pleases you.

But since you've come to an Islamic Forum, which ofcourse you are welcome on, you've come here to ask your questions, so you have to realise you will recieve answers according to the Islamic faith, and i believe you've also come to share your beliefs, so ofcourse there will be disagreements either way, best way is to respect them, by having a sincere and respectful discussion.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-28-2011, 10:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
the amazing-ness of that which is mentioned must have an amazing creation.
While this is true for some aspects of nature (beauty, relative precision, expanse, etc) it is wrong for other aspects. Things that some people like to call "bad design." Such as the fact that most planetary orbits are unstable, we're on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy, destructive natural disasters and lethal parasites, the blind spot in a vertebrate eye, etc. If you're going to account these to God, this would make a pretty lousy god in my opinion. That's why most scientists, even religious ones, choose to accept natural processes rather than every-minute-involvement of a god.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
What is more amazing is that all that he commands is for our own benefit and that which he forbids is only of harm to us.
Now, you used the Quran as a reference to answer my initial question, which goes unanswered. Sorry, let me ask it in a clearer way: how do you know that the Quran is the word of God? You also say that God asks us to worship him not for his own satisfaction, but our own benefit. How is that? What benefit could I get from worshipping an invisible entity, even if it existed? It appears by the words of the Quran itself is that the sole purpose for our existence is to praise the creator, nothing more. Now why would a perfect entity create people for that purpose? It doesn't make sense. As for God only forbids things that harm us, if that was the case, God would, for example, forbid beef before pork. As beef is way, WAY, more fatty than pork. And when undercooked, it's even much more harmful than undercooked pork.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
It just goes to show how amazing the creation of God is. That is just proof of the amazing creation.
Maybe in that context. But what about the human eye? What about the laryngeal nerve? The appendix? The prostate position?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
Yes, the Qur'aan claims to be the truth, but one must study the authencity of it regardless
This is a job for you guys to do. But so far, I haven't found any evidence for that. Scientific miracles don't count, as most of them are not exactly miracle-material.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
who put this 'self replicating organic molecule' there in the first place?
This is exactly what the work (and video) is all about. Did you watch it?

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
but eventually death takes place, granted there must be a purpose, no? What does science have to say regarding this? even better what are your thoughts/answers on this?
I personally think there is nothing after death. That when we die, we just come out of existence. And it is not a hard concept to grasp on, as we experience very large chunks of nothing every night, when we sleep. I believe that after we die, we will come back to a state in which we were in before our birth: nothing.
As for how science explains death, it is a permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. The death of a person is certain when that person's "I" i.e. the brain is dead.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
Apologies if ive sounded harsh or not made sense.
Likewise; please forgive any unsuitable words that I may have unintentionally said.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-28-2011, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
As far as I am aware, me nor anyone else on this forum is trying to shove anything down your throat, forget about any individuals, even the Qur'aan forbids this!
No, no, I wasn't talking about you guys. I was talking in general. In fact, most people on this forum are great (including you ^^)
Reply

Ramadhan
10-28-2011, 11:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I read the whole article, thank you. I don't need you questioning that.
My point is that this is not yet a confirmed scientific finding, as opposed to what you suggested.
I did not say it was a confirmed scientific finding.
Again, I wished you;d read things in more critical manner. Here's what I wrote:

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
This year, CERN found out through data from their experiments that some particles traveled faster than light.
Tell me if anything is not true regarding my above sentence.

By the way, ToE is also not a confirmed scientific finding, that is, if you only want to take scientific facts.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-29-2011, 12:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Neither have I. I only stand against these people if they start shoving their beliefs down their children's throats.
I am not quite sure if I read this right.
So you are against parents who give their children religious teachings?
Reply

MustafaMc
10-29-2011, 02:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
It appears by the words of the Quran itself is that the sole purpose for our existence is to praise the creator, nothing more. Now why would a perfect entity create people for that purpose? It doesn't make sense.
I can appreciate this question as I once wondered the purpose of my life, but I now see this life as a mere few moments in Eternity and that our real life will come in the Hereafter. How we live our lives and our beliefs will determine where we will spend the next life. I have no knowledge of why Allah created us, but one thought came to my mind as I was working in my garden. Where I live, the soil is almost pure clay and it is very hard to work. I knew from soil maps that this was the case and would not make a good garden, but I saw a lot of potential in the place before we bought it. I have had 4 dump truck loads of sand brought in and I have added a lot of compost to the garden area. We now have a very productive garden and the soil is very easy to work. I daresay there are few gardens anywhere close by that have soil that is this nice as Allah has willed.

I say all of this to make an analogy that maybe Allah did not create us for what we are (a mere lump of clay), but rather for what we may willingly chose to become. Maybe He created us with the capacity to observe the creation and from it deduce that there must be a Creator. Maybe He created us with an ability to control our animal natures and to make the choice to worship Him even though we can't perceive or sense His Being. Maybe He created us at the top of the food-chain so to speak and yet choose to share our sometimes meager provisions with a stranger in more need merely for His sake, following what He has commanded. All of this is mere speculation on my part as Allah knows best why He created us, but I don't believe that we merely vanish and cease to exist with our deaths. I believe that there is much more to come and I am hopeful in the mercy of Allah that He will forgive me and grant me a high place in Paradise. At the same time I am fearful of Allah's punishment and that I may unwittingly be earning His wrath. I do my best and I stand on the promises in the Quran made to believers, but I don't know the condition of my own heart or the status of my faith at my death. Ultimately, I rely on the mercy and compassion of Allah and that is where I place my trust.
I personally think there is nothing after death. That when we die, we just come out of existence. And it is not a hard concept to grasp on, as we experience very large chunks of nothing every night, when we sleep. I believe that after we die, we will come back to a state in which we were in before our birth: nothing.
...and you could be right. There is no scientific evidence for anything whatsoever after death and we may just go 'poof' like a pinch of dust and cease to exist. Perhaps you can entertain the thought of what life must have been like inside your mother's womb. If you were even conscious of your own life, how could you possible comprehend a life external to the womb? Perhaps you may have been able to hear some muffled noises, but that would just be part of your world. Now that you have been born and see that life outside the womb is much better - smell roses, watch a sunset, eat an ice cream cone, have sexual relations with your wife - would you ever chose to go back into the womb even if you could? I see death not as a cessation of existence, but rather as a crossing over point to a much better or a much worse life in the Hereafter.

I am sure we will both die. If you are right, then I have lost nothing because I would have ceased to exist. If I am right, then on Judgment Day I would rather be in the shoes of a Muslim than in the shoes of one who does not believe in or worship Allah, or in those of one who associates partners with Him in worship.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-29-2011, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
While this is true for some aspects of nature (beauty, relative precision, expanse, etc) it is wrong for other aspects. Things that some people like to call "bad design." Such as the fact that most planetary orbits are unstable, we're on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy, destructive natural disasters and lethal parasites, the blind spot in a vertebrate eye, etc. If you're going to account these to God, this would make a pretty lousy god in my opinion. That's why most scientists, even religious ones, choose to accept natural processes rather than every-minute-involvement of a god.

...

But what about the human eye? What about the laryngeal nerve? The appendix? The prostate position?
Each and everything is created for a specific purpose. It is a different story that scientists have failed to understand the reason for all this until now. Allah, with His infinite wisdom has not created anything without a reason.
Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned?" So exalted is Allah , the Sovereign, the Truth; there is no deity except Him, Lord of the Noble Throne. [23:115-116]

One of the reasons why there exists some imperfections is to indicate the weakness of the creation and to show that each and everything will come to an end.


Now, you used the Quran as a reference to answer my initial question, which goes unanswered. Sorry, let me ask it in a clearer way: how do you know that the Quran is the word of God?
The beauty of the Holy Qur'an, in all its aspects, indicate it is truly the word of Allah.
Just for an example:
Do they not ponder on the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. [4:82]

You also say that God asks us to worship him not for his own satisfaction, but our own benefit. How is that? What benefit could I get from worshipping an invisible entity, even if it existed? It appears by the words of the Quran itself is that the sole purpose for our existence is to praise the creator, nothing more. Now why would a perfect entity create people for that purpose? It doesn't make sense.
If the people of the towns had but believed and feared Allah, We should indeed have opened out to them (all kinds of) blessings from heaven and earth; but they rejected (the truth) and We brought them to book for their misdeeds. [7:96]

If only the people of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to Gardens of Bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course; but many of them follow a course that is evil. [5:65-66]

Whoever works righteousness, man or woman and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions.
[16:97]


As for God only forbids things that harm us, if that was the case, God would, for example, forbid beef before pork. As beef is way, WAY, more fatty than pork. And when undercooked, it's even much more harmful than undercooked pork.
I am sure you know of other reasons why pork is forbidden.

This is a job for you guys to do.
We already believe Qur'an to be the word of Allah. A sincere seeker of truth would not take long to realize that as well.
Reply

Abz2000
10-29-2011, 04:42 AM
Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. ......where does God fit into the picture?
you can't find a toshiba laptop in the park and hire a team of people to observe how it works, who then come out with some (sometimes conflicting) descriptions of how it might work, and sometimes find new details proving that their previous hypothesis was wrong,
and then say: where does toshiba fit into this? and since this team (who is not able to create a laptop) has theorized as to how it possibly works (often with no solid evidence), the notion that someone with the know-how actually made it in the first place - and can make more of them - is "redundant", - doesn't make sense.

an eternal, all powerful being with the ability to will creation into being and make laws for them to run by,
makes a lot more sense to me than: something without intelligence somehow randomly appeared out of nothing, collided with other substance in an atmosphere that must have also somehow spontaneously come into existence from nothing, then exploded and separated according to a law which also somehow existed from nowhere, and those particles with no intelligence decided to follow that law (how did they decide?), or the law forced them to comply (how did the law think?),
and out of that came all that we see around us - including our own amazing intelligent creation, which also are forced by a non-willing, unintelligent thing to abide by physical laws, while we have intelligence.........

....forget it, i know it doesn't make sense.

humans are honoured above all creation in that they have a divine spark, the ability to make decisions in a way different from all other creation,
the Quran clearly tells us that God told the angels that He would put a "vicegerent" / "manager"/ "caretaker" / "subsidiary" on earth, one who would have the ability to shed blood and make mischief, and do right. and that He breathed of His spirit into him.
this creation was unique in that it was given the challenge of creating God's Kingdom on Earth - and running it willingly according to His Laws.
it was different to the angels who (like robots) can only follow orders.
their reward would be magnificent, and those who failed or messed it up would "get it", since they were given full control of their affairs - along with a manual.

to help them along - Prophets are sent with guidance and signs,
when you see clear prophecy foretell the future jot by jot - and it is self evident, then a scientist who talks of random processes with no intelligence - should be disregarded as a liar.
if certain people who call themselves establishment pleasing scientists decide to blatantly disregard these miracles and facts staring them in the face and live in denial, it means we have to think for ourselves.

Umm Salama said:
When the Mahdi appears,
God will cause such power of vision and hearing to be manifested in believers
that the Mahdi will call to the whole world from where he is, with no postman involved,
and they will hear and even see him.

neither satellite technology with broadcasting capability, nor tv's or computers with sound and vision existed at the time - how can a man minding sheep in the desert assert something like this 1400 years ago? what did he base this data on? and why would he say something which seemed so ridiculous (at the time) in front of people who were already doing their best to discredit him?
can you imagine living 1400 years ago and trying to understand how someone on the other side of the world would instantly see and hear you? while the man telling you this is having to send messengers with letters to kings across the desert often taking months to return.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-29-2011, 01:53 PM
Greetings of peace

I believe the two brothers have answered your questions well.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
While this is true for some aspects of nature (beauty, relative precision, expanse, etc) it is wrong for other aspects. Things that some people like to call "bad design." Such as the fact that most planetary orbits are unstable, we're on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy, destructive natural disasters and lethal parasites, the blind spot in a vertebrate eye, etc. If you're going to account these to God, this would make a pretty lousy god in my opinion. That's why most scientists, even religious ones, choose to accept natural processes rather than every-minute-involvement of a god.
I would like to mention that the work of man is not perfect and never will be. All that the scientists discovered is merely not their creation in any form, I cannot for a second take into consideration that something amazing was created without a purpose or by a greator source.

