PDA

View Full Version : Atheism



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-18-2005, 01:54 AM
:sl:
Is there evidence to support the existence of a Creator?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
*s*
01-18-2005, 11:53 AM
:sl:

Well of course there is evidence - his signs are everywhere, for all to see. Without Allah our creator there would be nothing.
Reply

Khattab
01-18-2005, 02:56 PM
Of course like *s* says we see it in Allah's signs or is it all one big coincidence that the sun and the moon if they where just a few centimetres out there would be no chance of life, the way everything comes from the earth, the shelter, food, clothes etc. Stone and rocks to help build our houses, food of all sorts that all give pleasure when tasted, fruit the way they are perfectly protected in shells or skin, spices and herbs of all sorts, milk from the cow for us and for its siblings, as well as its meat for eating like many other animals, the human (women) even have breast milk for there baby, the way there are cures for mankind from all kinds of illness from plants, honey etc "Verily In This Is A Sign!". Our clothes made from wool, silk etc. The way there is enough time in the day to do ones work without pushing to hard and enough hours at night to sleep, there isnt light fo say 30 hours and dark for 30 hours it all follows a fixed rotation, the way the earth is held up and spins to sustain life. The beautiful landscapes with flowing rivers and kinds of flowers. The way where no one looks exactly the same even identical twins have slight diffrences from each other, the way all our fingertips are diffrent so to identify who is who (ie police take finger prints of criminals).

The athiest says its all one big coincidence, but for all if you reflect you will see it yourself the majesty of Allah (SWT)!
Reply

root
01-19-2005, 03:11 PM
It's always nice to know that you know so much about atheism!!

is it all one big coincidence that the sun and the moon if they where just a few centimetres out there would be no chance of life,
This is simply wrong, non-facto

The athiest says its all one big coincidence
No we don't

Without Allah our creator there would be nothing.
You cannot prove this.
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
Rehmat
01-19-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by root
.....You cannot prove this.
Hmmmmmm!

That reminds me this story:

Isaac Newton, had invited a scientist-friend of his, a man who professed atheism to dine with him. Seeking to corner his friend with his own arguments, Newton placed a model of the solar system on his table and invited his friend to view it. Upon examining it, Newton’s friend exclaimed, “what a marvellous craftsmanship!” Who fashioned this exquisite model?” Newton replied casually, “This model has no maker, it materialised from nothing.” Disbelief written large on his face, the friend asked, “What do you mean?” To this, Newton smiled and replied, “How can you my friend, insist that this model has to have a maker, while vehemently denying the existence of a divine Creator?”

Moral: If a model of the solar system must have a creator then what about the gigantic solar system itself? Let us worship that Creator who has created you and me.
Reply

Genius
01-19-2005, 05:21 PM
There is no evidence of God, yet there is no evidence that he doesn't exist, so scientifically its impossible to determine whether he exists or not.

Our belief in God, stems from articles of faith. Some may read the Quran and be convinced of the existence of Allah, others may study the attributes of the Prophet and be convinced of the existence of God, others may have a spiritual experience etc etc.

Atheists don't believe in God because they only believe in stuff that has been proven in the context of Scientific principle's, A true Muslim, Jew, christian believes in God because he/she believes that God is above all scientific principles.

Theres no point in athiests trying to prove there is no God scientifically, because Scientifically speaking what remains unproven is a possibility, until Science has proven that there is no God athiest thinking remains a theory.

Muslims should not use Science as a means to prove the existense of God either, cos that is impossible, no one can say the 'moon works perfectly so that proves there is a god' cos that is just an assumption. Science should only be used to understand God's creation rather than understanding god himself.
Reply

Khattab
01-19-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by root
It's always nice to know that you know so much about atheism!!



This is simply wrong, non-facto



No we don't



You cannot prove this.
Please enlighten me to your beliefs then and how all these things came about, thanks.
Reply

Rehmat
01-19-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by Genius
...Muslims should not use Science as a means to prove the existense of God either, cos that is impossible, no one can say the 'moon works perfectly so that proves there is a god' cos that is just an assumption. Science should only be used to understand God's creation rather than understanding god himself.
That's funny!

Dr. Keith Moore, Professor of Anatomy and Chairman of the Department, Faculty of Medicine, at the University of Toronto, 1982 staes that "the study of how the human embryo develops in the mother’s womb could not progress significantly without the use of microscopes. Microscopes were not invented until the 17th century CE, and were not used in this field of study until the 18th century. Therefore, when I studied certain statements in the Qur’an on this subject, I was amazed at the scientific accuracy of these statements which were made in the 7th century CE."

Professor Moore was refering to Qur'anic verse 39:6, which states that Allah made us in the wombs of our mothers in stages.

The realization that the embryo develops in stages in the uterus was not discussed or illustrated until the 15th century CE. The staging of human embryos was not proposed until the 1940’s, and the stages used nowadays were not adopted worldwide until a few years ago.

So, how did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) knew this scientic discovery 1400 years ago? Even if one FOOL himself that the Prophet (pbuh) was a "Rocket scientist" :thumbs_up
Reply

kadafi
01-19-2005, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Genius
Muslims should not use Science as a means to prove the existense of God either, cos that is impossible, no one can say the 'moon works perfectly so that proves there is a god' cos that is just an assumption. Science should only be used to understand God's creation rather than understanding god himself.
:sl: bro,

I disagree with that statement. As you noted in your post; science should be used to understand God's creation rather dan understand God himself. If a individual proclaims that the Moon is at the right size, and thus God exist. Then he/she is using the Creation of God and the laws to identify the existence of God. This doesn't indicate that he/she is tryin' to
understand God but to understand His Creation. Understandin' God is simply absurd since we humans only possess finite comprehension. We can only grasp what He revealed to us which is the Glorious Qur'an.

So by understandin' His Creation, you will automatically acknowledge his Existence. Allah SWT did not create the universe without a purpose.

"Not without purpose did We create heaven and earth and all between! that were the thought of Unbelievers!" (38: 27)

"(God) is the One who spread out the earth and set therein mountains standing firm and rivers. For every fruit He placed two of a pair. He covers the day with the night. Verily in this there are Signs for people who reflect." (13:3)

Wa'salaam
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-20-2005, 08:46 PM
:sl:
Interesting...

The classic argument for the existence of God is Intelligent design argument. that is, that the universe has been created in so much detail and complexity that could not be possible without a creator. Atheists however do not find this very convincing.

Concening science...

Has anyone heard of the notion of a massless lightcone being in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanincs? Is this not similar to the religious notion of God?
Reply

root
01-21-2005, 02:26 PM
the theory of Intelligent design has a slight arrogance about it though. I have two points on this in that firstly, your proof for intelligent design is that you exist?

Secondly, The Earth "Evolved" so at what point do you believe in intelligent design since our planet does not show intelligent design but a mathmatical probabiltity.

Thirdly, if the Qur'an accepts that their probably is other life out their and they proportion this to a "Bridging" of creation (stages). How did the intelligent designed man suddenly appear on the planet. Science can prove that life can be brought to this planet, but Islamic creationists cannot even begin to understand how Adam & Eve got here, the paradox of bridging is something I don't understand and indeed struggle with. Also, we are homosapian and different from neandothol since we know that neandothol man was not homosapian who came first in your eyes, neandothol's or homosapians?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-28-2005, 11:07 PM
Originally Posted by root
I have two points on this in that firstly, your proof for intelligent design is that you exist?
Not only us, but the complexity we find in ever system in the universe is a testmony to the power of the Creator.

Secondly, The Earth "Evolved" so at what point do you believe in intelligent design since our planet does not show intelligent design but a mathmatical probabiltity.
Not sure what you mean here. Intelligent design existed since the start of the iunivers. Down to the chemical reactions with atoms, we find amazing complexity. The study of Quantum Mechanics is a testimony to that. A very interesting field of science, speaking of which, no one has responded about the massless light cone being - God.

Science can prove that life can be brought to this planet, but Islamic creationists cannot even begin to understand how Adam & Eve got here, the paradox of bridging is something I don't understand and indeed struggle with.
Do you mean when did God place Adam and Eve on Earth? It could have been anytime in Earth's history. And there are different theories, some from the Muslim creationists, and others from the Muslim evoloutinists.

Also, we are homosapian and different from neandothol since we know that neandothol man was not homosapian who came first in your eyes, neandothol's or homosapians?
If you would like a creationist response, see:
http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_06.html

Salaam
Reply

Sahabiyaat
02-09-2005, 11:36 AM
in my opinion....this may not be relevant to wat u brothers r talking about but i wud just like to say.. its intresting to see scientists....who discover amazing and accurate things...cuming up with a theory such as the big bang...lol its till makes me laugh.

"The classic argument for the existence of God is Intelligent design argument. that is, that the universe has been created in so much detail and complexity that could not be possible without a creator"

the above statment is ideal in opposition to the big bang theroy....the complete order of the universe,the mechanisms of the human eye..the entire ordered functions of our existing world..r far too complex...to begin from a clash of atoms.however the correct clash of atoms..ordered by a creator...thats a different matter.....and where did those very atoms come from root ?...


root is an atheist ?
Reply

Uthman
02-09-2005, 06:07 PM
:sl:

Sister the Qur'an does support the big bang theory or perhaps I misunderstood your post:confused:

By the way, Root has left the forum. That was rather unfortunate as he/she/it didn't have the chance to learn much,
Reply

Uthman
02-10-2005, 10:21 PM
Have you giys ever heard of the teleological and cosmological argument in favour of the existence of God? If not then Inshallah I'll explain :)
Reply

Uthman
02-10-2005, 10:44 PM
:sl:

I'll present the philosophical arguments anyway inshallah.
The Cosmological argument gives the idea of 'cause and effect'. It states that everything that exists has a cause for its existence and then applies this logic to the universe:

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.

Like most of the purported proofs of the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms. Two forms of the argument will be discussed here: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal “argument from contingency”.

The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument. In order to explain what this objection is, and how the two arguments evade it, a simple, generic statement of the cosmological argument will be necessary. This statement is as follows:

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

This argument is subject to a simple objection, which arises in the form of the question “Does God have a cause of his existence?”

If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn’t get us anywhere. Without God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would raise as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us.

If, on the other hand, God were thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God were thought to be an uncaused being, then this too would raise difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise (1). If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the simple cosmological argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument might be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. The existence of an uncaused God would thus render the simple cosmological argument unsound, and so useless as a proof of the existence of God.

Each of the two forms of cosmological argument discussed here is more sophisticated than the simple cosmological argument presented above. Each of the two cosmological arguments discussed here draws a distinction between the type of entity that the universe is and the type of entity that God is, and in doing so gives a reason why the existence of the universe stands in a need of an explanation while the existence of God does not. Each therefore evades the objection outlined above.

In the case of the kalam cosmological argument, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time. Everything that has a beginning in time, the kalam cosmological argument claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.

In the case of the argument from contingency, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e. that the universe could have not existed. Everything that exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not contingent but rather is necessary, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.

Each of these two forms of the cosmological argument, then, evades the objection introduced above in a distinct way. The two arguments are therefore distinct, and so warrant individual assessments.
:)

The teleological argument is often known as the argument from design:


The Teleological Argument

Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. Their name is derived from the Greek word, “telos”, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance.

The classical statement of the teleological argument is that of William Paley. Paley likened the universe to a watch, with many ordered parts working in harmony to further some purpose. The argument as he constructed it is thus an argument from analogy.

Modern teleological arguments look somewhat different to that constructed by Paley. Modern teleological arguments focus on the “fine-tuning” in the universe. Whether they are successful is therefore a question distinct from the question as to whether Paley’s argument is successful. The two types of teleological argument therefore require investigation separately.

Although teleological arguments are often referred to as “arguments from design”, those who oppose such arguments sometimes take offence at this. Noted sceptic Anthony Flew, in particular, has criticised this name.

Flew grants that if the universe contains design then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it. This appears to be a simple linguistic truth, on a par with the truth that if something is being carried then there must be something else that is carrying it.

What Flew disputes, and what he takes to be the centre of the discussion concerning the teleological argument, is whether the universe does indeed contain design. Paley’s watch analogy, and the evidence of fine-tuning, are not intended to demonstrate that the design in the universe is the work of an intelligent agent, but rather are intended to demonstrate that the order in the universe is indeed design. Flew therefore suggests that we speak not of “arguments from design” but of “arguments to design”.
:)


Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-11-2005, 03:17 AM
Thanks Osman! Where did you get those from?
Reply

Chuck
02-11-2005, 04:22 AM
Here is an interesting view, and I don't believe that it will convert an atheist, and I don't intend to make anyone believe in God through this article, but I believe that the article provides good insight into this topic:

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification,” based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by the writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?”

The video draws from a discussion last May in New York organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/
Reply

Uthman
02-11-2005, 06:04 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Thanks Osman! Where did you get those from?
I got them from here. :) It's got some arguments for the existence of God as well as atheism. ;););)

Chuck,

Welcome! You're here! Yay! That was an interesting view. ;) Islam and science go hand-in-hand as has been discovered. Yet some still refuse to believe. I don't think it was about Islam but one day I reckon science will prove the existence of God. :beard:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-11-2005, 08:42 PM
Thanks Ozzy! Welcome Br. Chuck! Spread your knowledge! Masha'Allah.
Reply

Grunto
02-12-2005, 05:32 AM
i have sum thungs to say..little busy now...but i will share my views later


im atheist for the record ;)
Reply

Uthman
02-12-2005, 11:54 AM
Welcome Grunto! Look forward to hearing/seeing your views later! ;) Br. Ansar did I mention that site has atheistic arguments as well? :)
Reply

Sahabiyaat
02-12-2005, 09:37 PM
:sl:

welcum brothers grunto (....grunto ??? :confused: ) and chuck

have a nice stay

:w:
Reply

Chuck
02-14-2005, 10:29 AM
Thanks for the welcome brothers and sisters.
Reply

root
02-26-2005, 09:43 PM
I fear your concerns of possible conversion of Atheists due to your posts is a little misplaced
Reply

Chuck
02-27-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by root
I fear your concerns of possible conversion of Atheists due to your posts is a little misplaced
Is that directed towards me?
Reply

root
02-27-2005, 04:34 PM
Hi Chuck,

No, it's not intended for you. It's a general comment on how blatantly members post issues concerning atheism and their display of complete arrogance to an atheists point. I will give you an example:

I had a real good luagh at the concept that if the Moon was a "cm" closer or further from the Earth then life could not exist and thus we must have been created. Interesting for at least 2 seconds. I just fail to see how the Moon has any relevence to creationist\evolutionist theory.
Reply

Genius
02-27-2005, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by root
Hi Chuck,

No, it's not intended for you. It's a general comment on how blatantly members post issues concerning atheism and their display of complete arrogance to an atheists point. I will give you an example:

I had a real good luagh at the concept that if the Moon was a "cm" closer or further from the Earth then life could not exist and thus we must have been created. Interesting for at least 2 seconds. I just fail to see how the Moon has any relevence to creationist\evolutionist theory.
I don't really understand why some muslims are such ardent creationists, creationism is a Christian concept and an evangelical one at that, there is nothing in the quran that says natural selction doesn't occur, the only thing in the quran that goes against evolution is the creation of the human, whom Muslim's believe to be a specially designed superior creature.

Originally Posted by root
I had a real good luagh at the concept that if the Moon was a "cm" closer or further from the Earth then life could not exist and thus we must have been created..
#

Who on this site has said anything like this, please can you provide a link i want to laugh aswell.
Reply

root
02-27-2005, 06:18 PM
Of course like *s* says we see it in Allah's signs or is it all one big coincidence that the sun and the moon if they where just a few centimetres out there would be no chance of life
And it's actually quite false.
Reply

Genius
02-27-2005, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by root
And it's actually quite false.
What's false? Anyway thanks for showing me the quote, i think i should inform my brothers and sisters that the sun actually moves at a speed of 130 miles per second so to say that if it was 1 cm out of place life would not exist if a statement void of any truth.
Reply

root
02-27-2005, 08:26 PM
Our local star travelling at 130 MPS is close enough for me, the actual average figure is 140 MPS with the earth averaging 150 MPS.

In reference to the earth's relative position from the sun, and the degree of accuracy required for life as we know it within a band to replicate earth's tempuratuer is actually around 120 miles nearer or further from the sun (I don't know the true figure), but note i say "life as we know it"
Reply

sonofadam
02-28-2005, 02:23 AM
From the Rational Proofs for the Existence of a Single Unlimited Creator of the Universe
Reply

root
02-28-2005, 11:16 AM
The advanced universe must emanate from that which is more advanced than all of it and not that which is lesser than it as some claim. They claim that the universe was the result of an explosion and that this explosion resulted in order complexity and advancement, this is false because it considers the means of change and not the ultimate cause behind and before the sequence of events which must have designed the necessary conditions and planned the sequence of events.
What was your point to the link? I failed to see it. If it is the age old question about complexity within the universe, and that "Chaos" has no natural order so assume the order was "Created". That is as bad as the fire cracking beatle and has no basis to it.
Reply

sonofadam
02-28-2005, 05:34 PM
If you think that the universe is void of any complexity and therefore design maybe you should get in contact some of todays scientists who admit to this fact despite their atheistic background, and enlighten them with your discoveries.
Here's a few of todays renowned scientists referring to the Big Bang Theory and design in the universe

The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:

Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude
Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, p. 184

Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:

If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.
Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technics ) 201, p. 16

Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125


Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:

It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.
Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 189


The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:

If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 12-13


Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:

Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.
Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Foreword

Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 122-23

I could go on...but if you want to enlighten us with something more than these scientists please do so....
Reply

kadafi
02-28-2005, 05:36 PM
Originally Posted by root
And it's actually quite false.
Actually, a few cms is quite far-stretched(perhaps the poster meant in ratios). However, it's correct. The sun is 93 million miles away. If the earth was close to or farther away from the sun compared with the present location then life would not exist. But then one should measure the exact miles needed.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-28-2005, 08:38 PM
Obviously, Amir did not mean it literally. He was saying what Br. Kadafi has just explained.
Reply

root
03-01-2005, 11:23 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Actually, a few cms is quite far-stretched(perhaps the poster meant in ratios). However, it's correct. The sun is 93 million miles away. If the earth was close to or farther away from the sun compared with the present location then life would not exist. But then one should measure the exact miles needed.
Theory of creationism - We exist, so it implies we were created?

Theory of intelligent desig universe - Our planet is precisely (though this is not true) positioned in order for life to exist, so it implies it was created?

We know that during the formation of a solar system, Lighter gasses are pushed to the outer ring whilst heavier matter remains closer to the star that created the light & dense matter. Hence solid planetery matter forms closer to the star whilst Gas planets form on the outer. Out of an infinate number of stars which in turn creates an even greater number of infinate planets, The mathmatical probability will favour that many planets will be within the distance required to replicate the tempuratures our earth is exposed to. It's a simple numbers game!
Reply

root
03-01-2005, 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by sonofadam
If you think that the universe is void of any complexity and therefore design maybe you should get in contact some of todays scientists who admit to this fact despite their atheistic background, and enlighten them with your discoveries.
Here's a few of todays renowned scientists referring to the Big Bang Theory and design in the universe

The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:

Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude
Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, p. 184

Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:

If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.
Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technics ) 201, p. 16

Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125


Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:

It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.
Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 189


The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:

If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 12-13


Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:

Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.
Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Foreword

Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 122-23

I could go on...but if you want to enlighten us with something more than these scientists please do so....
Your referencing out of date material, scientific discovery has a faster paced evolution than you have posted. Their is not much point debating this post of yours since it acknowledges that the mathmatical calculations are wrong. But tries to use this to rubbish evolution since if it is wrong, then creationists are right? Which has a slight arrogance about it. Science, as a result of not being able to run a succesful simulation predicted "dark matter" (I mentioned this several months ago), well, since science moves forward quickly not only have they found "dark Matter" but they have found an entire invisible galaxy of it. Those calculations did not include the extreme gravity of "Dark Matter"

Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 February, 2005, 07:15 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4288633.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4161323.stm

(uh hum) I stated in this forum that dark matter existed, yet still required to be proved...... Now proof exist's.......