Also the Qur'aan speaks about the lands that were destroyed due to extreme terrible acts commited by man, all I will say that if a whole earth quake can take place without us knowing when or where it will take place, God is all powerful and is able to do all that suits his majesty, so if a people are going out of hand, he is able to destroy them if he wills. And why not? It is the earth created by him, he has a right over it. Like you have a right over yourself, or any other individual has a right to be respected, protected etc. This earth also has a right to be protected, and cleaned it if it is full of dirt.

Some who will be punished in this life and some in the next, by the will of God. And I know well that you will find this something to disagree upon. I have no knowledge to why lethal parasites take place or the blind stop on a vertebate eye, someone more learned is better to reply, but there are things we will never know and the knowledge is with the creator, perhaps a scientist can help in your case i believe.

Also, God is the most mercyful but he is also severe in his punishment. And for the right reasons!

You may feel free to disagree. but I sincerely suggest you do your studies on those natural disasters and so on concerning God in Islam. reading and studying the Qur'aan is a step I recommend and the choice is completely yours.

How does a religious scientist deny the involvement of God in natural processes? apologies but not heard of this before.

my answer to that is God is all powerful and all knowing, he has the ability to control the natural every minute processes.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Now, you used the Quran as a reference to answer my initial question, which goes unanswered. Sorry, let me ask it in a clearer way: how do you know that the Quran is the word of God? You also say that God asks us to worship him not for his own satisfaction, but our own benefit. How is that? What benefit could I get from worshipping an invisible entity, even if it existed? It appears by the words of the Quran itself is that the sole purpose for our existence is to praise the creator, nothing more. Now why would a perfect entity create people for that purpose? It doesn't make sense. As for God only forbids things that harm us, if that was the case, God would, for example, forbid beef before pork. As beef is way, WAY, more fatty than pork. And when undercooked, it's even much more harmful than undercooked pork.
Okay, one of the reasons that tell me that Qur'aan is the word of God is if you read the title 'Al Qur'aan' in arabic it translates to 'the recitation'. now, what Allaah Allmighty tells us is that he will protect his word. The differences between the Qur'aan and other religious scriptures is that the Qur'aan is claimed to be the final testement sent to mankind. And if you were to even try to destroy this book, you could not, this is a fact. The reason is because thousands of muslims around the world ranging from young age to older ages have memorised this whole book in arabic since the time it was revealed (around more than 1400 years ago) till now, so if you were to go to every muslim around the world and listen to the Qur'aan you will notice they are all similar in wording, you can ask members on this forum regarding this, members on board are from different countries. There are many miracles in this book, some for example are of the Bee producing honey, we are made up of water etc etc.

Well, God commands us to worship him, not only in the essense of worshipping in prayer i.e. bow down, prostrate etc, but also ibadah (worship) as respecting ones parents, showing kindness to others, treating other how you would expect to be treated yourself and so much more. The benefit you would get from worshipping an invisible entity is similar to believing all the facts science puts out there but except realising the greatness of them, if the creation is magnifient, the creator is greator! There are countless amounts of benefits you would gain, that is if you sincerely turn to understand and do your studies much like how you do to understand the scientific facts out there..This is however your choice completely.

If the world doesn't see anything wrong in praising some man who won the nobel prize of discovering the creation he lives in then I do not see anything wrong with praising the creator of the universe who created the creation we live in, eat in, survive by what he provides, if you will it is your choice to disagree or agree.

The perfect entity is willing to give you people all that you want eternally compared to this world if you choose to obey his commands, i think it is only foolish to ignore those or to even say that when you have such a great offer at hand. I'm sure if a sincere and mercyful king entered your home and said 'I am willing to give you whatever you want, do you accept?'.. Allaah is telling us that the paradise is a place where their shall not be any sadness, sleep, laziness etc, but happiness, something that pleases you the most, to be reunited with your family etc. And isnt this what most of the world is trying to achieve anyway? to be rich and have a luxurious life? Allaah is the king that I am referring to here, the one who offers you this only if you do your part. The fact you cannot deny that the human eye or the heart or some creation is so amazing and say it has no purpose.

Whether it be beef or chicken, too much of anything is bad for your health it is only common sense to keep your limits on what you eat. Now, for example in the case of alcohol , it is never known to be good for your health, it has caused mostly destruction in a number of societies in the past and present day, not even a small quantity is permissable. regarding pork, i would believe it works in the smilar way, however I personally am not aware of its harmful-ness so i cannot answer that. I'd wait for a much better response on that.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Maybe in that context. But what about the human eye? What about the laryngeal nerve? The appendix? The prostate position?
may I ask, what about them? They are no different to the brain, ear, mouth etc. If you want a reply from myself concerning them, then my reply is they are a creation of God, and I am sure you find them to be amazing either way.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is a job for you guys to do. But so far, I haven't found any evidence for that. Scientific miracles don't count, as most of them are not exactly miracle-material.
It just tells me that your not well learned in the studies of the Qur'aan, claiming the miracles are not 'miracle material'..correct me if I am wrong, since its a job only for 'us' guys.. let me correct you, Qur'aan was not just sent for the arab nations, it was sent for the whole world to ponder upon, its teachings, its word. I myself as a muslim am in the constant process of learning, as well as others on this forum. So, it's not really a job just for us 'guys', its also for other humans to study atleast, weather they want to believe its message or not. Since, you want to discuss God and being on an islamic forum, i recommend you read the Qur'aan.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is exactly what the work (and video) is all about. Did you watch it?
Yes, i'll be honest I did watch half of it.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I personally think there is nothing after death. That when we die, we just come out of existence. And it is not a hard concept to grasp on, as we experience very large chunks of nothing every night, when we sleep. I believe that after we die, we will come back to a state in which we were in before our birth: nothing.
As for how science explains death, it is a permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. The death of a person is certain when that person's "I" i.e. the brain is dead.
I wouldn't look towards science for the answers for what comes 'after' death..It may well not be a hard concept to grasp on for you, but you are correct that we will turn back to 'nothing' and know how to define a person when they are dead, but doesn't mean we have no purpose. for myself to know that I am going to live in this world and then die and thats it, the end, is a rather depressing thought to ponder on. Does it not ever bother you that your going to be dead one day and realising there was no purpose? If not, then I guess this is your conclusion. But to know that there is life that exists after death is rather understanding and pleasing.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Likewise; please forgive any unsuitable words that I may have unintentionally said.
No problem.
Reply

Abz2000
10-29-2011, 04:14 PM
Btw, Islam tells us that death occurs when the soul leaves the body, not when the brain dies,
A person can have a perfectly healthy brain and just knock out,
Or be brain dead and survive on life support,
If the process was evolutionary alone,
Then it wouldn't make sense that a person's flesh begins to rot after they die,
Since the biological cells alone would be responsible for keeping them alive, and the biological cells would be perfectly healthy,
Rather, it seems like some unexplainable electrical magnetic force which surrounds us and the planet, and is within us, a force which is "alive".
Google these words in one search: hz ELF eeg Schumann resonance prayer meditation brain frequency,

In Islam we call this thing a soul, something which causes a body to stay in tact while it is here, and cause all organs and cells to decompose once it leaves.


Also Search: Kobe Earthquake Japan tesla haarp ELF ionosphere HAARP,
The prophet (pbuh) explained to us that the antichrist would be able to control the weather (something difficult to fathom at the time), and something we people believed God alone can do, yet we were told that Antichrist would be allowed to tap these sources,
And now we live in an age of weather modification, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control
Going off topic, but felt then need to emphasise that there is a force out there which is Not biological which keeps us alive
All which is being accessed initially through the utilisation of magnets and electricity,
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 05:20 PM

Isambitar,
You speak vaguely of 'beneficial mutations' and I am challenging you to list them all as well the biochemical processes that integrated them into cells to give us fully functional noetic cognizant complex beings without direct human manipulation with retrovirus or vectors!

Isambitar you also speak of a vague 95% of scientists who 'believe' in evolution making several errors in the process.
1-is an appeal to authority.
2- failure to mention in which esteemed journal said study was conducted
3- failure to elucidate purpose of the study
4- failure in understanding how the study was conducted
5- failure to list the subjects as I am familiar with the much toted 'study' where folks such as computer programmers fall Therein
6- failure to acknowledge that science isn't about 'beliefs' if evolution were a fact it wouldn't fall under 'theory' which in fact according to Mustafa who unlike you is an actual scientist and not a net rookie peddling in recycled rhetoric with ambiguous sources and vague links from which we're to conclude as we may and tweak the meaning as per your whims falls under the title of a hypothesis and an ailing one at that!
Isambitar,
7- you've also failed to acknowledge the other vague studies which conclude that the majority of those holding doctorate believe in God!


According to a recent study most doctors believe in God and an afterlife. This conclusion apparently contradicts earlier research which showed that in general, people tend to become less religious as education and income levels rise.

The survey by Farr Curlin, a doctor and instructor at the University of Chicago, of 1,125 U.S. doctors, found that 76 percent believe in God and nearly 60 percent in some sort of afterlife.
Curlin, who oversaw the survey, says he was surprised, as the team did not realize physicians were this religious.
He says they suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine, as the responsibility to care for those who are suffering, and the rewards of helping those in need, resonate throughout most religious traditions.
The researchers also found that 90 percent of doctors said they attend religious services at least occasionally, and are more likely to describe themselves as 'spiritual' as distinct from religious, whereas for the general population, spirituality and religion appear to be more tightly connected.
They found that doctors and patients also differ on how they rely on God for help in coping with a major illness, as while most patients will look to God for strength, support and guidance, most doctors will instead try to make sense of the situation and decide what to do without relying on God.
Of the doctors surveyed, 5 percent were Hindu, 2 percent Muslim and 1 percent Buddhist, all much higher than those faiths are represented in the general population and in part reflecting the large number of foreign-born doctors who emigrate to the United States, the study said.
The report is published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine


or:
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do....Varrying by dicipline (Psychology, biology, nano, etc.)...Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. "
Source(s): http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/0…

I'd hate to see another mindless troll gain so much attention by piggy back riding on the 'scientific community without understanding its intricacies!

You claim people shouldn't force their beliefs down someone else's throat will isam isn't that exactly what you're doing here? After all who is forcing you to write on a religious forum?

Isambard/bitar the belief in God is the nature of man so tell us the scientific studies you're so apt at misusing so in fact hedonistic secularism 'a belief in and of itself' is the odd guy out, the one that should be outlawed for it's lawlessness and self governing existence ..
Isambard/bitar perhaps you can do us the grand favor or proving 'speciation through evolution' by means you earlier referenced without the need for ambiguity, after all if you truly understand something then you should be able to discuss it with ease!

try it from the laws of probability & experimental physics like so:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf
I'll be waiting
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 07:08 PM
oh & one more thing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_974116.html

A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University.
The study, conducted over five years through in-depth interviews with scientists at universities whose fields range from biology and chemistry to social sciences like political science and economics, dispels the widely held notion that religion and science are incompatible.


So perhaps dear Isam when you question how God fits in? you should cite an army of one? You seem to be solitary in your convictions! .. oh I forgot you got our famed atheist with his English degree to jump on your bandwagon.. & what desperado wouldn't?

Go dear Isam find a cure for lysosomal storage dz. figure out how Huntington or Fragile X escaped 'Natural Selection' find a cure for the common cold.. but don't strain yourself to come up with a non-Q.. there's nothing quite as bad as being a pseudo intellect & proud of it!

best
Reply

IsamBitar
10-29-2011, 07:21 PM
Responding to posts #64 - #66

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
By the way, ToE is also not a confirmed scientific finding, that is, if you only want to take scientific facts.
Oh, yeah. Primate ERVs do not confirm evolution. Chromosomal fusion does not confirm evolution. Evolution before our very own eyes does not confirm evolution. Mitochondrial DNA does not confirm evolution. Transitional fossils do not confirm evolution. Way to be current..

format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
So you are against parents who give their children religious teachings?
I'm against parents who label their children as Christian children, Muslim or Hindu children. Children should be brought up secularly, and then given the choice whether to adhere to their parents' religion or not. But the indoctrination of children from birth turns them into mindless religious robots that will become tomorrow's fanatics, terrorists, anti-gays and racists.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I believe that there is much more to come
And what evidence have you got to support such belief? How could you know of something that requires death as a passport? Telling me that the Quran says so will ignite another question: how do you know the Quran is the true, unchanged word of God?

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am fearful of Allah's punishment
Nobody EVER, whatever their crime, deserve an eternity of torture. The worst criminal ever to walk the earth only committed finite crimes. To award this with infinite torture is just unfair. It's basic mathematics.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
If I am right
And what if we're both wrong? How do you know it is your religion that is true and your god that is real? It could be just any of the other religions out there. In fact, it could be a religion yet to be revealed, as every religion was unknown to the people before it, including Islam. If we're to play the "I don't know, but what if I'm right?" game, then there are countless possibilities that are equally possible (or impossible). Including non-divine ideas like, what if our lives are just a dream in an alien's head who sleeps for decades? Or what if we're trapped into a hallucinatory delusion that we can't get out of? What if we're hard-wired into a virtual reality game and the only way out is if we embrace reason, or stay trapped inside forever? There is no winner in this betting game. So, why choose one over the other? Just because you were born to parents who adhere to that religion?
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 07:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Oh, yeah. Primate ERVs do not confirm evolution.
Go ahead & elaborate on that with other than an eloquent 'oh yeah'
Chromosomal fusion does not confirm evolution.
Chromosomal fusions, acrocentric breaks & translocations have given us everything from Leukemia to down syndrome but not a different species!
Evolution before our very own eyes does not confirm evolution.
what is evolving before our very eyes? do you know the difference between Macro & micro evolution? or just apt @ misusing terms?
Mitochondrial DNA does not confirm evolution.
How does Mitochondrial DNA confirm evolution? Mitochondrial DNA has given us such dz. qs Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy but not primates to human!
Transitional fossils do not confirm evolution. Way to be current..
I am just dying to see those transitional fossils..
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 07:47 PM



scientific ;D
Reply

Abz2000
10-29-2011, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Children should be brought up secularly, and then given the choice whether to adhere to their parents' religion or not.
do they get the choice of whether to adhere to the rules of corrupt politicians who no longer represent the wishes of the people?
or are they indoctrinated to obey the politicians?

Yet they take (for worship) gods other than Allah, (hoping) that they might be helped!
They have not the power to help them: but they are a troop presented before them.
Quran 36:74-75




format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
The worst criminal ever to walk the earth only committed finite crimes. To award this with infinite torture is just unfair.
i've heard of people getting things like 50 life sentences, that's their eternal life on earth + more.
Reply

Dagless
10-29-2011, 08:00 PM
Ugh how did I know the usual the Atheist arguments would come out; but the least you could have done is to read up on the religion you were trying to discredit (as you've shown earlier in the thread - you fail to understand the basics).

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
And what if we're both wrong? How do you know it is your religion that is true and your god that is real? It could be just any of the other religions out there. In fact, it could be a religion yet to be revealed, as every religion was unknown to the people before it, including Islam.
Actually, Islam was known from the start.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
If we're to play the "I don't know, but what if I'm right?" game, then there are countless possibilities that are equally possible (or impossible). Including non-divine ideas like, what if our lives are just a dream in an alien's head who sleeps for decades? Or what if we're trapped into a hallucinatory delusion that we can't get out of? What if we're hard-wired into a virtual reality game and the only way out is if we embrace reason, or stay trapped inside forever? There is no winner in this betting game. So, why choose one over the other?
Because only one answer is correct. You are free to believe in your what if's, but others have weighed up the options and found the truth. Why does it bother you so much what others choose? Your initial question was answered much earlier but you seem to want to force your view on others.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Just because you were born to parents who adhere to that religion?
Many Muslims on here have reverted to Islam, including at least one person you're debating with on this thread.

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
i've heard of people getting things like 50 life sentences, that's their eternal life on earth + more.
This is so true, life in prison is punishment until death. Also atheists don't believe in an afterlife therefore the death penalty would also be an infinite punishment for a finite crime.
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 08:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
do they get the choice of whether to adhere to the rules of corrupt politicians who no longer represent the wishes of the people?
or are they indoctrinated to obey the politicians?
Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.
• Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty.
• Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.
• Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one.

http://www.bu.edu/psych/faculty/kelemen/



believing in God is fitrah .. our natural inclination.. if only atheists went to school & studied the science they like to worship but not quite sure of its machination.. atheists & vegetarian from experience are a most zealot, most vocal & a most ignorant bunch.. @ least those of them that forum hop, they do their entire clan a terrible injustice the minute they open that bazoo
Reply

Abz2000
10-29-2011, 08:23 PM
^ well explained sis, i watched both versions of brave new world, a book written in then 1930s predicting much of what is happening today,
also in the book - the people are made to believe that the ruling elite (our Honourable Ford) makes everything work, since the ruling elite are aware that people will give authority to someone whom they look to as creator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gxDNmrJ65A

they do that in orwell's 1984 too, the party made everything.
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 08:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
This is so true, life in prison is punishment until death. Also atheists don't believe in an afterlife therefore the death penalty would also be an infinite punishment for a finite crime.
How is the crime finite when the victim is also 'gone forever'? :p
Reply

IsamBitar
10-29-2011, 09:14 PM
Responding to posts #67 - #69

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
Allah, with His infinite wisdom has not created anything without a reason.
This is a claim backed up with no evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
One of the reasons why there exists some imperfections is to indicate the weakness of the creation and to show that each and everything will come to an end.
Imperfections are something and nasty faults are something else. When the optic nerve goes right through the light-sensitive cells of the retina and cause a blind spot, that's a fault if committed by an engineer they would be fired. Imperfection has a different meaning. A perfect eye would be able to see all light waves in the spectrum, for example. An imperfect eye would only be able to see a certain range. But in no way would the eye have a nasty mistake like the one described above. Especially when other animals in the animal kingdom, like the octopus, have an eye where the optical nerve comes from the back, not blocking the light.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
The beauty of the Holy Qur'an, in all its aspects, indicate it is truly the word of Allah.
It's repetitive, vague, unbalanced and full of weaknesses. If you ask for my opinion, people like Al-Mutanabbi and Abu-Firas Al-Hamadani have wrote much MUCH better work than the Quran.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
I am sure you know of other reasons why pork is forbidden.
Pork, when properly prepared, is not bad for you. The old testament prohibits the eating of animals with a cloven hoof because they are "unclean".When pork is not prepared properly and cooked thoroughly, you can get tapeworms and trichinosis. But you get those anyway from almost any undercooked meat or even unwashed vegetables. With modern cooking techniques, there are no problems with pork.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
A sincere seeker of truth would not take long to realize that as well.
I'm a truth seeker. You're welcome to convince me.

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
...doesn't make sense.
This whole paragraph doesn't make sense. First of all, your analogy is flawed. We KNOW a Toshiba laptop's been designed by Toshiba. We saw Toshiba design it. Second, synthetic life has already been created in labs. Check out one of my posts on this thread, it has a link to such project. And it's not new, it's a year old. Now thirdly, who told you that scientists are in disagreement? In one of my posts I have provided (with sources) the percentage of scientists who accept evolution. It's an astonishing percentage of 99.85% in America only. Let alone Europe or east Asia.

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
will creation into being
Saying God willed creation into being is a nonsensical term. It is as sensical as saying he laughed creation into being, or swam it into being. It makes no sense and it explains nothing.

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
somehow randomly appeared out of nothing, collided with other substance in an atmosphere that must have also somehow spontaneously come into existence from nothing, then exploded and separated according to a law which also somehow existed from nowhere, and those particles with no intelligence decided to follow that law (how did they decide?), or the law forced them to comply (how did the law think?),
Sorry, but this shows that you know absolutely nothing about science. No scientists ever claimed that things happened that way. If they did, they would be out of their mind.

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
the ability to make decisions in a way different from all other creation,
Not true. Chimpanzees have the same ability, as well as orangutans and gorillas. They're also self-aware just like we are. Documentaries like "Ape Genius" and "Amazing Apes" are good places to start.

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
how someone on the other side of the world would instantly see and hear you?
Are you implying that the vague words of Umm Salama were a foretelling of today's communication technology?! You know, this is how all Islamic "miracles" work. They take an Islamic statement and try so hard to shove it into a scientific prophecy. That's just wrong. If this were a miracle, it would have had more detail than that. I could deduce a million such miracles from the works of Shakespeare and call it the word of God, by your standards.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
I would like to mention that the work of man is not perfect and never will be. All that the scientists discovered is merely not their creation in any form, I cannot for a second take into consideration that something amazing was created without a purpose or by a greator source.
This is your own feeling that's backed up by nothing. I've already answered the fallacy of science being inaccurate.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
This earth also has a right to be protected, and cleaned it if it is full of dirt.
This is the most sadistic, unjust and cruel statement I've seen in my whole life. And hey, wasn't it your god who created us with the ability to do such things? Now what? He wants to punish us for practising our free will? Such free will we have..

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
perhaps a scientist can help in your case i believe.
True. Scientists explain this. How? It is an evolutionary constraint. If it weren't, then the only other explanation is a lousy creator. I'd rather go with the first.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
How does a religious scientist deny the involvement of God in natural processes?
I didn't say that religious scientists deny involvement in natural processes. I said they disapprove of direct magical intervention/creations of gods. In fact, many religious scientists, like Professor Kenneth Miller, have written books about God's position in natural processes, such as evolution.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
And if you were to even try to destroy this book, you could not, this is a fact.
No, it is not. Just as much as you can't destroy any other popular books. There are just too many people involved. As for why the Quran was not changed, this doesn't make it a divine book. Many books have never been changed, doesn't make them divine.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
There are many miracles in this book, some for example are of the Bee producing honey, we are made up of water etc etc.
These are not miracles. They are easily refuted. If you want, I could show you how.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
The benefit you would get from worshipping an invisible entity is similar to believing all the facts science puts out there but except realising the greatness of them,
No. Once again I say as I said a thousand times earlier, you do not "believe" in science. You acknowledge it. Science offers empirical evidence and works by a specific method. Religion does not.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
This is however your choice completely.
This is why I'm on this forum. I know a lot about the Quran and Islam, but I want to know more from Muslims themselves, in hope that there might be more to it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
If the world doesn't see anything wrong in praising some man who won the nobel prize of discovering the creation he lives in then I do not see anything wrong with praising the creator of the universe who created the creation we live in, eat in, survive by what he provides, if you will it is your choice to disagree or agree.
This is a false analogy. If a scientist built up a thousand robots just to praise him and tell him how great he is, you'd at least call him sick..

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
it is never known to be good for your health
False. Brandy was an important ingredient in many patent medicines for a long time. Wine fends off heart attacks and blood clots.
Here are two articles on some of the many benefits of both brandy and wine.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
may I ask, what about them?
Already explained one of the issues in the human eye.
The laryngeal nerve: The nerve 'wiring' of the mammalian larynx is strange. The larynx is in the neck, so one might expect that the relevant nerve would come off the spine at the neck. And, it does: the recurrent laryngeal nerve originates from the spinal cord in the neck, as a branch of the vagus nerve. But then, bizarrely, rather than taking a direct route across the neck, it instead passes down the neck and into the chest, loops under the posterior side of the aorta by the heart, then travels right back up again to the larynx. Which is a waste of materials by anyone's standard.
The appendix: the appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. It does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system. In other words, it's useless and it gets inflamed in most people causing death if not taken out immediately.
The prostate: the male urethra - the tube via which urine exits the body - is a soft tube. And it runs through the prostate, an organ prone to infection and subsequent swelling. No engineer in his right mind would put an organ so prone to swelling around a collapsible tube.