The reason I like science so much is that it enables us to time travel, to look into a visual past to show things that are invisble - true alchamy.....
Reply

sonofadam
03-01-2005, 08:52 PM
Thanks for posting something which has nothing to do at all with what I posted - and I dont see what dark matter has to do with anything I mentioned - but dark matter is another theory (or is it fantasy) - which I'm sure will also be outdated very soon and dumped or propogated depending on the scientists own materialist bent and outlook to the universe.
Reply

root
03-01-2005, 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by sonofadam
Thanks for posting something which has nothing to do at all with what I posted - and I dont see what dark matter has to do with anything I mentioned - but dark matter is another theory (or is it fantasy) - which I'm sure will also be outdated very soon and dumped or propogated depending on the scientists own materialist bent and outlook to the universe.
If you speak about Gravitational forces & mathmatical calculations including Physics & Chemistry and finally matter within the confindes of a created\evolved universe, you must consider dark matter since it is now a fact and cannot go away. None of your quoted sources were able to apply this to their model.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-01-2005, 09:52 PM
One of the great mysteries facing scientists today are the answers to the two following questions:*
*


1. WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?*
*


2. WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE?*


The answer to the first question is difficult than the answer to the second question. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'an creation of the universe was a greater problem than the creation of man.*


The following verse in the Qur'an alludes to the Big Bang Theory:*
*





DO THEY NOT THE UNBELIEVERS SEE THAT THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WERE JOINED TOGETHER (AS ONE UNIT OF CREATION) BEFORE WE CLOVE THEM ASUNDER? WE MADE FROM WATER EVERY LIVING THING. WILL THEY NOT THEN BELIEVE?*
*





Surah: 21. Al-Anbiyaa, Ayath 30*


The origin of universe has been explained by several cosmological theories. One theory that seems philosophically far more attractive is called the Steady-State model. This theory was proposed in the 1940s by Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle. They stated that the universe has always been just about the same as it is now. As it expands, new matter is continually created to fill up the gaps between the galaxies. *


This theory has been replaced by the "Standard Model" or the "Big Bang" Theory. Using the Doppler effect the astronomers confirmed that the galaxies are moving away and that the universe is expanding. The birth of the universe has been estimated to be between 15 and 30 billion years ago. *
*


The experimental confirmation of the Big Bang Theory came from the detection of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background by a pair of radio astronomers, Arno. A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson. In 1964 they were working in the Bell Telephone Laboratory which had in its possession of an unusual radio antenna on Crawford Hill at Holmdel, New Jersey. By measuring the cosmic microwave radiation background radiation which is the noise left over from the early universe, they calculated the temperature in the universe to be 3.5 degrees Kelvin. *
*


In the beginning there was an explosion. This explosion is not the same as one observes on earth. As a result of this explosion, space and time were born and started to expand to this day, and they will continue to expand in the future. The temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade. It is so hot than none of the components of ordinary matter molecules, or atoms or even the nuclei of atoms, could have held together. In the early universe there was abundance of electrons,


Positrons (anti-electron) and neutrinos, ghostly particles with no mass or electric charge. Finally, the universe was filled with light. Light consists of particles of zero mass and zero electrical charge known as photons. The number and the average energy of the photons was about the same as for electrons, positrons or neutrinos. These particles were continually being created out of pure energy (original source of all matter in the present-day universe-galaxies, nebulae, stars, planets, earth, etc.).*
*


As the time passed and the temperature of the universe cooled, nucleosynthesis took place and hydrogen and helium and other heavy elements were formed. After 3 minutes of the Big Bang, the universe consisted of 73 percent hydrogen and 27 percent helium. The resulting gases under the influence of gravitation ultimately condensed to form the galaxies and stars of the present universe.*


The Big Bang Theory is very close to a comprehensive understanding of Surah 21, Al-Anbiyaa and Ayath 30, which is cited above. In his note # 2690, Allama Yusuf Ali says " The evolution of the ordered worlds as we see them is hinted at. As man's intellectual gaze over the physical world expands, he sees more and more how Unity is the dominating note in Allah's wonderful Universe. Taking the solar system alone, we know that the maximum intensity of sun-spots corresponds with he maximum intensity of magnetic storms on this earth. The universal law of gravitation seems to bind all mass together. Physical facts point to the throwing off of planets from vast quantities of diffused nebular matter, of which the central condensed core is sun." Of course when Allama Yusuf Ali wrote this commentary it was 1935, long before the Big Bang Theory was espoused and long before the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.*


Conclusion: The Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Qur'anic revelation (21:30) and it can be used as a Tafsir in understanding 21:30.*
*


REFERENCE: Weinberg, S.: The First Three Minutes. A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe. Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, NY 1977.
:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-01-2005, 09:57 PM
We know that during the formation of a solar system, Lighter gasses are pushed to the outer ring whilst heavier matter remains closer to the star that created the light & dense matter. Hence solid planetery matter forms closer to the star whilst Gas planets form on the outer. Out of an infinate number of stars which in turn creates an even greater number of infinate planets, The mathmatical probability will favour that many planets will be within the distance required to replicate the tempuratures our earth is exposed to. It's a simple numbers game!
That's baloney. Any astronomy student can see your error. You haven't taken into account the huge variances in characteristics of stars as well as many other factors. The size and type of star, as well as a host of other features has a huge impact on the planet's conditions. The size of the planet, its atmosphere, rotation, magnetic field, not to mention eccentricity of orbit from varying focal radii...there are millions of factors to consider.

it is not a 'simple numbers game'.

And besides, most planets that form in such a manner are gaseous and not terrestrial, which also refutes the argument.

The unique prescence of life on earth has always and still is a major problem for astronomers and scientists.
Reply

root
03-02-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
That's baloney. Any astronomy student can see your error. You haven't taken into account the huge variances in characteristics of stars as well as many other factors. The size and type of star, as well as a host of other features has a huge impact on the planet's conditions. The size of the planet, its atmosphere, rotation, magnetic field, not to mention eccentricity of orbit from varying focal radii...there are millions of factors to consider.

it is not a 'simple numbers game'.

And besides, most planets that form in such a manner are gaseous and not terrestrial, which also refutes the argument.

The unique prescence of life on earth has always and still is a major problem for astronomers and scientists.
I agree with your points, though some of them are irrelevent to my point. Irrespective of anything we know gas planets form on the outer while heavier solid mass planets form inner planets. An infinate number of inner planets are not generally gas planets with the vast majority having a solid mass.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-02-2005, 09:51 PM
That is simply a general rule. We haven't found any terrestrial planets outside our system but we have found hundreds of gaseous planets.

With all the factors to consider, the bottom line is that it is quite obvious that the perfect conditions we see on Earth are not random. They must have been selected.
Reply

root
03-03-2005, 12:05 AM
That is simply a general rule. We haven't found any terrestrial planets outside our system but we have found hundreds of gaseous planets.
Your right with the Gas-bags. We don't actually see the planets we see the "wobbling" of stars, this is caused by a "heavy weight" Gas Bag and it is exactly what we were expecting since the mass of a big gas bag would cause this, their firmiliarity to our biggest gas bag too was what was expected.

With all the factors to consider, the bottom line is that it is quite obvious that the perfect conditions we see on Earth are not random. They must have been selected.
I see it more as life adapted perfection to the conditions of this planet, than the planet being made perfect for life.

regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-03-2005, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by root
Your right with the Gas-bags. We don't actually see the planets we see the "wobbling" of stars, this is caused by a "heavy weight" Gas Bag and it is exactly what we were expecting since the mass of a big gas bag would cause this, their firmiliarity to our biggest gas bag too was what was expected.
That s only one way to detect planets. Astronomers use two other ways as well. You can read about them on NASA's website.


I see it more as life adapted perfection to the conditions of this planet, than the planet being made perfect for life.
That's your opinion, but the unique environment on our planet compared to the rest of the universe is certainly astonishing.
Reply

root
03-03-2005, 12:21 PM
Yes you are correct, their are more ways to search and their are more than three (and i prefer not to reference NASA, but PSI.edu)

1. Radial velocity Searches (Wobble)
2. Astrometric searches (Wobble)
3. High Photometric precision

There are a number of other possible methods. However, they either are not targeted at finding planets around normal stars (pulsar timing) or require expensive space missions to conduct (a nulling interferometer to actually see planets around other stars). Until some of the more exotic methods become more feasible and more generally used. The wobble search yeilds reliable mass data, hence it is the preffered method.

That's your opinion, but the unique environment on our planet compared to the rest of the universe is certainly astonishing.
Pre 1995 creationism also claimed the unique position of our planetary solar system until the discovery of 51 Peg which is suspected as being solid mass and not a Gas-bag, but we still don't know. I think it is not sound theory to compare our little planet earth with the rest of the universe since in reality we have not yet even searched 1% of the visible universe, and the visible universe could turn out to be only 20% of the said universe.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-08-2005, 02:01 AM
Thanks for your post root.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-08-2005, 02:02 AM
Why A Scientist Believes In God



This article of Mr A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the "Reader's Digest" (January 1948); then on recommendation of Professor C. A. Coulson, F. R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the "Reader's Digest" November 1960 - It shows how science compels the scientists to admit to the essential need of a Supreme Creator.

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the 90 years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humanity and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself I count seven reasons for my faith.

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, pulling back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze. Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our season; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere. Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading Intelligence. What life itself is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the element, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations. Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird to sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life. Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a saltless sea could not meet the necessary requirements. Who, then, has put it here?

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river; and travels up the very side of the river into which flows The tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately. Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere - those from Europe across thousands of miles of oceans - all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parent came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds - so that each body of water is always populated with eels. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing iruptilse originate? A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed, to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies way and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of Universal Intelligence.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know - such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultra- microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However; the facts are beyond question. Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small space? Here evolution really begins - at the cell, the entity which holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence - no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry. Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking a defense, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can fmd the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality.

Reference urls are below :

http://www.ummah.com/pillars/viewfpf...=9&fpTopicID=1
Reply

root
03-09-2005, 02:33 PM
First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence.
That is a false statement.

Why A Scientist Believes In God

Because he chooses to freely?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-09-2005, 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by root
That is a false statement.
You're saying so does not bring it into reality.

Try to refute the explanation.

Why A Scientist Believes In God

Because he chooses to freely?
But what leads him/her to that choice?

Let's have a little discussion,root....

First. Do you believe I exist?
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-10-2005, 05:34 AM
For those believe, no evidence disprove a belief in G-d.

For those who do not believe, no evidence can prove G-d's existence.
Reply

root
03-10-2005, 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
For those believe, no evidence disprove a belief in G-d.

For those who do not believe, no evidence can prove G-d's existence.
I totally agree with your point. Otherwise known as a "Stale Mate", I don't have much time for people who commit to stating as a basis of fact one or the other since at this time. The stated fact won't be a fact at all.

First. Do you believe I exist?
Yes, I do beleive you Exist.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-10-2005, 01:22 PM
How do you know I exist?

You have concluded that I exist based on the signs of my existence.

eg. i respond to your points, etc.

But for all you know, I could simply be an automated computer program.

Just as you conclude that I exist based on the evidence and signs of my existence, so do I conclude that an Almighty Creator exists based on the signs and evidence of His existence.

Just as I responsd to your posts, He responds to my prayers. He is with me, always. He loves us.

Alhamdulilah.
Reply

root
03-10-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
How do you know I exist?

You have concluded that I exist based on the signs of my existence.

eg. i respond to your points, etc.

But for all you know, I could simply be an automated computer program.

Just as you conclude that I exist based on the evidence and signs of my existence, so do I conclude that an Almighty Creator exists based on the signs and evidence of His existence.

Just as I responsd to your posts, He responds to my prayers. He is with me, always. He loves us.

Alhamdulilah.
I beleive you exist no more or less than a child thinks "Santa Claus" exists. I don't find the "Their is a god cos you can't prove me wrong" debate a little impossible to say the least. I don't want to prove that to you, I cant anymore than you can prove to me god does exist.

faith & Religion has done a lot of good in the world and a lot of bad. Your God loves you and even answers your preyer, indeed even Unanswered preyers could be the work of "Allah" knowing best. I have no wish to tell anyone that God does not exist and their religous claims are false, who knows you might even be right. But it is a "Might" at best, mutual respect for religion and other peoples religion is important to me too. As an individual I have a right no "Opt Out" of a religous belief.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-10-2005, 10:03 PM
Thanks for your post, Root.
Originally Posted by root
I beleive you exist no more or less than a child thinks "Santa Claus" exists.
Hmmm... not quite. A child thinks Santa Clause exists because they have been made to believe that by their social group, and their mind has not matured enough for independent and rational thinking. I think that would be insulting to you if you say that you believe in my existence in the same way. Evidently, it is because of a rational consideration of the evidence which has lead you to conclude that I exist.

I don't find the "Their is a god cos you can't prove me wrong" debate a little impossible to say the least.
I agree, it can be frustrating. But that's because you can't reach a faith-based conclusion solely through reason. Reason will lead you to the door fo faith, but it will take someone who turn's to God and seeks Him, to be able to enter the door.

faith & Religion has done a lot of good in the world and a lot of bad.
Is it faith that has done bad? or is it its adherents?

For example, if we have an abusive teacher, would we conclude that the education system, or the notion of education has been bad? No. We don't evaluate learning and education based on the teacher.

Your God loves you and even answers your preyer, indeed even Unanswered preyers could be the work of "Allah" knowing best. I have no wish to tell anyone that God does not exist and their religous claims are false, who knows you might even be right. But it is a "Might" at best, mutual respect for religion and other peoples religion is important to me too. As an individual I have a right no "Opt Out" of a religous belief.
Well that's very important. But I would still like to see why you find it so easy to conclude that I exist, but so difficult to conclude that God exists, when the signs of His existence are so much more manifest?
Reply

root
03-11-2005, 01:11 PM
Well that's very important. But I would still like to see why you find it so easy to conclude that I exist, but so difficult to conclude that God exists, when the signs of His existence are so much more manifest?
Hi,

I will break it down into two parts for you....

I would still like to see why you find it so easy to conclude that I exist
I conclude that you exist for I am taking you on "face Value" and trust.

but so difficult to conclude that God exists, when the signs of His existence are so much more manifest
I think religion is far too serious to apply the same conclusion as to your existence than that of God.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 05:11 PM
I conclude that you exist for I am taking you on "face Value" and trust.
That doesn't make sense. If I was an artificial computer program, what would this mean? It's not that you believe I exist because i say I do. A computer program could say that too.
Reply

root
03-12-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
That doesn't make sense. If I was an artificial computer program, what would this mean? It's not that you believe I exist because i say I do. A computer program could say that too.
Your not understanding the basic principle that we all make assumtions. I don't need to satisfy myself as to the fact you exist, or are a computer programme. I am "Reasonably assuming" this. The world does not reasonably assume atheism or indeed any theory of evolution. So why apply the same scientific evidence as to wether or not you exist. I would never get anything done if I applied this in my day to day life!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-12-2005, 11:36 PM
Nevertheless, it is not an issue of trust. It is an issue of discovering the truth and making a conclusion based on the observations.

Many atheists ask me, why doesn't God send us a sign to show us the truth, if He exists.

No answer I could possibly give, would be better than the answer given by the Qur'an....


Surat Ash-Shua'raa

1. Ta. Sin. Mim.

2. These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.

3. It may be thou frettest thy soul with grief, that they do not become Believers.

4. If (such) were Our Will, We could send down to them from the sky a Sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.



5. But there comes not to them a newly-revealed Message from ((Allah)) Most Gracious, but they turn away therefrom.

6. They have indeed rejected (the Message): so they will know soon (enough) the truth of what they mocked at!

7. Do they not look at the earth,- how many noble things of all kinds We have produced therein?



















8. Verily, in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe.




9. And verily, thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful.




Reply

Sephiroth
03-13-2005, 04:42 AM
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. Reason is a -----, the truest enemy of faith."

-Martin Luther
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2005, 04:51 AM
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. Reason is a -----, the truest enemy of faith."

-Martin Luther
Interesting quote, Sephiroth. I'm not sure if I would agree, however. Islam encourages people to use logic and reason to attain a higher level of faith. We need to use reason to verify our faith and ensure that it is logical. Isn't it God who gave humanity the gift of reason?



Holy Qur'an 3:190-191 Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed signs for men of understanding; Men who remember God, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth …
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-13-2005, 05:32 AM
The Rambam (Maimonides, aka Rabbi Moses Ben Maimun) writes (Guide, II) that G-d can not do the paradoxical.

HaShem created Logic and reasoning for our understanding. However, One can be a practicing and a self-fulfilled human being without understanding everything. A lack of understanding is not a justification for a person to reject that whatever happens is the Will of G-d, who is actively managing the world in a way that is consistent with its design as He knows it. His management is in the best long-term interests of its inhabitants, although we may not be able to immediately appreciate it.

Regardless, Judaism encourages study and research.
A person is required to try and understand everything he or she is capable of understanding! This is reflected in our teaching: "It is not upon you to complete the work, yet you are not free to excuse yourself from it" (Ethics Of The Fathers 2:21).
Reply

Sephiroth
03-13-2005, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Interesting quote, Sephiroth. I'm not sure if I would agree, however. Islam encourages people to use logic and reason to attain a higher level of faith. We need to use reason to verify our faith and ensure that it is logical. Isn't it God who gave humanity the gift of reason?



Holy Qur'an 3:190-191 Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed signs for men of understanding; Men who remember God, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth …

I agree that logic can be used to strengthen faith, but I also believe that to become conceited in one's knowledge of the world, to pretend to understand all that God is and all that he has created is hubris and unhealthy for faith (i.e. the assumption made by some logicians that science will eventually explain everything, even God, away to reveal some deeper truth beyond Him). In the original text of that quote, in German, 'reason' appears as "Wissenschaft," the German word for science. At that time in Europe there were great conflicts between religious people and scientists. Some, like Galileo, were believers in God and thought that science would be a way of better understanding God's creation, but others, particularly in Germany, grouped together in cabals where they became virulently anti-religious: the Illuminati for instance. Certainly the behaviour of the Catholic Church (something Martin Luther was endeavouring to change) was the largest contributor to that environment, but the anti-religious climate of the scientific community was also representative of what he encountered in his daily life. Also faith was very important to Luther's interperetation of Christianity. He saw it as the main basis of salvation, and that the bare minimum of what a man needed to find faith lay in scripture. In his 95 theses, Luther resorted to logic to refute Catholic doctrine many times, but I think his basic belief was that faith should supercede science in areas where science might cast doubt, as it appears to do with the preponderance of atheistic scientists.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2005, 02:33 PM
No disagreement there, Sephiroth and SpaceFalcon. :)

Btw, SF was that a quote from the Talmud?
Reply

root
03-13-2005, 05:11 PM
Atheism, does not imply their is no "Creator".