These are some examples of many others. Now, are those examples of "bad design" explainable by evolution? Sure is! If you want to know more, just ask me.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
It just tells me that your not well learned in the studies of the Qur'aan, claiming the miracles are not 'miracle material'
No. I have encountered many of those "miracles" and found them to be utterly false.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
i recommend you read the Qur'aan.
Already have. A few times.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
Yes, i'll be honest I did watch half of it.
Well, you should watch all of it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
is a rather depressing thought to ponder on.
It shouldn't be. Take on this example: why is the Mona Lisa so valuable? Because it's unique. If Leonardo painted a hundred of those, it would be worthless. But the fact that it is the ONLY one makes it so valuable. And that's how we value our lives. It's the only life, therefore it's priceless. I don't feel depressed, and neither should you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
is rather understanding and pleasing.
Not when there's a probability you'll spend a few thousand decades in a lake of fire..
Reply

Abz2000
10-29-2011, 10:03 PM
chimpanzies do not make nuclear bombs or fly to the moon - nor do they make telescopes or write science books

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Imperfections are something and nasty faults are something else. When the optic nerve goes right through the light-sensitive cells of the retina and cause a blind spot, that's a fault if committed by an engineer they would be fired. Imperfection has a different meaning. A perfect eye would be able to see all light waves in the spectrum, for example. An imperfect eye would only be able to see a certain range. But in no way would the eye have a nasty mistake like the one described above. Especially when other animals in the animal kingdom, like the octopus, have an eye where the optical nerve comes from the back, not blocking the light.
so are you saying that a non-seeing object which exploded with a big bang formed micro-organisms without the ability to think or see - and then suddenly decided it was boring and that they might as well see what's appeared out of nowhere and been around all these years?

makes me think of this:



format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
somehow randomly appeared out of nothing, collided with other substance in an atmosphere that must have also somehow spontaneously come into existence from nothing, then exploded and separated according to a law which also somehow existed from nowhere, and those particles with no intelligence decided to follow that law (how did they decide?), or the law forced them to comply (how did the law think?),

Sorry, but this shows that you know absolutely nothing about science. No scientists ever claimed that things happened that way. If they did, they would be out of their mind.
you tell me what you think as to how it happened
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 10:26 PM
Still waiting on:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1473272
&
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1473295
&
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1473303

Including a thorough refutation of:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

&
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

also we're your hosts & you a guest. No one is under an obligation to convince you of anything. It's the other way around & you've been quite inept..

in closure I'll quote the noble Quran:

Sahih International
I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders as assistants.

We don't actually know how life or creation came about & neither do you.. science only offers speculations.. it's yet to replicate it beyond a shadow.. We've no desire for leaps of faith when it comes to science!

best,

Reply

MustafaMc
10-29-2011, 10:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'm against parents who label their children as Christian children, Muslim or Hindu children. Children should be brought up secularly, and then given the choice whether to adhere to their parents' religion or not. But the indoctrination of children from birth turns them into mindless religious robots that will become tomorrow's fanatics, terrorists, anti-gays and racists.
You would rather have them brought up as atheistic evolutionists. Speaking of terrorists I know of no muslim that supports killing of innocent men, women and children, but yet the US military has done so repeatedly for the past 10 years and just brush it off as 'collateral damage'. Can you not see that the Iraqi and Afghan people have been terrorized?
And what evidence have you got to support such belief? How could you know of something that requires death as a passport? Telling me that the Quran says so will ignite another question: how do you know the Quran is the true, unchanged word of God?
Much about religion is faith which I have and you don't. I could very well be in your atheistic shoes today, but Allah in His mercy guided me to Islam to which I say, alhamdulillah.
Nobody EVER, whatever their crime, deserve an eternity of torture. The worst criminal ever to walk the earth only committed finite crimes. To award this with infinite torture is just unfair. It's basic mathematics.
Be sure and remember this when you are standing before Allah on Judgment Day. Whether you think something is fair or not will not change your reality.
And what if we're both wrong? How do you know it is your religion that is true and your god that is real?
I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me. My extensive knowledge of genetics and molecular biology supports my belief in Allah as the Creator and Sustainer of this world. I have made my choice (or as you might say I have placed my bet) to believe in Allah, that Muhammad was His Messenger through whom was revealed Allah's word, the Quran. That is the foundation of my faith and Allah willing I will hold to it until my final breath.
There is no winner in this betting game. So, why choose one over the other?
I beg to differ. If I am right (as I believe that I am) then I win and you loose. If you are right that there is no Hereafter, then none of this or our lives really matters any whatsoever. Plain and simple. I am reminded of a line in a song, "If you believe in forever, then life is just a one night stand." I would turn this around and say, "Life is a just one night stand and without forever, it is meaningless." I have never had a one night stand, but I can imagine that it doesn't amount to much, so also our lives if there is no Hereafter.
Just because you were born to parents who adhere to that religion?
I was born to Christian parents who were not religious and I chose Islam while I was in college almost 30 years ago.
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You would rather have them brought up as atheistic evolutionists
Research courtesy of the 'scientific community' tells us that children re natural born believers in God.. Isn't criminal & a form of abuse to deny their very nature that of fitrah for a completely ailing ideology that's neither supported by science nor satisfactory to human nature? To actually go against the forces that naturally speak to our humanity.. & for what? to please an un-educated impotent underdog that makes up less than 10% of any given population?

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
10-29-2011, 10:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
We don't actually know how life or creation came about & neither do you.. science only offers speculations.. it's yet to replicate it beyond a shadow.. We've no desire for leaps of faith when it comes to science!
I agree with you. As I have said earlier ToE is no more than a hypothesis based on a few observations. Its foundation is a book by Charles Darwin and they erroneously grasped at genetics as evidence to support it. The real issue is that ToE is subject to experimentation little more than our faith in Allah. Naturalistic evolutionists claim to be scientists but they don't subject there work to the scientific method. When I hear an explanation for how meiosis supposedly evolved from mitosis, there is no logical sequence of events presented that confer selective advantage to the steps along the way.

I think the real aim of evolutionists is to disprove the existence of Allah and as Isam has said children be brought up secularly or in other words as atheists. It is not about showing where we came from, but rather it is about destroying religion and faith in Allah.
Reply

جوري
10-29-2011, 11:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I agree with you. As I have said earlier ToE is no more than a hypothesis based on a few observations. Its foundation is a book by Charles Darwin and they erroneously grasped at genetics as evidence to support it. The real issue is that ToE is subject to experimentation little more than our faith in Allah. Naturalistic evolutionists claim to be scientists but they don't subject there work to the scientific method. When I hear an explanation for how meiosis supposedly evolved from mitosis, there is no logical sequence of events presented that confer selective advantage to the steps along the way.

I think the real aim of evolutionists is to disprove the existence of Allah and as Isam has said children be brought up secularly or in other words as atheists. It is not about showing where we came from, but rather it is about destroying religion and faith in Allah.
They're certainly welcome to do so.. but fighting faith with faith of a different color won't cut it..
contrary to our dear atheist English teacher's assertion, the atheist position is the more precarious one.. they've neither refuted the existence of God, nor provided a reasonably logical explanation as to why something else is a better option.. Then when they drop dead .. what will they do beyond 'Dawkins told me so'?

:w:
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-29-2011, 11:54 PM
Greetings of peace

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is your own feeling that's backed up by nothing. I've already answered the fallacy of science being inaccurate.
You see science isn't the answer for everything for me, science is man's research, studies. In other words it proves most of God's creation, I also use the Qur'aan. You may disagree, but you are free to do so.

My own feeling of what? to say that human isnt perfect?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is the most sadistic, unjust and cruel statement I've seen in my whole life. And hey, wasn't it your god who created us with the ability to do such things? Now what? He wants to punish us for practising our free will? Such free will we have..
I believe you mentioned that you've read the Qur'aan? If that is the case, i'm sure you've come across the verse stating that 'shaytaan is a plain enemy to mankind'? Have you any understanding of what 'free will' is in accordance to Islam?

You have a choice, obey your lord or follow your own desires! You live in a country by its law, you obey the law of the country or break the law so you may have to pay some sort of price, no?

As a believer in God I either follow his commands or I choose to live by man made law.

format_quote Originally Posted by ;1473333
This earth also has a right to be protected, and cleaned it if it is full of dirt.
That however is my statement, but i stand by it. explain to me what is sadistic in regards to it?

It is sadistic why? the earth you live in has no right? you can perform all horrific acts on it and think you will get away with that? The earth that provides you with all that you desire? And people wonder what are purposes of natural disasters, earth quakes etc. But if your saying my statement of God having control of his creation and doing so what he knows best, if that's sadistic then I believe the government who calls for capital punishment upon criminals who clearly deserve it are also sadistic! And also no man can prevent an earth quake or any natural disasters from happening no matter what science has to say about this!

Is it not sadisctic that when those who are to be relied upon are useless world leaders and some not to be relied upon because many caused bloodshed amongst millions of innocent civillians? Is it not sadisctic that they torture animals in the most cruel way in order to eat them in the end? Is not sadisctic to think that millions of innocents who have died without justice! and much more, and whose going to end this? Death surely isnt!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
True. Scientists explain this. How? It is an evolutionary constraint. If it weren't, then the only other explanation is a lousy creator. I'd rather go with the first.
A lousy creator? I don't think we need to use such words, I thought you agreed upon being respectful! A creator in whose permission you live on this earth by, who has the power to create what he wills and take away what he wills, i'm completely unsure to which of my statements you've not understood and failed to accept that all that science has researched is created, this I feel is something we will disagree on, so you may believe what you will and I shall believe what i will.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No, it is not. Just as much as you can't destroy any other popular books. There are just too many people involved. As for why the Quran was not changed, this doesn't make it a divine book. Many books have never been changed, doesn't make them divine.
This is just a fact you do not wish to accept, because you find that the rest of the beliefs of this faith do not meet your desires. Remember you do not always get what you want in life, things that are good for you ,you will not always like, and all that which is bad for you is usually what one wants and doesnt benefit you. You don't want to accept it, so be it! But i've not come across any other scripture claimings its the work of God and lasting so long without mistakes with miracles and all that which one should reflect upon in life and ofcourse much more. No book exists remaining the same for centuries, and having millions aorund the world memorise it in it's original, and not being able to destroy even if any fool wanted. Your right many books haven't been changed, but has a book remained the same from centuries ago till this day and age! Keep in mind there are many haters, haters of islam through since day 1 up till this day, none have been able to destroy it, no matter how much the world has developed over time.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
These are not miracles. They are easily refuted. If you want, I could show you how.
They may not be miracles in your views, but they have been proven by science.. you can say that the human eye is not a miracle, or the brain and so on, maybe you do not realise what a blessing is to have both and wondering if you had neither. I am not aware of your beliefs so I cannot say much..

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No. Once again I say as I said a thousand times earlier, you do not "believe" in science. You acknowledge it. Science offers empirical evidence and works by a specific method. Religion does not.
your right, and I agree not all religions have this method, though in my case the Qur'aan certainly does.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is why I'm on this forum. I know a lot about the Quran and Islam, but I want to know more from Muslims themselves, in hope that there might be more to it.
And I hope that is beneficial towards you in some way.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is a false analogy. If a scientist built up a thousand robots just to praise him and tell him how great he is, you'd at least call him sick..
Thats pretty silly, call it false analogy if you may, but I was stating a reason, I was simply trying to say if a human has the right to be praised, the creator has an even greator chance, no need to include robots, they are just a creation of mankind, compared to the creation of God.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
False. Brandy was an important ingredient in many patent medicines for a long time. Wine fends off heart attacks and blood clots.
Here are two articles on some of the many benefits of both brandy and wine.
I had a feeling you would mention this, so you disagree that alcohol has destroyed societies at all? I mentioned alcohol in the essence of drinking it at all, not how beneficial it is, but I wouldn't use alcohol as a cure personally, nor do I believe it is permissable.

Now, how much of the world who actually consumes it has benefited themselves from the 'benefits of alcohol'?

One of my reason being (just giving you an idea of my belief) is that when Allaah permits something, it is either because it is purely good or its goodness outweighs its evil. If He forbids something it is either because it is completely bad or because its evil outweighs its goodness. Allaah is All Wise and All Knowing. There are many kinds of medicine and remedies, both spiritual and natural. So if the medicine does not heal the disease, rather healing comes from Allaah when the medicine is used. Again, i provided my answer, and you can disagree all you want.

I feel explaining this to you has no point at all. and I am not trying to force you to believe, but I ask you atleast to respect this.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No. I have encountered many of those "miracles" and found them to be utterly false.
Respectively, I disagree.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Already have. A few times.
So have you studied it also?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
It shouldn't be. Take on this example: why is the Mona Lisa so valuable? Because it's unique. If Leonardo painted a hundred of those, it would be worthless. But the fact that it is the ONLY one makes it so valuable. And that's how we value our lives. It's the only life, therefore it's priceless. I don't feel depressed, and neither should you.
That isnt the point I was trying to make, yes i agree there is no denying our lives our unique! But why so?
How are they 'unique' if by dying and knowing you have no purpose at all? In the sense you remain a 'nothing' eternally. If so, again I disagree.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Not when there's a probability you'll spend a few thousand decades in a lake of fire..
Yeah sure, I cannot accept at all that you've actually read the Qur'aan or atleast not studied the book, as your statements do not convice me at all. If you've actually read the Qur'aan and studied it you would have realised that an individual is not punishment without reason! If I were to live by your statement that would make me utterly foolish, indeed! You see, one of the names attributed to Allaah/God is the God of justice, and those who do not recieve their justice in this world will recieve so in the court of his on a day called Judgment day/day of Resurection..

Have you wondered why and who those individuals are who will spend a few thousands decades in a lake of fire?

Also i assume punishment should be made illegal by your views? I speak of those who deserve punishment, not of those who have been treated injustly and punished without reason.

I would finally like to come to a conclusion which I am sure we both can agree upon. I believe there is a God who controls this universe, and I believe that is not the case with you. I respect your views, though I do not agree on the majority.

peace.
Reply

Ghazalah
10-30-2011, 12:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is the most sadistic, unjust and cruel statement I've seen in my whole life. And hey, wasn't it your god who created us with the ability to do such things? Now what? He wants to punish us for practising our free will? Such free will we have..
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29)

If you're going to read the Quran, read it with an open-mind, and ponder on it. After all Allah swt has blessed you with intellect. Use it wisely. :)
Reply

Ramadhan
10-30-2011, 04:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'm against parents who label their children as Christian children, Muslim or Hindu children. Children should be brought up secularly, and then given the choice whether to adhere to their parents' religion or not. But the indoctrination of children from birth turns them into mindless religious robots that will become tomorrow's fanatics, terrorists, anti-gays and racists.
Please give me example how secular education for children work?
Where do parents obtain values and instruction for this secular ideology?
What are contained in the secular ideology for children?
what are the values of secular ideology? Where can farmers in Toraja, sulawesi, Indonesia get this secular ideology from to teach their children?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Oh, yeah. Primate ERVs do not confirm evolution. Chromosomal fusion does not confirm evolution. Evolution before our very own eyes does not confirm evolution. Mitochondrial DNA does not confirm evolution. Transitional fossils do not confirm evolution. Way to be current..
Please give me scientific sources and journals where those things confirm evolution as fact.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-30-2011, 05:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is a claim backed up with no evidence.
Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!
If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!
Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
To Him belong all (creatures) in the heavens and on earth: Even those who are in His (very) Presence are not too proud to serve Him, nor are they (ever) weary (of His service):
They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they ever flag or intermit. [21:16-20]


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Imperfections are something and nasty faults are something else. When the optic nerve goes right through the light-sensitive cells of the retina and cause a blind spot, that's a fault if committed by an engineer they would be fired. Imperfection has a different meaning. A perfect eye would be able to see all light waves in the spectrum, for example. An imperfect eye would only be able to see a certain range. But in no way would the eye have a nasty mistake like the one described above. Especially when other animals in the animal kingdom, like the octopus, have an eye where the optical nerve comes from the back, not blocking the light.
:lol:
That just shows your ignorance on the subject. A cephalopod like an octopus has blue blood. They have hemocyanin oxygen transportation instead of hemoglobin, which is essential for them in their living conditions. But hemocyanin binds with oxygen in a non-cooperative fashion and are only 25% efficient at transporting oxygen per amount of blood as compared to hemoglobin under normal conditions. Moreover, the cephalopods do not have blood cells. Their oxygen carrier is extracellular, freely floating in blood and through the tissues. See this for details: http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/47/4/645

In cephalopods, the oxygen is delivered to the organs in a single pass by extracting lots of oxygen from huge amounts of water passing through the gills.
Our retina is one of the highest oxygen consuming tissue of the body, even more than the brain. It combines frenetic pigment synthesis with expensive neural processing which requires a lot of oxygen and nutrients to sustain. Like the muscle tissues that have their own oxygen carrier, myoglobin, the retina has its own Oxygen carrier, neuroglobin, but Oxygen is delivered to the retinal receptors directly by haemoglobins in the blood vessels. These vessels are absolutely essential there, next to the cones, because oxygen has no means of diffusing through its thickness at such consumption rates, see http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/M209909200v1.pdf

The true reason why cephalopds do not have the optic disk blocking their visual fields is that they can get away with it. They deliver oxygen to their retinas using extracellular haemocyanins, so they do not need the blood vessels to go right next to their rhabdomeres. Faster Oxygen metabolism and lack of cooperativity make this mode of oxygenation possible. The animals that deliver oxygen using haemoglobin containing specialized blood cells cannot allow themselves such a luxury. Since the arterial blood has to enter the retina anyway, Allah has created this entrance for the optic nerve, which makes good practical sense: the nerve grows around the artery, so the nerves get their oxygen, too. Better still, our sharp central vision is by fovea, which is cleared of blood vessels and innervated and oxygenated from behind, through the choroid. That is the reason why the fovea (which is only 1% of the retina) operates under hypoxic stress under bright light and why we avert our eyes from it. The marine animals do not encounter this problem because they do not deal with bright light, so the oxygen demand of their retinas is lower. That is another reason they can get away with letting the oxygen only through the posterior arteries.

The blind spot is not about nerves; it is about oxygen and blood. The design of our eye is optimal for us and the design of cephalopod eyes is optimal for them. It is ridiculous to lay a claim of suboptimality for the design of such ubiquity and antiquity.

In short, if you want to have clear vision, have blue blood.
See http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/143323.html for more explanation.


I am not a biologist. But a simple research shows how ignorantly you dismissed the Wisdom of the Creator with no shame. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators. [23:14]


Similarly, everything else that you mentioned are created for a reason. By dismissing their use, you are just professing your ignorance.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
It's repetitive, vague, unbalanced and full of weaknesses. If you ask for my opinion, people like Al-Mutanabbi and Abu-Firas Al-Hamadani have wrote much MUCH better work than the Quran.
Qur'an is not a piece of poetry. The repetition lays emphasis on important matters. It is consice and complete. Its beauty is unmatched.
They way you are insulting just shows your lack of comprehension.


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'm a truth seeker.
Yet you disregard every single reply and only stick to hypothesis and theories.
Reply

جوري
10-30-2011, 06:18 AM
^^ let me give you another reason why he's nothing more than an underwhelming and undereducated troll:

laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occurring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilities increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.


This is from ansar try to find the original thread pls. I am typing from my iPhone and don't care enough to protract this given lack of interest in the OP

:w:
Reply

IsamBitar
10-30-2011, 09:34 AM
Responding to posts #70 - #73

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
A person can have a perfectly healthy brain and just knock out,
Or be brain dead and survive on life support,
When insufficient amounts of blood reach the brain, you pass out.
If your brain is completely dead, you could "survive" on life support but you're never ever going to recover. And without life support, you'd never make it. This shows that you're not actually "alive." By scientific standards, you're long dead. But your body's machinery still works thanks to good technology.


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
Since the biological cells alone would be responsible for keeping them alive, and the biological cells would be perfectly healthy,
Wrong. With no sufficient fuel, brought in by blood, which is pumped using the heart, which is controlled by areas of the central nervous system, the cells would die. Simple as that.


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
In Islam we call this thing a soul, something which causes a body to stay in tact while it is here, and cause all organs and cells to decompose once it leaves.
In science, we call it a central nervous system that controls all other parts of the body.


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
And now we live in an age of weather modification,
So, are we all Anti-Christs then? Read my post above for an answer to such "miracles.."


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
I am challenging you to list them all
I'd need a whole library if I'm to list all those. But here are a few:
  • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
  • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
  • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
  • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
  • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
  • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
Resources:
  1. Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002.
  2. Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
  3. FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
  4. Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
  5. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
  6. Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
  7. Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.
As for the exact process, putting that here would result in a huge post which I don't have time for. But here's a little video that illustrates the mutation that gave bacteria the ability to digest nylon. Watch it.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
making several errors in the process.
  1. I didn't use that figure to show that evolution is true. I used it just to refute the claim that says the scientific community is unsure about it.
  2. Yes, I have. Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. Just Google that and see for yourself.
  3. Purpose is in its title: Public beliefs about evolution and creation.
  4. Go to the above source and read for yourself.
  5. The study clearly states "biologists." Read, for God's sake!
  6. Wow, you're more ignorant than I thought you were. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Go grab a biology textbook and get a little education.
  7. Belief in God and acceptance of evolution are compatible.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
I'd hate to see another mindless troll gain so much attention by piggy back riding on the 'scientific community without understanding its intricacies!
If I'm a mindless troll then why respond to my post anyway? If you've got nothing good to say, don't bother at all. I don't appreciate people like you calling me things like that when they clearly have no idea what they're on about.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
will isam isn't that exactly what you're doing here?
No? I came here asking a question? Did you even read the original post? I'm not forcing anything down anybody's throat. I've provided sources and evidence to everything I claimed and asked no-one to take my word for it. If you don't have an answer to my question, then don't bother replying.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
After all who is forcing you to write on a religious forum?
My desire to know what people think, and if what they think makes a good point from which I might learn something.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
perhaps you can do us the grand favor or proving 'speciation through evolution'
I could write a whole big post on the subject of speciation, but you're not worth tiring my fingers for. And besides, I still have many more posts to reply to. Therefore, I'm going to give you one or two links instead that would do the job for me.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict
I have no problem with that. I never said religion and science are incompatible. My atheism was never caused by knowing too much science. That is your assertion.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
there's nothing quite as bad as being a pseudo intellect & proud of it!
If that's what you think I am, then don't reply to my posts.


And hey.. Maybe next time you reply try to have a bit of manners? You're supposedly a lady, you should be much more well-mannered than that. I don't appreciate an ignorant child coming about accusing me of things she imagines. Have a little respect to someone who's here asking a genuine question.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-30-2011, 10:20 AM
Responding to posts #74 - #80

format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Go ahead & elaborate on that with other than an eloquent 'oh yeah'
I'm going to make it short and brief. For more details just Google it. We share over 98% of our DNA with our most recent cousins the chimpanzees. But it's not only the functional pieces of DNA that we share together. ERVs are relics of a viral infection, i.e. a virus that inserts itself randomly into the host's genome. Now this virus perishes when the cell dies, but if the infection happened in a germ cell (sperm or ovum) and then you reproduce, you pass that ERV to your descendants. Now, if we look at the short arm of chromosome #10 in the human genome, we find one of those ERVs. What's interesting is that chimps have the exact same ERV in the exact same location. Coincidence? Seeing we have over 3 billion nitrogenic bases in our genome, this gives a chance of 1 in 3 billion. And guess what? There are 16 instances of human ERVs having exact matches with chimp ERVs. The probability of that happening asymptotes to zero.. What's the only viable explanation? Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Any retrovirus that inserted into the genome of our common ancestor would be inherited by both chimps AND humans. Do ERVs violate nested hierarchy? No.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Chromosomal fusions, acrocentric breaks & translocations have given us everything from Leukemia to down syndrome but not a different species!
You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. Here, Professor Kenneth Miller can explain it to you.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
what is evolving before our very eyes?
Here's one of the best examples of evolution within our lifetime. Italian Wall Lizards..
Other examples include elephants evolving smaller tusks, which helps them survive poacher attacks. Russian dogs evolving to learn the subways. Hudson River fish are becoming immune to toxic waste. Bacteria evolving TWICE to digest nylon. Google any of these from any reputable scientific journal/website and see for yourself.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
How does Mitochondrial DNA confirm evolution?
Mitochondrial DNA - maternal DNA - is used to construct evolutionary trees. DNA is present inside the nucleus of every cell of our body but it is the DNA of the cell's mitochondria that has been most commonly used to construct evolutionary trees. Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother. Every few generations, a random mutation creeps into this familial signature. So comparison of two samples of mtDNA will show degrees of kinship and ancestral origin. Random infrequent changes once again provide a way of estimating the number of generations back to a shared ancestor.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
I am just dying to see those transitional fossils..
Oh, listing all of those would take hours.. I'll list a few of them and if you're interested in seeing more, have a look here.

Fish to amphibian: Osteolepis, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Eryops.
Amphibian to reptile: Proterogyrinus, Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Paleothyris.
Reptile to mammal: Archaeothyris, Dimetrodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon.
Primate to human: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo erectus.

Just to name a few..