Faith requires no scientific basis. For some, we can read a bible and find all the "Answers". For others this is not acceptable as a reasonable reason as to why we are here, Science does not offer an explanation for everything. It gives us understanding for most things.

Science has no stand point other than factual, and theoretical. For example, in Evolution, science has yet to determine our origin. Faith, gives us an origin in creationistic ways, a purpose for being and a higher purpose beyond our own life. Their is no debate between science and religion, the individual must debate this for himself.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2005, 09:01 PM
:sl:

I feel that Islam has given me the perfect union of Science and Religion, and has opened up so many opportunites by encouraging the use of scientific means to understand the universe we live in. This enables us to increase our certainty in faith.

:w:
Reply

root
03-14-2005, 11:47 AM
Cool,

Then would you like have a stab at the question on how life may have arrived on this planet? Since your answer would be a blend of science & faith?

Regards

Root
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-14-2005, 12:33 PM
See, we can accept something fun like how HaShem is behind the evolution of life.
Reply

Sephiroth
03-14-2005, 12:49 PM
There would be nothing preventing an all-mighty Creator from creating a system like evolution.
Reply

root
03-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I agree...........

I subscribe to "Life" being brought here on the back of meteorites and\or comets, and I am open to a "genetic" material within the life "delivered". It would seem the Quran is open to this suggestion also after acknowledging that life "Probably" exists elsewhere in the universe.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-14-2005, 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by root
Then would you like have a stab at the question on how life may have arrived on this planet? Since your answer would be a blend of science & faith?
I find this article by To. O. Shanavas interesting:

Muslims believe that assigning a role for chance in the creation of the universe and its subunits--animate and inanimate--is anti-Islamic and a denial of God’s absolute control of the universe. Many Muslims, particularly Adnan Oktar, known as Harun Yahya, with the help of Christian creationists lavishly promote this belief through Muslim newspapers and magazines and create skepticism, especially among young Muslims living in the West. These young men and women studying in Western universities get little guidance from Imams at their mosques. Many Imams (in the West and the East) have little knowledge of science and its workings. When asked about the human evolution, they say it is a theory but they cannot render a scientific definition of the word. Imams, in general, are incapable of giving believable answers to our budding anatomists, embryologists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, physicists or chemists in our prestigious universities.


Many Muslim parents living in the West have scientific training, which they use in their daily lives. Unfortunately, they too are poor guides for inquisitive young Muslim minds. They tell their children that scientific theories could be proved wrong at a later time. They ask these intelligent young men and women to listen to their Imams and believe what they say. On the other hand they, not only encourage but also sometimes pressure their children to major in scientific fields. What an amazing contradiction! Encouraging the study of science but rejecting its discoveries!! People like Harun Yahya, using out-of-context quotes from scientific journals mislead Muslims, who are scientifically unschooled, into believing the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of the so-called “scientific” creationism. Furthermore, these Muslim cohorts of fundamentalist Christians lead young Muslims, studying science in American universities, into disbelief because they discover the flaws and half-truths in an imported “scientific” creationism.


Yahya and other anti-evolutionist Muslims reject chance events happening in nature. For them, the universe, with its animate and inanimate matter, is a clock and God is the clockmaker. The clockmaker set the clock in motion and it continues to tick away towards the Day of Judgment. This miraculous clock never slows down, never run fast and never stops. A perfect clock!! If the universe does run like a clock, then future events should be precisely predictable. Our whole lives and futures are predetermined and we have no freedom to actualize any possibility or affect any change in the universe. The universe is a mechanical clock whose function is predetermined in the past and all God does is watch it tick away. What we have is an unemployed god!!


What do we mean by chance? Simple meaning of the word is something that happens unpredictably with out discernible human intention or direction and in dissociation from any observable pattern, causal relation, or natural necessity. The events become unpredictable in two ways. They become unpredictable because we are limited by the lack of detailed and accurate knowledge at the micro-level. In such cases chance means that we are unable to determine all the micro-factors of the initial conditions that determine the macro-events. In another scenario, the observed event is the result of the crossing of two or more independent causal chains and we have no accurate information about the chains themselves or the beginning small events or about their point of intersection. Chance also means possibilities that are not visibly actualized. A universe without chance or possibilities exists only if creatures do not have the potential and freedom to steal or not to steal, believe or not believe in God, etc. In a deterministic chance-absent universe, humans cannot choose freely what they want but are forced to submit to destiny. In a deterministic universe, we can say Wahshi had no choice in killing Hamzah (ra) in the Uhud war because it was meant to be. Hind d. Utba, who paid Washsi to kill Hamzah (ra) and, who then cannibalized him, also had no choice in the matter because it was destined to happen. Muslim world is predestined to be ruled by oppressive regimes and their government sanctioned form of Islam. Chance, for the ordinary Americans including to see or not to see the true face of Islam, is irrelevant to their perception of Muslims at large as terrorists!!! Their perception about Muslims as terrorists is destiny too! In the first case, God becomes the ultimate puppeteer who pulls the strings on puppets such as Wahshi, Hind d. Utba to kill and mutilate one of the great companions of Prophet (pbuh)! In the second case, God is responsible for hiding the true face of Islam from ordinary Americans so that they see us as terrorists!!! [May Allah forgive me for depicting Him as what He is not] In a deterministic chance-absent universe, human choices and actions are useless because, not chance but destiny, transforms them into believers or non-believers! Therefore, those who reject the role of chance also reject free will. Humans, like robots, accept or reject God, not through their free will but, because they are pre-programmed to do so! No! Allah is not a puppeteer. He is the All Compassionate, Merciful and Just God, who presents to us with possibilities that allow us the freedom to choose right from wrong. We choose either kill or not to kill, to know or not to know the true face of Islam etc.


God, the Knower of all being (Al-Alim), knows that free will exists only where authentic choices exist. So, he offers us an open future with chance events and a multitude of possibilities that allow us to exercise our free will; otherwise, why should mankind and other creatures be held accountable for their actions, if they have no control over them?


Those who reject the existence of elements of chance in real life are transforming Allah, the Merciful and the Compassionate, into the tyrant that He is not. In Islamic history we observe Imam al-Hasan al-Basri (b.624) rejecting a deterministic universe. In response to a letter from Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan regarding the doctrine of a predestined universe, he replied: “Commander of the faithful; do not alter it or interpret it falsely. God would not openly prohibit people from something and destine them to do it secretly [emphasis added] as the ignorant and the heedless say. If that were so, He would not have said in the Qur’an, 41:40: Do what you wish. He would have said: Do what I have destined you to do. Nor would He have said in Qur’an, 18:28: Whomever wills shall believe and whoever wills shall disbelieve. He would have said: Whoever I will shall believe and whoever I will shall disbelieve.”


According to Qur’an, the current universe is our testing ground where our choices and actions generate data for presentation on the Day of Judgment. . Allah determines reward or retribution based on the data created by our choices during our life on our current universe. The Qur’an states: [Allah] Who created death and life in order to try you to see who of you are best in deed (Qur’an 67:2)” and “ Or do ye think that you shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you?…(Qur’an 2:214)”. It also reads: “On no soul does God place a burden greater than it can bear. It will receive every good it earned and suffer every ill it earned… (Qur’an 2:286).” Therefore, in the Islamic universe, human beings are free agents, given equal chances and the free will to do moral or immoral acts--equal chances to get to heaven or hell. What humans do matters on the Day of Judgment when God’s absolute justice wills prevails.


The fundamental purpose of the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (pbuh) authentic tradition is to make us aware of heaven and hell and of the moral or immoral decisions that we could take by the use of our free will in an unpredictable world. These sources are also decision- making guides to what actions God allows, prohibits, or considers neutral. He does not, however, determine or preordain individual choices and actions. We are free to choose from contrasting possibilities that are packed as information in each moment of the arriving future. We are free to actualize our choices into visible physical monuments of God’s creation. God holds us accountable if our choices violate the guidance that he revealed to us in the Qur’an. We are not responsible for conditions such as pain and suffering, fairness or unfairness, etc., that are inherent specific properties of each possibilities in the coming future. An analogy will better explain the point: A decides to throw acid on B, an innocent person. A is not accountable for the corrosive properties of the acid but for his decision to throw it to hurt human being. The creation of those characteristic properties of all possibilities including that of acid is in Allah’s domain.


In the predestined universe of anti-evolutionists, our thoughts and resulting deeds are preordained. If so, genuine tests or trials (on earth or Judgment Day) are impossible. An individual whose life is predestined will be arbitrarily rewarded or punished for his choices in the Hereafter Universe (al-Akhirah)! The Day of Judgment becomes a tyrant’s phony court hearing where pre-programmed machines, called humans, who have no control over their actions or decisions, are capriciously judged.


A predetermined universe conflicts with the truth in the Qur’an, the authentic traditions, and Islam in totality. A sound interpretation of Qur’anic truth will show that the acceptance of chance and unpredictability is a first step on the road to God because true believers accept responsibility for their choices in actualizing chances and possibilities that God sends their way. Without such freedom, humans cannot, through their effort and free will, find the Generous (Al-Karim), Merciful (Ar-Rahman) God. Instead, like robots, they are faced with a tyrannical force, which prompts their every move and punish them for what the tyrant programmed them to do.


Anti-evolutionist Muslims acknowledge the truth that Allah used the elements of chance and unpredictability in the historical processes that produced our contemporary nations and ways of life in which happy or horrifying unpredictable events are daily occurrences. If chance exits in the daily affairs of human beings and shapes their histories, how can we reject the role of chance in shaping our biological evolution? The theory of evolution is the history of life. Allah wants us to understand the physical and chemical laws of the universe so we can make rational choices and decisions. However, when He intervenes in our lives, He does not change existing physical laws as that may cause confusion among humans.


How did God design this miraculous universe? What are its mechanics? How does God interfere and answers prayers without violating natural laws? How does He maintain the continuity and directionality in evolution of the universe and life in the presence chance? Inshah, Allah, I hope to explore these questions in my book that is yet to be published.*
And the Origin of Life is discussed by a Muslim scientist here:
http://www.irfi.org/articles/article...in_of_life.htm

Excerpt:
Earlier it was shown that the life began in the primordial soup of Earth's ancient seas is a questionable hypothesis. Yet currently it is the accepted wisdom in science that life began in the primordial soup and was the result of a completely random orchestration of events.* The justification for this view is that given enough time and enough accidental permutations of chemicals in such a primordial broth, it is possible that any complexity might have arisen.* Similarly, like-thinkers pointed out that given enough time, a large work force of monkeys with an equally large number of typewriters could sooner or later come up with all the works of Shakespeare.* Hoyle says this view is realistically impractical.* Mathematician David Osselton points out the basic mathematics behind the notion that given enough time a group of monkeys would eventually manage to type the works of Shakespeare may be simple and sound, but the sheer enormity of such a task makes it meaningless as an explanatory principle.* According to Osselton's calculations* it would take a million million monkeys roughly a million million years to type out only the name of William Shakespeare. And to obtain a paltry two lines from one of Shakespeare's plays would require 10*150 ( 10 to the power of 150 or 1 followed by 150 zeroes) strokes on a simplified fifty-character typewriter, or billions of billions of time more than the number of atoms in the whole universe. Osselton concludes, "The Idea that in the fullness of time random events will ineluctably come up with the right combination is less potent than has been commonly supposed."


*


Hoyle invokes the same argument: It is known that a living cell has a chain of amino acids, of which there are twenty different kinds.* The function of these amino acids is in turn dependent upon 1,000 to 2,000 highly specialized enzymes.* Hoyle postulates that for an enzyme to work by the amino acid chain, assuming its correct configuration in space, at least twenty to thirty key amino acids must be "right."* According to Hoyle's calculations, the probability of a thousand different enzymes coming together in just the right way over the course of Earth's several billion years of history to form one living cell is a staggering 10*40,000*** to 1.


*


Francis Crick, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work on the structure of DNA, likewise concluded, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that* in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."


*


Further, on noting that random processes tend to destroy order, and intelligence shows itself most effectively in arranging things and producing order out of chaos, Hoyle concludes that the complexity of life indicates that the universe itself is intelligent, and that it is this intelligence, or hierarchy of intelligences, that first wrought the order in matter that resulted in living things.


*


Currently, it is known that the evolution of life on Earth is not a gradual process taking place in discrete steps but is most often an abrupt and sudden process, with new designs and advances in organisms appearing quite suddenly, and this is known as "punctuated equilibria."


*


Because of the similarity of processes between the universal intelligence and biological life on Earth, Hoyle concludes that perhaps there is a connecting chain of intelligence, extending downward from the intelligence of the universe as a whole to the intelligence of those hierarchies of software whose activities are indistinguishable from nature "by a series of further links to humans upon the Earth."
Reply

root
03-14-2005, 11:53 PM
hhmmmmm.

Your own words and opinion would have been much better placed.

Earlier it was shown that the life began in the primordial soup of Earth's ancient seas is a questionable hypothesis.
A common misconception

Your "Links" was intersesting since it can imply that life originated somewhere else within the universe. It's a shame you never gave me your own thoughts on the matter without posting. Can I ask though, should a meteorite slam into the Earth and cause a cataclysmic event. Would you, before you die view this as "Judgement day"
Reply

Chuck
03-15-2005, 12:11 AM
Can I ask though, should a meteorite slam into the Earth and cause a cataclysmic event.
Would you, before you die view this as "Judgement day"
It is directed to Ansar, but I'll have a go at it if you don't mind.

Well, if it is a judgment day than everyone will know in any case.

In general sense, no, because it doesn't necessarily mean the end of earth or human race. Even it is if it is not the judgment day it won't be the judgment day... it is possible that God won't establish the judgment day until the appointed time.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-15-2005, 12:37 AM
Hi root,
it is possible that God will establish the judgement day through a meteor collision, but a meteor collision does not simply equate judgement day.

My own thoughts on the matter?
I think that some forms of life existed on earth and were created here before human beings came. They may have evolved, but currently I am skeptical of the evoloution of humans. I believe in it as more evidence arises, but until then, i wouldn't attribute evoloution to anything beyond non-human life.

I believe that adam was the first human sent down to earth. I don't believe in the meteor hypothesis.
Reply

Khattab
03-15-2005, 01:23 AM
I think it will be 10 or so years before the whole theory completely collapases, it has already been rocked, evolution does occur though in some animals, and as we know one of Alllah (SWT) names/attributes is "The Evolver"
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-15-2005, 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by Amir
I think it will be 10 or so years before the whole theory completely collapases, it has already been rocked, evolution does occur though in some animals, and as we know one of Alllah (SWT) names/attributes is "The Evolver"
I highly disagree. While I personally think evolution is mostly correct, there are many famous skeptics (read: Hardcore Atheists) who believe in a form of young earth creationism!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-15-2005, 01:45 AM
Could you clarify specifically which part of Amir's statement you disagree with?
Reply

sonofadam
03-15-2005, 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by root
I agree...........

I subscribe to "Life" being brought here on the back of meteorites and\or comets, and I am open to a "genetic" material within the life "delivered". It would seem the Quran is open to this suggestion also after acknowledging that life "Probably" exists elsewhere in the universe.
The key to evaluating the "life began in outer space" thesis lies in studying the meteorites that reached the Earth and the clouds of gas and dust existing in space. No evidence has yet been found to support the claim that celestial bodies contained non-earthly creatures that eventually seeded life on Earth. No research that has been carried out so far has revealed any of the complex macromolecules that appear in life forms.

Furthermore, the substances contained in meteorites do not possess a certain kind of asymmetry found in the macromolecules that constitute life. For instance, amino acids, which make up proteins, which are themselves the basic building blocks of life, should theoretically occur as both left- and right-handed forms ("optical isomers") in roughly equal numbers. However, only left-handed amino acids are found in proteins, whereas this asymmetric distribution does not occur among the small organic molecules (the carbon-based molecules found in living things) discovered in meteorites. The latter exist in both left- and right-handed forms.(Massimo Pigliucci, Rationalists of East Tennessee Book Club Discussion, October 1997)

That is by no means the end of the obstacles to the thesis that bodies and substances in outer space gave rise to life on Earth. Those who maintain such an idea need to be able to explain why such a process is not happening now, because the Earth is still being bombarded by meteorites. However, study of these meteorites has not revealed any "seeding" to confirm the thesis in any way.

Another question confronting the defenders of the thesis is this: Even if it is accepted that life was formed by a consciousness in outer space, and that it somehow reached Earth, how did the millions of species on Earth come about? That is a huge dilemma for those who suggest that life began in space.

Alongside all of these obstacles, no trace has been found in the universe of a civilisation or life form that could have started life on Earth. No astronomical observations, which have picked up enormous speed in the last 30 years, have given any indication of the presence of such a civilisation.

The theory that life on Earth was begun by extraterrestrials has no scientific basis to it. No discoveries have been made to confirm or support it. However, when the scientists who put forward the suggestion began to look in that direction, they did so because they perceived one important truth.

The truth in question is that a theory that seeks to explain life on Earth as being the result of chance is no longer tenable. It has been realised that the complexity revealed in the life forms on Earth can only be the product of intelligent design. In fact, the areas of expertise of the scientists who sought the origin of life in outer space give a clue as to their rejection of the logic of the theory of evolution.

One point which needs to be considered is that those scientists who look to outer space to find the origin of life do not actually make any new interpretation of the matter. Scientists such as Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Crick began to consider the possibility that life came from space because they realised that life could not have come about by chance. Since it was impossible for life on Earth to have begun by chance, they had to accept the existence of a source of intelligent design in outer space.

Extracted from 'The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions'.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-15-2005, 03:44 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Could you clarify specifically which part of Amir's statement you disagree with?
If I read his statement right, Amir was saying that YEC (Young Earth Creationist) belief would dissappear in 10 years. If I misread, I apologize.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-15-2005, 03:57 AM
I'm wondering how you got that. He was actually saying the opposite. That the theory of evoloution (of human beings) would collapse in ten years.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-15-2005, 03:58 AM
I think he was saying evolution would collapse within 10 years (yeah right).
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-15-2005, 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
I'm wondering how you got that. He was actually saying the opposite. That the theory of evoloution (of human beings) would collapse in ten years.
OK. Sorry bout that y'all.

I'm inclined to disagree, being that I think evolutionism and creationism are compatible with each other.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-15-2005, 04:22 AM
Yes, that's true. But there are many who feel that evoloution is not very accurate.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-15-2005, 04:33 AM
I can understand that. My POV is that evolution is not heretical, per se, but only if one uses it as a justification of rejection of G-d. (Perhaps this is similar to the discussion about whether or not G-d can be considered to be part of everything?)
Reply

root
03-15-2005, 12:00 PM
The answer for the early hypothosis that life was brought to the planet via comets and meteorites is this?

"Is it possible for simple microbial life" to survive the cold vacuum of space on the back of a meteorite\comet.

Answer: YES

"is it possible for matter to be part of one planet, and after a massive impact be ejected into space"

Answer: YES

Is it possible for microbial life to be ejected with the matter

Answer: YES

Do many people beleive this as a possibility

Answer: No

hhmmm, I wonder why. Though Science is investigating this issue, it is highly probable it has occured since peices of mars can and do end up on the Earth. the earth itself increases it's mass by around 1 Ton per day due to such matter hitting the Earth.
Reply

Chuck
03-15-2005, 08:40 PM
The main question still remains the same, even if life started on other planet, how it got started in the first place.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-16-2005, 12:52 AM
True. So it makes no difference whether it came from here or there, that doesn't explain the origin of life.