How do we know these are transitional fossils?
  1. They possess mid-way characteristics and characteristics from the two species that preceded it and succeeded it.
  2. It falls into the exact chronological order between the predecessor and the successor.
  3. It's found in the exact place where the evolution of that lineage is concluded to have happened. Most of these transitional fossils weren't found by accident, they were anticipated.
And if that doesn't do it for you, then it's quite apparent that you're the mindless uneducated troll, which I strongly suspect you are.


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
do they get the choice of whether to adhere to the rules of corrupt politicians who no longer represent the wishes of the people?
Sorry, mate. This only happens in Arab countries. When a politician is corrupt in Europe, they're kicked out of their position. Besides, politicians don't enslave people. That only happens, again, in your Arab countries.


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
i've heard of people getting things like 50 life sentences, that's their eternal life on earth + more.
But once you're dead, that's it. Torment is over. The difference between that and eternity in hell is vast. Eternity in hell is a mathematical infinity of time. Life on earth at its best is not over a hundred years. You can't compare this to that.


format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
the religion you were trying to discredit
I'm not trying to discredit anything. How's asking a simple question then discussing the answers an act of discrediting? It's odd how almost 99% of Muslims think everyone's either attacking them, their religious idols or their religion.


format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
Actually, Islam was known from the start.
That's why there's absolutely no historical evidence of it whatsoever.


format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
Because only one answer is correct.
How do you know that? And this is not a rhetorical question.


format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
you seem to want to force your view on others.
No. I'm just answering questions that I'm being asked and discussing answers that I've been given. What, now, I'm not even allowed to question the answers?


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Developmental psychologists...
Irrelevant. I'm not here to claim there is no god.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
How is the crime finite when the victim is also 'gone forever'?
Like I said, once you're dead, that's it. You're gone forever, but you don't feel it. I'm not justifying killing, by the way. It's a punishable crime. But to punish such crime for an infinity of torture, that's unfair. Why not punish the killer with a specific number of years in hell that are equivalent to the number of years the victim could have lived had they not been killed? The main reason why I find difficulty believing in God is the concept of hell, I'm being honest here.
Reply

IsamBitar
10-30-2011, 02:22 PM
Responding to posts #82 - #86

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
chimpanzies do not make nuclear bombs or fly to the moon - nor do they make telescopes or write science books
So what? Pre-historic humans did none of that either, doesn't make them less sapient/self-aware. Some of today's African tribes don't even know how to read, yet we still call them people with perfectly fine sapience and self-awareness. Your point is invalid.


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
so are you saying that a non-seeing object which exploded with a big bang formed micro-organisms without the ability to think or see - and then suddenly decided it was boring and that they might as well see what's appeared out of nowhere and been around all these years?
What?


format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
you tell me what you think as to how it happened
The only thing that remains a mystery to this day is what was before the Big Bang, everything else is thoroughly explained + evidence. Your ignorant of the facts doesn't make them wrong. Read one or two books on the subject if you want. Remember one thing, just because we don't yet know the answer to something, doesn't mean that a god did it. It may have well been, but as long as there's no evidence for that, it's nothing more than a baseless claim.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Including a thorough refutation of:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
Give me the gist of that. I really don't have time to read a 50-page PDF..

format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
also we're your hosts & you a guest. No one is under an obligation to convince you of anything. It's the other way around & you've been quite inept..
First of all, you're not my host. IB staff are. Second, the purpose of this post is clear in its title. If you don't like it, tough, nobody invited you in to start with.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You would rather have them brought up as atheistic evolutionists.
I'd rather call them "critically-thinking free children." I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with Christians or Jews raising their children secularly and then telling them about the world's religions (and their own) and having them choose for themselves.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I know of no muslim that supports killing of innocent men
OK no problem. Nonetheless, it was Muslim fanatics who terrorised the world in incidents like in the year 2005 only:
United Kingdom, July 7: London bombings – Suicide bombers attack one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 52 people and injuring over 700.
Israel, July 12: Islamic Jihad takes responsibility for a suicide bombing in Netanya, which kills five people at a shopping mall.
Egypt, July 23: Sharm el-Sheikh bombings – Car bombs explode at tourist sites in Sharm el-Sheikh, killing at least 88 and wounding more than 100.
Jewish terrorism: Israel, August 4: Jewish settler in an IDF uniform opens fire on a bus in Shfaram, killing four Israeli Arabs and wounding five.
Jordan, November 9: Three explosions at hotels in Amman, leave at least 60 dead and 120 wounded.

And I could go on forever. I don't think you'd argue with me that the main reason for these terrorist attacks are religious indoctrination. It doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not, it IS religious.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Much about religion is faith which I have and you don't.
Some people like myself have a problem taking things for granted with no evidence to support them. This seems to be absent from your ideology.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
May I ask what your field and level of education is?


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I beg to differ. If I am right (as I believe that I am) then I win and you loose. If you are right that there is no Hereafter, then none of this or our lives really matters any whatsoever.
And if we're both wrong we both lose. And strictly statistically speaking, the probability of this is very high.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Isn't criminal & a form of abuse to deny their very nature that of fitrah for a completely ailing ideology that's neither supported by science nor satisfactory to human nature?
I don't remember saying anything about raising children with an atheistic view on life. I didn't say children should be told 24/7 that there is no god.


format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
& for what? to please an un-educated impotent underdog that makes up less than 10% of any given population?
According to adherents.com, there are over 1.1 billion people around the world who are non-religious/atheists/agnostics comprising a 16% of the world's population. And if you think this is a minority, think again. Islam is only a few percent over that number. Those "uneducated impotent underdogs" you speak of make up 85% of the population in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 65% in Japan, 54% in France and 49% in Germany. And guess what? They're some of the most advanced societies in the world in all aspects. Check your facts next time, dimwit.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I agree with you. As I have said earlier ToE is no more than a hypothesis based on a few observations.
Are you joking? Please read a little more on the topic from proper scientific journals. Or just Google the number of pieces of evidence for evolution.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Its foundation is a book by Charles Darwin
Actually, Charles Darwin was the first person to propose a plausible mechanism for evolution. The idea of evolution has been around since the Arab Golden Age. People like Ibn Khaldun in his Introduction and Ibn Sina were the first to talk about evolution, although they couldn't get far with explaining its mechanism. In fact, Darwin's contemporary, Sir William Draper, called it the Mohammedan Theory of Evolution. Google that term anywhere on the internet and you'll find loads of entries on it.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The real issue is that ToE is subject to experimentation little more than our faith in Allah.
Wrong. Evolution makes predictions which should be met in order to strengthen its authenticity. Unsurprisingly, every single prediction made by evolution has been confirmed. Falsifying evolution is easy. You just need a pre-Cambrian fossil mammal and the whole of evolution will collapse. That's just one example.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Naturalistic evolutionists claim to be scientists but they don't subject there work to the scientific method.
Wrong again. Evolution can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect, and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that our origins began by other means. Replication does not mean a phenomenon has to be replicated, otherwise we would have very few theories in science, it means that the experiments, calculations and some observations that make up the evidence for evolution have to be able to be replicated. So the theory can indeed be tested. Evolution fits the scientific method perfectly, unless you have a different idea on how the scientific method works.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
When I hear an explanation for how meiosis supposedly evolved from mitosis, there is no logical sequence of events presented that confer selective advantage to the steps along the way.
I've already shown you how. If that doesn't make sense to you, then look it up further. If that also doesn't make sense to you, then the problem is with you, not science.


format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I think the real aim of evolutionists is to disprove the existence of Allah and as Isam has said children be brought up secularly or in other words as atheists.
Wrong and wrong. Look up people like Professor Kenneth Miller and Professor Francisco Ayala along with many others who believe in God AND accept evolution. Even William Craig, a famous advocate for the existence of God, says that there is no problem with the belief in evolution and God. As for children, I've already explained this above. I hold great respect for you Mr Mustafa, don't make that change by saying such ridiculous statements.
Reply

جوري
10-30-2011, 02:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'd need a whole library if I'm to list all those. But here are a few:

Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
and I said that I'll be waiting for that library no? we have several types of mutations, frameshift, nonsense, missense, silent etc. I am asking you to use the given science to show speciation not to synthesize nylon, was that difficult for you to understand? I am still waiting :)

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I didn't use that figure to show that evolution is true. I used it just to refute the claim that says the scientific community is unsure about it.
Yes, I have. Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. Just Google that and see for yourself.
Purpose is in its title: Public beliefs about evolution and creation.
Go to the above source and read for yourself.
The study clearly states "biologists." Read, for God's sake!
Wow, you're more ignorant than I thought you were. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Go grab a biology textbook and get a little education.
Belief in God and acceptance of evolution are compatible.
I happen to have my B.S in in molecular bio. and happen to have a doctorate, I happen to also be heavily involved in research. without getting into too much detail of a yet to be published study. I had two completely different sets of data concerning the same two subjects both nullifying each other & we're actually speaking of random double blind, P value, types I and types II error, not a survey to which I have already posted two other similar surveys that display completely different results. Are those who hold bachelors in biology privy to some occult science the rest of the scientific community is blind to? if yes-- why do you a layman subscribe to such an enigmatic science that is elusive to geneticists, astrophysicists, epidemiologist, etc. etc.?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
If I'm a mindless troll then why respond to my post anyway? If you've got nothing good to say, don't bother at all. I don't appreciate people like you calling me things like that when they clearly have no idea what they're on about.
For fun!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No? I came here asking a question? Did you even read the original post? I'm not forcing anything down anybody's throat. I've provided sources and evidence to everything I claimed and asked no-one to take my word for it. If you don't have an answer to my question, then don't bother replying.
Beyond cutting & pasting irrelevant topics that are a non-sequitur to what you're trying to assert, and inability to gauge the subject matter in a non-puerile manner & actually refute articles that speak of the impossibility of evolution as you describe using the probability of assembling a primitive cell or even by means of physics what have you brought to the table?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
My desire to know what people think, and if what they think makes a good point from which I might learn something.
you'd be better off defining your own beliefs and having a point of view, you are light years away from having some sort of leveled understanding!


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I could write a whole big post on the subject of speciation, but you're not worth tiring my fingers for. And besides, I still have many more posts to reply to. Therefore, I'm going to give you one or two links instead that would do the job for me.
Why start a topic you can't finish? I want that big post please, I think we're all eagerly waiting!
in fact I insist!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I have no problem with that. I never said religion and science are incompatible. My atheism was never caused by knowing too much science. That is your assertion.
Really? I could have sworn the thread title reads 'Where does God fit in'? are you swallowing your own words again because yet another someone is on to the transparency of your charade?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
If that's what you think I am, then don't reply to my posts.
But I already told you I am having so much fun with it.. while my morning cup of joe brews I get to have a hearty guffaw.. it is good for the soul!


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
And hey.. Maybe next time you reply try to have a bit of manners? You're supposedly a lady, you should be much more well-mannered than that. I don't appreciate an ignorant child coming about accusing me of things she imagines. Have a little respect to someone who's here asking a genuine question.
These are the manners I have for your type. 'an ignorant child' is an adequate assessment of your person.

I am not going to meander the the thread on catharsis.. I am waiting for the science. This is the health & science section & we take it seriously here.
otherwise I'll ask a mod to move this to the humor section under atheist farce!

best,
Reply

جوري
10-30-2011, 02:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Give me the gist of that. I really don't have time to read a 50-page PDF..
Again, don't request science in a health & science section if you're not going to make minimal effort to read, and by the same token reference us all the same to irrelevant and unrelated sources to somehow glean the conclusion of your desire. Put up or shut up!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
First of all, you're not my host. IB staff are. Second, the purpose of this post is clear in its title. If you don't like it, tough, nobody invited you in to start with.
Muslims are your host here the Muslims here are IB.. if you can't handle what is coming your way then take a hike & enroll in some vocational course to foster self-esteem!