And a question I would ask is,

How long can microbial life survive on a meteor and under what conditions?
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-16-2005, 01:11 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
How long can microbial life survive on a meteor and under what conditions?
Yes, we do not know for sure at the present time.

Microbial life has been found on mars, and there is evidence (according to a recent report from NASA scientists) that there may be slightly more complex lifeforms underneath the surface of some areas.
Reply

root
03-16-2005, 08:54 AM
Hi All

How long can microbial life survive on a meteor and under what conditions?
Without limit of time is the probable answer. This is based on the fact that bacteria that is 15km down in the deep perma frost of the coldest regions of the earth, have revived from a deep suspended animation when conditions are favourable. Bactriums have been known to be thousands of years old suddenly spring to life given favourable conditions.

So it makes no difference whether it came from here or there, that doesn't explain the origin of life.
It makes a big massive difference actually. Since contemporary evolutionary theory at present does not account for the evolution of life being far older than planet earth itself, given that the DNA history of our life may well extent further into an unknown time scale and origin.

Microbial life has been found on mars, and there is evidence (according to a recent report from NASA scientists) that there may be slightly more complex lifeforms underneath the surface of some areas.
Actually, this is not correct. I personally beleive that life is abundant within our solar system and will be widespread throughout the universe. I beleive also that Mars does hold life especially now we know that Mars does have liquid water. Unfortunately, at this current time life on Mars is still inconclusive since the "Fossolised Bacteriums" found can be replicated due to the thin layer of gold that is used for the super magnification technique used.
Reply

Chuck
03-16-2005, 11:29 AM
It makes a big massive difference actually. Since contemporary evolutionary theory at present does not account for the evolution of life being far older than planet earth itself, given that the DNA history of our life may well extent further into an unknown time scale and origin.
But it doesn't make a difference for abiogenesis.
Definition
Abiogenesis: the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/abiogenesis.html
Reply

root
03-16-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by Chuck
But it doesn't make a difference for abiogenesis.
"life from inanimate matter: the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials."

I would agree with you, but I am not referencing "nonliving material" I am referencing the movement of life through the violent chaotic universe.
Reply

Chuck
03-16-2005, 04:04 PM
I think we have gotten off topic as it is not in the context of Atheism. I mean if you are saying evolution, or the theory that life originated somewhere else in the universe, supports atheism then imo it will be within the context of the topic.
Reply

root
03-18-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by Chuck
I think we have gotten off topic as it is not in the context of Atheism. I mean if you are saying evolution, or the theory that life originated somewhere else in the universe, supports atheism then imo it will be within the context of the topic.
I like when non atheist's try to dictate the context of "Atheism". Clearly by indicating that the "Theory" of evolution "May" have it's origins beyond our own planet ("And the Quran supports this") is not exactly going off topic.
Reply

root
03-21-2005, 04:58 PM
If you would like a creationist response, see:
http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_06.html
Don't ya just hate such comments, If your going to subscribe to creationism you should at least make yourself firmililar with modern discoveries. let us look at the opening paragraph:

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis ) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races.
Firstly, Neanderthol man walked the earth 250,000 years ago and as recent as 30,000 years ago and have not just been found in Europe but Western Asia too. This site get's off to a very bad factual start.

Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.
Wehey, I agree with this. Since both Neanderthol man & Homo Sapien share a common ancestry with Homo hiedelbergensis. Thier are 7 known species of man "Walking upright & with a frame that supports upright walking".
Reply

kadafi
03-21-2005, 07:17 PM
Originally Posted by root
Firstly, Neanderthol man walked the earth 250,000 years ago and as recent as 30,000 years ago and have not just been found in Europe but Western Asia too. This site get's off to a very bad factual start.
My guess is that the article was written pre-2k. The fact that they inhabitated 250k ago or 150k doesn't matter. What matters is if they're our ancestors as asserted by the Evolutionists.

By the way, the Neanderthals originated from Europe and migrated to the East.
Reply

root
03-22-2005, 10:01 AM
But their not our only known Ancestors, I guess the site is a little out dated since it names only three other known Human ancestors, when it is actually Seven which excludes the ones disputed.

Neandothal and Modern man did exist within the same regions together and other Human species too as to what happened next is a hypothosy between the extinction of one species at the hand of the other or a lack of ability to adapt. We do know the entire human species at that time were taken to the brink of extinction and reduced in numbers to some 2,000. We are all related to this 2000 that were left.

The most recent extinction being the "Hobit" a 3 ft man stranded on flanders.
Reply

Uthman
03-22-2005, 12:42 PM
:sl:

Homo floresiensis? That was a remarkable discovery indeed.

Wow, this topic really has diverted. But it's kinda related and cool. :)

:w:
Reply

root
03-22-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
:sl:

Homo floresiensis? That was a remarkable discovery indeed.

Wow, this topic really has diverted. But it's kinda related and cool. :)

:w:
Your right it is remarkable. Evolutionists have said for years that "small" spaces force nature to evolve small, it has been proven in animals yet the creationists constantly denied it possible for humans until hobbit was discovered (7 of them actually). The discovery of the hobbit showed that just like animals the Human body will evolve by shrinking to adapt to new smaller surroundings, the only species to actually get larger are reptiles and again this was correct on flanders since the komodo Dragon was both the hunter and the hunted of Hobit man. Hobit man went distinct due to a natural disaster from a near by Volcano 13,000 years ago, yet we find that Homo-Erectus was making clothes & jewelry 26,000 years ago showing that they co-existed and that in actual fact multiple species of the Human form were co-existing.
Reply

Uthman
03-22-2005, 03:00 PM
:sl:

Wow! I can learn a lot from you root! It is amazing how these organisms adapt to their surroundings. Speaking of all this adaptation and whatnot, will it still not change your views regarding an intelligent being having created all this?

:)

:w:
Reply

root
03-22-2005, 03:14 PM
I don't discount it. I discount your religous explanation of intelligent design and the theory of God. As for mankind, I don't see a creator for this. I beleive you have a "faith" where I have non.
Reply

Uthman
03-22-2005, 03:36 PM
:sl:

Ok, I think I understand. I really want to research Atheism ( haven't already done so :zip:) It sounds interesting. Have you seen this site?

Our Religious studies teacher is so biased! She so believes in God and everyone knows it!

:w:
Reply

root
03-22-2005, 05:59 PM
Philosphy is something I don't care for much. the problem with dealing with atheists three fold:

1. Atheist's don't really share a common belief other than they do not subscribe to a faith. What one Atheist may beleive another may not, it is wrong to "Pigeon Hole" an atheists belief to that of a Muslim or Christian.

2. Atheists do not subscribe in totality to the "theory of evolution" but do subscribe to the evolved man independent of a "creator"

3. An atheist does accept a notion of "creationism" but does not subscribe to this as "God". The best way I have come to explain what an atheist belief is.........

An Atheist will beleive in anything for he beleives in nothing.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-22-2005, 09:33 PM
An Atheist will beleive in anything for he beleives in nothing.
Theists and Non-Theists are equally capable of changing their beliefs to suit themselves.
Reply

Uthman
03-22-2005, 09:42 PM
:sl:

Thank you very much for your explanations root. :)

But I don't really understand that last statement. :(

Would anyone be a godsend and elaborate? :-[

:w:
Reply

root
03-23-2005, 10:36 AM
Theists and Non-Theists are equally capable of changing their beliefs to suit themselves.
I think this statement is a little bias in the way it has been constructed. "We just don't know" is something that religion never seems to tell me, only atheists state such things. For example, I beleive (and some atheists disagree) that life was brought to this planet via comets and\or meteorites. As to how life came to be is simply still not understood yet for people like me. For you it's easy. Read the Bible and Quran, it tells you.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-23-2005, 12:16 PM
Assuming they read it literally.
Reply

root
03-23-2005, 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
Assuming they read it literally.
"Literally" a bit of a mine field.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-23-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by root
Read the Bible and Quran, it tells you.
It tells us that G-d created life, but it does not tell us how he did so.
Reply

Uthman
03-23-2005, 03:40 PM
:sl:

What do you mean by 'how' he did so yoshiyahu? :)

:w:
Reply

root
03-23-2005, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
It tells us that G-d created life, but it does not tell us how he did so.
It also tells us about Noah's Arc and the great flood, yet their is no proof that it occured. (and scientifically their should be). though it is true that an area near to where it is described did indeed suffer a very large flood which were recorded as "stories" and indeed told about well before either genesis or the bible.

Even the story itself, of which I don't deny as a story suffers a lot of inconcistencies in scientific knowledge when the story is told. Two examples are:

1. In that time they did not realise that trees were in fact living and breathing life forms.

2. Whales breath air too, and would not have survived the great flood along with all the sea life and vegetation found in low grounds, yet they did.

It does not need to be proven really because you can simply claim a "Miracle" event. And thus the debate ends here on a question of "faith", which brings us full circle in that as an Atheist I have no faith in religion nor man's ability to translate original scripture.
Reply

أحمد
03-23-2005, 05:01 PM
:sl:

:D on the topic of how; please refer to Surah al-Anbiyah 21: verses 30, 31 and 32 . . . :p :p :p ;)

:w:
Reply

root
03-23-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:D on the topic of how; please refer to Surah al-Anbiyah 21: verses 30, 31 and 32 . . . :p :p :p ;)

:w:
can you not state it here.
Reply

أحمد
03-23-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally Posted by root
can you not state it here.
:sl:

:omg: Not really, but I can give you the translation (copied from:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...&division=div1 )

"21.30": Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

"21.31": And We have made great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them, and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a right direction.

"21.32": And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn aside from its signs.