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I don't remember saying anything about raising children with an atheistic view on life. I didn't say children should be told 24/7 that there is no god.
What is does a secular upbringing mean to you? has the meaning changed because you were caught in another charade?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
According to adherents.com, there are over 1.1 billion people around the world who are non-religious/atheists/agnostics comprising a 16% of the world's population. And if you think this is a minority, think again. Islam is only a few percent over that number. Those "uneducated impotent underdogs" you speak of make up 85% of the population in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 65% in Japan, 54% in France and 49% in Germany. And guess what? They're some of the most advanced societies in the world in all aspects. Check your facts next time, dimwit.

adherents.com is a .com. let me know when you've a govt. census bureau .. 15% of the population albeit a jump from the accepted 10% is a far off from1.86 billion Muslims.. but congratulations all the same for finding another fast growing religion. The dimwit again here an adequate assessment of yourself.. thanks for being so apt!
Reply

IsamBitar
10-30-2011, 02:48 PM
Responding to posts #87 - #90

format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
they've neither refuted the existence of God,
Nobody can prove the NON-existence of gods. The burden of proof lies on those who make the positive claim that there is one, i.e. you.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
I believe you mentioned that you've read the Qur'aan? If that is the case, i'm sure you've come across the verse stating that 'shaytaan is a plain enemy to mankind'? Have you any understanding of what 'free will' is in accordance to Islam?
Why did God allow the creation of Satan in the first place? Wasn't it already hard enough for us?


format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
explain to me what is sadistic in regards to it?
It's sadistic because not only does your god mercilessly kill those people you're talking about, but he also plans on burning them forever later on. Now that, in my book, is sadistic. Capital punishment (or any court punishment) is not sadistic. First of all, it suits the crime. For an explanation of that read one of my above posts. Second, it's a death sentence, not an everlasting torture. Third, if a person in a country chooses a different view than the government, he doesn't get killed for that. Whereas your god has no problem with forever torturing people who choose something different.


format_quote Originally Posted by Ghazalah
If you're going to read the Quran, read it with an open-mind, and ponder on it. After all Allah swt has blessed you with intellect. Use it wisely.
Thanks.


format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Please give me example how secular education for children work?
Where do parents obtain values and instruction for this secular ideology?
What are contained in the secular ideology for children?
what are the values of secular ideology? Where can farmers in Toraja, sulawesi, Indonesia get this secular ideology from to teach their children?
Religious people argue that religion is important for society because it provides a guideline and a manual for human ethics. The truth is that morality does not come from religion. For example, many secularists are moral and their morality is based on desire to prevent suffering and try to improve the welfare of other human and sentient beings, whereas religious morality has an additional element to this: sin. A religious person may be "moral" from a selfish point of view – they don’t want to go to hell. Another illustration of how morality does not come from religion is that when you ask a Christian or a Muslim (most of them anyway) about the punishment for breaking the Sabbath or committing adultery, which are both punished by stoning to death, they will say "we don’t do that anymore, we've grown out of it." In other words, they are cherry-picking. This shows how they do not get their morality from their religious scriptures, but from somewhere else: a secular moral philosophy that humans carefully picked up through rational discussion and a humanist consensus.


format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Please give me scientific sources and journals where those things confirm evolution as fact.
Facts are different from theories. You can't call evolution a fact just as much as you can't call gravity a fact. However, relate to my previous posts to see more. If still not satisfied, ask.
Reply

جوري
10-30-2011, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'm going to make it short and brief. For more details just Google it. We share over 98% of our DNA with our most recent cousins the chimpanzees. But it's not only the functional pieces of DNA that we share together. ERVs are relics of a viral infection, i.e. a virus that inserts itself randomly into the host's genome. Now this virus perishes when the cell dies, but if the infection happened in a germ cell (sperm or ovum) and then you reproduce, you pass that ERV to your descendants. Now, if we look at the short arm of chromosome #10 in the human genome, we find one of those ERVs. What's interesting is that chimps have the exact same ERV in the exact same location. Coincidence? Seeing we have over 3 billion nitrogenic bases in our genome, this gives a chance of 1 in 3 billion. And guess what? There are 16 instances of human ERVs having exact matches with chimp ERVs. The probability of that happening asymptotes to zero.. What's the only viable explanation? Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Any retrovirus that inserted into the genome of our common ancestor would be inherited by both chimps AND humans. Do ERVs violate nested hierarchy? No.
should I take short & brief to denote you don't understand what in hell you're typing?
any idiot with fifth grade biology knowledge will tell you that our DNA is 50% shared with bananas, 97% with fruit flies.. are you half bananas? well in your case perhaps.
let's put this in terms even you can understand!
we've 26 letters in the English alphabet we use it to make endless words, by the end of the day synonymous will not be one in the same with antonymous because they share syllables. These are simply the building blocks of our universe!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. Here, Professor Kenneth Miller can explain it to you.
A person who uses sources without discussing them to make his point is someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. When your teacher at school or whatever cesspool you go to or work in gives you an assignment or more amusing yet when you suggest an assignment do you stand on the podium with a reference and say Dr. primate can explain it better. Are you for real?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Here's one of the best examples of evolution within our lifetime. Italian Wall Lizards..
Other examples include elephants evolving smaller tusks, which helps them survive poacher attacks. Russian dogs evolving to learn the subways. Hudson River fish are becoming immune to toxic waste. Bacteria evolving TWICE to digest nylon. Google any of these from any reputable scientific journal/website and see for yourself.

I see '' modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s'' wow Lizards have adapted to their environment and remained Lizards.. Again, I am going to pose the same question I asked earlier. Do you understand the difference between micro and macro evolution? essentially the difference between adaptation and speciation?
You know there's no shame in either shutting up or admitting you're in way over your head, because we can see it already!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Mitochondrial DNA - maternal DNA - is used to construct evolutionary trees. &nbspNA is present inside the nucleus of every cell of our body but it is the DNA of the cell's mitochondria that has been most commonly used to construct evolutionary trees. Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother. Every few generations, a random mutation creeps into this familial signature. So comparison of two samples of mtDNA will show degrees of kinship and ancestral origin. Random infrequent changes once again provide a way of estimating the number of generations back to a shared ancestor.
Indeed I have summed up all this crap in my previous comment mutations of the mitochondria have given us such dz as
Myoclonic Epilepsy with Ragged Red Fibers (MERRF)
Myoneurogenic gastrointestinal encephalopathy
Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome
Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON)

etc etc etc. it hasn't given us primates to humans to date. I am still waiting for you to prove that.. while at it you might want to get those fits of logorrhea & cachinnation looked at by a psychiatrist who enjoys a challenge!


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Oh, listing all of those would take hours.. I'll list a few of them and if you're interested in seeing more, have a look here.

Fish to amphibian: Osteolepis, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Eryops.
Amphibian to reptile: Proterogyrinus, Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Paleothyris.
Reptile to mammal: Archaeothyris, Dimetrodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon.
Primate to human: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo erectus.

Just to name a few..

How do we know these are transitional fossils?

They possess mid-way characteristics and characteristics from the two species that preceded it and succeeded it.
It falls into the exact chronological order between the predecessor and the successor.
It's found in the exact place where the evolution of that lineage is concluded to have happened. Most of these transitional fossils weren't found by accident, they were anticipated.

And if that doesn't do it for you, then it's quite apparent that you're the mindless uneducated troll, which I strongly suspect you are.
you keep writing of how it will take hours or reference to a source. I must insist that you discuss what you bring to the table us. Make us 7c simpletons understand how that milatonic mind of yours works!
putting names next to each other I assure you doesn't a scientific point make, it just takes up web space wastes my time & everyone else's. One can easily construe them as falling in the same kingdom, phylum/class/order/family/genus/species etc.

Now ending graciousely again on an appropriate note of self assessment!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Irrelevant. I'm not here to claim there is no god.
what are you here to claim with 'where does God fit in' you like to descend to word play?


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Like I said, once you're dead, that's it. You're gone forever, but you don't feel it. I'm not justifying killing, by the way. It's a punishable crime. But to punish such crime for an infinity of torture, that's unfair. Why not punish the killer with a specific number of years in hell that are equivalent to the number of years the victim could have lived had they not been killed? The main reason why I find difficulty believing in God is the concept of hell, I'm being honest here.
Why would you care of infinite torture if you believe there's no such thing? There's no point in discussing how cholesterol gives us aldosterone if you don't believe it can do anything other than clog your arteries. And that should actually hold true for any science or religion subject you attempt to gauge.. you've a long way and many years ahead of you to become slightly seasoned and have a slight clue of how to integrate the science or philosophy you think you know to branch into other arts or sciences!

best,

oh P.S. I am still waiting on how trinucleotide repeat expansion fit into your 'natural selection'
Reply

جوري
10-30-2011, 03:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Nobody can prove the NON-existence of gods. The burden of proof lies on those who make the positive claim that there is one, i.e. you
Correction, the burden of proof is on you. You're starting with a double negative. You've neither disproven the existence of God, nor have you given an adequate and scientific explanation to the origins of life and the universe we find ourselves in that would satisfy the principle of parsimony and doesn't loan itself to long stretches of the imagination!
I am not into substituting a belief for a less adequate one!

best,
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-30-2011, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Nobody can prove the NON-existence of gods. The burden of proof lies on those who make the positive claim that there is one, i.e. you.
I believe it was you who came on the forum asking 'how God fit's into this?' ? I don't see anyone burdened in answered your questions! If you don't like the fact we believe in a God, a controller of the universe, then that's your choice or problem.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Why did God allow the creation of Satan in the first place? Wasn't it already hard enough for us?
Isn't most of the world corrupt? with its killing and injustice, isn't this proof of evilness? Isn't it a fact that evil does exist? believing in satan or not.

It's ironic how you state you've read the Qur'aan and then you state this 'Wasn't it already hard enough for us?'
ever come across the story of Adam and Eve (as) ?

Shaytaan/satan existed till the day of the first man according to islam. And it is not shaytaan who makes people do acts of evilness. free will?
By using our brain we have been given the ability to know wrong from right, or have we not?
unless, we are taught to live life a certain way, particular environment etc, that hatred leads us to never realising the wrong as a wrong.
Even Shaytaan admits that it is not him who forced you to follow path of evil or do wrong, it is your ownselves. He simply had to trick you and you fall for it, he simply tells you not to blame him! Whether you believe in god or not or the shaytaan, you can clearly study the world and you will find that evil exists since long ago, and unfortunately still does.

And the devil will say, after the judgment had been issued, "God has promised you the truthful promise, and I promised you, but I broke my promise. I had no power over you; I simply invited you, and you accepted my invitation. Therefore, do not blame me, and blame only yourselves. My complaining cannot help you, nor can your complaining help me. I have disbelieved in your idolizing me. The transgressors have incurred a painful retribution." [Al Qur'aan 14:22]


format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
It's sadistic because not only does your god mercilessly kill those people you're talking about, but he also plans on burning them forever later on. Now that, in my book, is sadistic. Capital punishment (or any court punishment) is not sadistic. First of all, it suits the crime. For an explanation of that read one of my above posts. Second, it's a death sentence, not an everlasting torture. Third, if a person in a country chooses a different view than the government, he doesn't get killed for that. Whereas your god has no problem with forever torturing people who choose something different.
My God does not 'mercilessly' kill people! By reading my post did you not understand anything?
I mentioned the word 'innocent' civillians being killed and without justice, if I were to say 'innocent's' killing is okay then I would be incorrect or sadistic to say so. Exactly you admit to it yourself 'it suits the crime', just like that suits the crime so does the punishment given by God, but i feel you have a lack of understanding of the concept itself.

For what crime is the death sentence prescribed to? because someone pushed someone down the stairs? ofcourse not. Major crimes deserve major punishments. The punishments prescribed in islam are of those that an individual would not even dare commit the crime in the first place, which is a way to prevent major crimes taking place. I don't see the crime rates decreasing in the west, rather they are increasing!..maybe because the punishments aren't effective enough.

Also, just as a correction there are certain types of individuals who will not be in the hellfire eternally.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-30-2011, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Religious people argue that religion is important for society because it provides a guideline and a manual for human ethics. The truth is that morality does not come from religion. For example, many secularists are moral and their morality is based on desire to prevent suffering and try to improve the welfare of other human and sentient beings, whereas religious morality has an additional element to this: sin. A religious person may be "moral" from a selfish point of view – they don’t want to go to hell. Another illustration of how morality does not come from religion is that when you ask a Christian or a Muslim (most of them anyway) about the punishment for breaking the Sabbath or committing adultery, which are both punished by stoning to death, they will say "we don’t do that anymore, we've grown out of it." In other words, they are cherry-picking. This shows how they do not get their morality from their religious scriptures, but from somewhere else: a secular moral philosophy that humans carefully picked up through rational discussion and a humanist consensus.

I didn't ask what religious people think abut their religions and about religious values, I asked you these questions since you want people to educated their children with secular ideology:

Please give me example how secular education for children work?
Where do parents obtain values and instruction for this secular ideology?
What are contained in the secular ideology for children?
what are the values of secular ideology? Where can farmers in Toraja, sulawesi, Indonesia get this secular ideology from to teach their children?


So could you please answer my questions?

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Facts are different from theories. You can't call evolution a fact just as much as you can't call gravity a fact. However, relate to my previous posts to see more. If still not satisfied, ask.
There's one big difference between gravity and ToE
gravity is directly observable, while ToE is (at the very least) not directly observable.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-30-2011, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
It's ironic how you state you've read the Qur'aan and then you state this 'Wasn't it already hard enough for us?'
ever come across the story of Adam and Eve (as) ?
I was thinking about the same thing too when I read his posts.
Isambitar claimed many things but it does seem he has no idea what he copy pasted from his google search results.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-30-2011, 06:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'd rather call them "critically-thinking free children." I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with Christians or Jews raising their children secularly and then telling them about the world's religions (and their own) and having them choose for themselves.
I disagree in that parents have a responsibility towards their children to feed, clothe, and house them as well as help them to learn how to provide for themselves. Those with a religious faith also feel a responsibility to help them attain the ultimate success in the Hereafter. I went way out on a limb to choose to become a Muslim while everyone else in my family was a Christian to one degree or another. This choice immediately put a barrier between our hearts because I rejected Jesus as the Son of God and as my personal saviour. A statement conveyed to me showed that this decision put me in a worse standing than a drug-addicted cousin who has disappeared. In a strange twist my son decided when he was 12 to have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. I had tried my best to share my faith with him, but he has chosen a different path. As the Quran states in 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower. Note that this ayat comes immediately after the widely known Ayat al-Kursi that starts "Allah! There is no deity save Him, the Alive, the Eternal..."
OK no problem. Nonetheless, it was Muslim fanatics who terrorised the world in incidents like in the year 2005 only:... And I could go on forever. I don't think you'd argue with me that the main reason for these terrorist attacks are religious indoctrination. It doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not, it IS religious.
I don't disagree that there may have been Muslims who have committed acts of terrorism, but I also know that things aren't always as they are portrayed to be in the media. Have you ever heard of 'false flag'?
Some people like myself have a problem taking things for granted with no evidence to support them. This seems to be absent from your ideology.
I find this statement very ironic as you have no problem accepting ToE in toto with only flimsy so-called scientific evidence to support it. Regarding my faith, I accept my religious beliefs on faith as I have no scientifically provable evidence for the existence of Allah other than my own understanding of biology that another may see as no more than natural processes that came about completely by chance and not by design. As sister BlueBell has said elsewhere, it seems that evolutionists don't have the same sense of awe and amazement in the creation.
May I ask what your field and level of education is?
Yes, I have a Ph.D. in plant breeding and genetics with a minor in molecular biology.
And if we're both wrong we both lose. And strictly statistically speaking, the probability of this is very high.
How can we both be wrong that 1) Allah exists or 2) He does not exist? Or is it wrong that 1) Islam is the Truth or 2) your unstated religion (Judaism?) is the truth.
I don't remember saying anything about raising children with an atheistic view on life. I didn't say children should be told 24/7 that there is no god.
As you seem to be a naturalistic evolutionists (no God involvement), I assumed you are atheist, perhaps you are a Jew. You present an interesting point, but it seems difficult to implement. For myself, I would not have a problem with teaching a teenager about the various world religions and allowing him to make his choice. However, an important aspect of this education would be an acknowledgement that a choice different from the parents will likely alienate them from the family. I know of this from the perspective of both a child and parent.
Are you joking? Please read a little more on the topic from proper scientific journals. Or just Google the number of pieces of evidence for evolution.
No, I am not joking. ToE is a hypothesis that has attained the label of a theory. Regardless, even if ToE was a theory with scientific evidence to support it, I find it extremely unsatisfying to my intellect. Your appeal to authority does nothing for me.
Actually, Charles Darwin was the first person to propose a plausible mechanism for evolution. The idea of evolution has been around since the Arab Golden Age. People like Ibn Khaldun in his Introduction and Ibn Sina were the first to talk about evolution, although they couldn't get far with explaining its mechanism. In fact, Darwin's contemporary, Sir William Draper, called it the Mohammedan Theory of Evolution. Google that term anywhere on the internet and you'll find loads of entries on it.
The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to publish detailed speculations about natural history, the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz, wrote in the 9th century. In the Book of Animals, he considered the effects of the environment on an animal's chances for survival, and described the struggle for existence. Al-Jahiz also wrote descriptions of food chains. Al-Jahiz speculated on the influence of the environment on animals and considered the effects of the environment on the likelihood of an animal to survive. For example, Al-Jahiz's wrote in his Book of Animals: "All animals, in short, can not exist without food, neither can the hunting animal escape being hunted in his turn. Every weak animal devours those weaker than itself. Strong animals cannot escape being devoured by other animals stronger than they".

Some of Ibn Khaldun's thoughts, according to some commentators, anticipate the biological theory of evolution. In 1377 Ibn Khaldun wrote the Muqaddimah in which he asserted that humans developed from "the world of the monkeys", in a process by which "species become more numerous" In chapter 1 he writes: "This world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless."


These statements from wikipedia talk predominantly about the ascendancy or decline of various existing species. The last statement is speculative and does not reflect Islamic thought but merely speculations of a single Muslim.

Wrong. Evolution makes predictions which should be met in order to strengthen its authenticity. Unsurprisingly, every single prediction made by evolution has been confirmed. Falsifying evolution is easy. You just need a pre-Cambrian fossil mammal and the whole of evolution will collapse. That's just one example.
What predictions have been met? I am unaware of any. I don't necessarily believe that all existing and extinct species were created instantly and were coexistent.
Wrong again. Evolution can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect, and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that our origins began by other means. Replication does not mean a phenomenon has to be replicated, otherwise we would have very few theories in science, it means that the experiments, calculations and some observations that make up the evidence for evolution have to be able to be replicated. So the theory can indeed be tested. Evolution fits the scientific method perfectly, unless you have a different idea on how the scientific method works.
Scientific method: 1) Question, 2) Hypothesis, 3) Prediction, 4) Testing, 5) Data, 6) Conclusion. What prediction has a scientist made and what tests did he conduct to collect data that supported his conclusion that proved the plausibility of ToE?
I've already shown you how. If that doesn't make sense to you, then look it up further. If that also doesn't make sense to you, then the problem is with you, not science.
No, your statements did not support a gradual increase in fitness of individuals that sequentially acquired the steps of meiosis and they were not satisfying to me. I don't have a problem with science, but I have a problem with fanciful claims without evidence to support them.
Wrong and wrong. Look up people like Professor Kenneth Miller and Professor Francisco Ayala along with many others who believe in God AND accept evolution. Even William Craig, a famous advocate for the existence of God, says that there is no problem with the belief in evolution and God. As for children, I've already explained this above. I hold great respect for you Mr Mustafa, don't make that change by saying such ridiculous statements.
Perhaps we have a differnet view on evolution. I personally don't have a problem with the gradual development of species over time, but I don't see how the process would have occured without Allah directing and controlling the process. I have used an example of 3 rectangular bricks on a beach stacked one on top of the other vertically. In my mind, it is an impossibility that the waves crashing against them and moving sand around would ever result in the bricks being stacked as I found them. My immediate conclusion would be that someone walked on the beach ahead of me and stacked the bricks. The waves must have washed his tracks away. ToE is akin to trying to come up with a theory for how the bricks became stacked by natural processes. I realize that I was once a fertilized egg and that I developed gradually (evolved?) within my mothers womb into an immature human. During that process I resembled the same stage as many different species and could barely be distinguished from them; however, they began as a different fertilized egg with distinctly different potentialities. I could see an analogy with the development of species in a manner that only Allah knows, or perhaps He created them instantly at different times in history.
Reply

Insaanah
10-30-2011, 07:26 PM
An atheist will only accept what they can understand or what scienctific discoveries by other humans tell them. They are restricted to the confines of "scientific evidence", and thus rely on other humans, who have the same human limitations and failings as them, to shape their view of the world and it's origins. Muslims aren't confined to such limits. We have the capacity to think outside the box, and do indeed use our God-given capacities to think and contemplate. If, an atheist will only use "scientific evidence", and from that, come to the conclusion that there is no God, and that things came into being themselves, that is their choice.

Many people have answered the OP's questions, but instead of saying, "Ok, I know understand how you believe God fits in", his answers to everything, are "No, you're wrong". That's not the sign of someone genuinely interested in the other's answers.

We do not use scientific discoveries by humans, but the God-given and God-created evidence, that requires no scientific papers, nor human interpretation, and is available to all, young and old, educated and uneducated, in the world all around us.

Thus we will never agree on the evidence required, thus this thread is pointless, the title itself being a loaded question, as God does not fit in, but all else fits around Him, Glorified and Exalted be He.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
10-30-2011, 07:30 PM
Again, from your post it shows clearly so that you've not read the Qur'aan with an open mind!

If religion, Islam in our case promoted terrorism, killings of civilians i.e. london bombings, and others..I would not be accepting Islam. Statements like yours are not wise enough to conclude anything, 1. because your speaking without knowledge, proving that you have no idea of the Islamic faith, its beliefs, its principles, equalling to argument with false accusations.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
OK no problem. Nonetheless, it was Muslim fanatics who terrorised the world in incidents like in the year 2005 only:
United Kingdom, July 7: London bombings – Suicide bombers attack one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 52 people and injuring over 700.
Israel, July 12: Islamic Jihad takes responsibility for a suicide bombing in Netanya, which kills five people at a shopping mall.
Egypt, July 23: Sharm el-Sheikh bombings – Car bombs explode at tourist sites in Sharm el-Sheikh, killing at least 88 and wounding more than 100.
Jewish terrorism: Israel, August 4: Jewish settler in an IDF uniform opens fire on a bus in Shfaram, killing four Israeli Arabs and wounding five.
Jordan, November 9: Three explosions at hotels in Amman, leave at least 60 dead and 120 wounded.
And I could go on forever. I don't think you'd argue with me that the main reason for these terrorist attacks are religious indoctrination. It doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not, it IS religious.
The main reason for these terrorist attacks are that they are foolish individuals similar to those who have no knowledge about what they are speaking about and practice and preach it unto others. It is falsely practised.

Okay, I am a muslim and I do condemn these terrorist attacks, firstly because Islam does not teach the killings of innocents nor does it praise anyone who takes part in such events, so i do not praise those who took part in any of attacks listed in your post, nor does anyone here. now if Islam taught this (which it certainly does not) I would simply not be a muslim.

I feel that there is no point discussing with this member, he has clearly no knowledge in regards to what's he is speaking about when it comes to Islam. And I believe the thread has fulfilled its purpose, as members have answered his question.

Coming back to original post as that seems to be the main question.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Hello everyone.
Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. The evolution of life and its origin, the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be, why storms happen, what causes illness, where life came from, how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this.
Nothing here to disagree upon, yes science has proven many of this which you stated. Indeed you could go on forever.

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?
Thanks.
Your answer is all that which you stated is God's work. now the choice is yours to accept or reject!

format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
EDIT: and what do you think of the view that says God initiated the first cause (if there's any) and then let everything else form spontaneously and naturally through the laws of the universe?
I believe this has been answered by various members, either there shall be agreements or disagreement upon disagreements! now the topic seems to have gotten too deep, though the question has been answered. I believe I have personally answered to the best I can and will continue to do so, but its pretty clear that there will be no agreements.

@IsamBitar' : To me it is clear from your posts that you will never agree on what any member on board has stated, and I believe it is the same with the members. So my sincere request is that if you have sincerely read the Qur'aan and studied it and then you would be fully aware of the beliefs of 'muslims' or atleast the islamic faith as you stated you know about our beliefs, but i do not believe that you fully do so i request you to study the Qur'aan with an open mind and heart.

@mods..is this even allowed? a topic going on so long, and the members have answered him. An answer is an answer, weather one agree's or not. There seems to be no benefit in a topic that goes on forever having just disagreements. I believe there is some amount of tolerance, the members have answered, the rest is up to him to be given a choice to study Islam or to continue to believe in beliefs he has.

So IsamBitar...I invite you to study Islam or you are free to believe what you believe.
Reply

AabiruSabeel
10-30-2011, 07:44 PM
With the above two posts, this thread can be declared closed.

:threadclo
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!