:shade: :shade: :shade: :shade: :shade: :shade: :shade: :p ;)

:w:
Reply

TrueMeasure
03-25-2005, 12:32 PM
interesting thread although i havent read all of it... interesting comments from root too... you may have already answered these questions but i would like your thoughts on the following:

how did the universe come into being? what was before it? and what contains it?

how does materialism account for information? for example you can have a book made of paper and written with ink but the words that are written cannot come from a materialistic source, there has to be intelligence..(DNA?)

and finally for now how do you explain the order and complexities in our universe when this clashes with the second law of thermodynamics (i think) where everything is in a state of entropy...

thanks..
Reply

root
03-25-2005, 03:33 PM
how did the universe come into being?
Don't know....... Presently we know their was a "Big Bang" and all visible matter comes from a specific point, which coincidently is where the "echo" of the big bang also eminates from.

what was before it?
Don't know? I settle on "Nothing" for now

[Qoute]and what contains it?[/QUOTE]

Don't know, though the expansion of the universe does seem to have some laws and science using those laws science realised that their model's were incomplete and this lead them to speculate then confirm the existence of "Dark matter".

how does materialism account for information? for example you can have a book made of paper and written with ink but the words that are written cannot come from a materialistic source, there has to be intelligence..(DNA?)
Are you saying DNA is intelligence? I would disagree with this.

and finally for now how do you explain the order and complexities in our universe when this clashes with the second law of thermodynamics (i think) where everything is in a state of entropy...
With the concept of "Time" and basic laws of physics & nature coupled with multiple events and not singular events. A numbers game so to speak.
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-25-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by root



With the concept of "Time" and basic laws of physics & nature coupled with multiple events and not singular events. A numbers game so to speak.
a numbers game :)

well this number game sure has indication of intelligence and of greater power controlling everything, what say you? agree.......
Reply

TrueMeasure
03-26-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by root
Don't know....... Presently we know their was a "Big Bang" and all visible matter comes from a specific point, which coincidently is where the "echo" of the big bang also eminates from.



Don't know? I settle on "Nothing" for now

and what contains it?
Don't know, though the expansion of the universe does seem to have some laws and science using those laws science realised that their model's were incomplete and this lead them to speculate then confirm the existence of "Dark matter".



Are you saying DNA is intelligence? I would disagree with this.



With the concept of "Time" and basic laws of physics & nature coupled with multiple events and not singular events. A numbers game so to speak.
Some very honest answers, i'll commemorate you on that!

There are somethings i believe that science will never be able to explain simply because the explanations transcend the laws of physics and science of this universe. For me this explanation is God. God cannot be proved by any science or mathematical formula because he transcends them as He is the Creator of them but there can still be ample evidence for Him all around to see. If God was a proven fact, then it would not be much use for this 'test' we call life as everybody would go to heaven. It is meant to take an act of faith for one to believe in God.

Everyone has faith in something, even an atheist. Your faith or belief lie in science or that science will provide the answers to everything. But what if it requires more than science to understand this world and our purpose?

Not that i am saying science is 'evil' on the contrary i take all the wonders and discoveries of science as undeniable evidence of God.

For example, DNA. A billion nucleotides in a space of nanometers. Enough information to fill volumes of books. Our best attempts at storing large quantities of information are nowhere near as efficient as this and we are considered as intelligent beings. But more amazing than that is what the information the DNA code for!

GTG soz for the sharp cut off!
Reply

root
03-26-2005, 01:43 PM
well this number game sure has indication of intelligence and of greater power controlling everything, what say you? agree.......
No I would not agree.

If a referee of a football game had a "Yelow Card" (Y) & "Red card" (R). Now if the same referee pulled these cards out repeatedly & completely randomly showing either a red or a yellow, would it be possible for someone to correctly get the correct random sequence of say "YYRYRRYYRYRRRRYRYYYYRRRYY"

Impossible or probable? The choice is yours. To follow the sequence to achieve the first four would only take 16 people. Compare the quantity of 16 with an Infinate number, and then ask how many correct sequences out of a million would it take for one "Lucky" person to correctly match what the referee has randomly chose. For 1 individual could match this random pattern a Million times!!!! (Now that is an impossibility brought about into a fact) others would call it a miracle and some would say "Lucky fella".....

As for the concept of time. We cannot appreciate time outside of our own experiences. Sure we know how long a day is or a week. Year, 10 years. However go any further say 50 years and it is starting to be difficult to appreciate 50 years. Double that to 100 years, and you cannot really appreciate 100 years. 1000 years, again it is beyond our scope and so on and so on. When we start talking Billions of years we do lose the plot. Imagine a solid steel pipe 100 metres long and 12 inch thick. Everyday you wipe it once with a velvet cloth at one end. the time it takes to erode this steel to nothing by simply 1 wipe per day is about the time that the earth has been evolving, This is beyond the concept of human understanding. Another way of putting it is that I live in Scotland. let's say that every step I took represented 1000 years. If I take 1 step away from my front door I am in the year 1000. Another step and I am already at the Birth of Jesus, a third and I am in a time 1,000 years before the birth of christ how far do you think I need to walk to arrive at the beginning of the universe? I would probably need to walk down to just to get to the formation of the Earth leicester to get their. And onto london to get to the beginning of the universe.

You can do the maths if you want, 1 good step by myself will be 100 metres. This is what I mean by Time & numbers.

Everyone has faith in something, even an atheist. Your faith or belief lie in science or that science will provide the answers to everything. But what if it requires more than science to understand this world and our purpose?

Not that i am saying science is 'evil' on the contrary i take all the wonders and discoveries of science as undeniable evidence of God.
I disagree that Atheists have "faith" in science for we do not. The difference is that I don't have faith in science, I have trust in it, because it has demonstrated time and time again that it works. That trust is based on evidence. Faith isn't based on anything, it merely bridges the "gaps". if I drop a stone, I don't require faith to tell me it will fall to the ground.

I have a question. If you were terminally ill, and you faced two options of which you only could choose one over the other. Would you put your "Trust" in Medical Science or preyer.
Reply

TrueMeasure
03-26-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by root
No I would not agree.

If a referee of a football game had a "Yelow Card" (Y) & "Red card" (R). Now if the same referee pulled these cards out repeatedly & completely randomly showing either a red or a yellow, would it be possible for someone to correctly get the correct random sequence of say "YYRYRRYYRYRRRRYRYYYYRRRYY"

Impossible or probable? The choice is yours. To follow the sequence to achieve the first four would only take 16 people. Compare the quantity of 16 with an Infinate number, and then ask how many correct sequences out of a million would it take for one "Lucky" person to correctly match what the referee has randomly chose. For 1 individual could match this random pattern a Million times!!!! (Now that is an impossibility brought about into a fact) others would call it a miracle and some would say "Lucky fella".....

As for the concept of time. We cannot appreciate time outside of our own experiences. Sure we know how long a day is or a week. Year, 10 years. However go any further say 50 years and it is starting to be difficult to appreciate 50 years. Double that to 100 years, and you cannot really appreciate 100 years. 1000 years, again it is beyond our scope and so on and so on. When we start talking Billions of years we do lose the plot. Imagine a solid steel pipe 100 metres long and 12 inch thick. Everyday you wipe it once with a velvet cloth at one end. the time it takes to erode this steel to nothing by simply 1 wipe per day is about the time that the earth has been evolving, This is beyond the concept of human understanding. Another way of putting it is that I live in Scotland. let's say that every step I took represented 1000 years. If I take 1 step away from my front door I am in the year 1000. Another step and I am already at the Birth of Jesus, a third and I am in a time 1,000 years before the birth of christ how far do you think I need to walk to arrive at the beginning of the universe? I would probably need to walk down to just to get to the formation of the Earth leicester to get their. And onto london to get to the beginning of the universe.

You can do the maths if you want, 1 good step by myself will be 100 metres. This is what I mean by Time & numbers.



I disagree that Atheists have "faith" in science for we do not. The difference is that I don't have faith in science, I have trust in it, because it has demonstrated time and time again that it works. That trust is based on evidence. Faith isn't based on anything, it merely bridges the "gaps". if I drop a stone, I don't require faith to tell me it will fall to the ground.

I have a question. If you were terminally ill, and you faced two options of which you only could choose one over the other. Would you put your "Trust" in Medical Science or preyer.
But you do have faith. you have faith that science alone will provide you with all the answers to everything. You must have faith to believe in the theory of evolution otherwise it would be called the law of evolution or the fact of evolution. Everyone has faith. Its just where you decide to put it that matters.

In a world full time and numbers we can believe in anything. For example if a house made of bricks that had windows and a door was found on another planet who is to say that it wasnt the product of time, luck and numbers. Surely given the billions of stars and perhaps billions of planets that circle those stars that have been around for billions of years this is not impossible. Maybe not, but it is astronomically improbable. It is where you decide to draw the line and think about other possibilities such as intelligent design.
A single cell shows much more complexities than a house made of bricks. It has even been likened to a functional city with the nucleus as the centre of intelligence, the mitochondria as the power station, the golgi apparatus as the post officing block etc etc. I cannot for the life of me seriously believe such a complex thing could arise by product of time and chance.

If i told you that a tornado ripped through a junk yard but in its path left a fully constructed boeing 747, you would think i was completely mad. Yet this the same chance for evolution as in the words of a reknowned pro-evolutionist Fred Hoyle:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe. (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, p.19

two more of my favourite examples:

Origin of one biopolymer (protein) by chance
Comparable with the chance that "10 to the 50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube...all simultaneously arriving at the solved form"
"At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the 50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, 19 November 1981, pp.521-527, p.527. Emphasis Hoyle's).


For a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10 to the 130 alternative choices"
"This generalized proposition-that processes of chance and natural law led to living organisms emerging on Earth from the relatively simple organic molecules in 'primordial soups'-is valid only if there is a finite probability of the correct assembly of molecules occurring within the time-scale envisaged. Here there is another great problem. In the above example for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10 to the 130 alternative choices. The operation of pure chance would mean that within a maximum of about 500 million years (or somewhat less), the organic molecules in the 'primordial soup' might have to undergo 10 to the 130 trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence. The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero." (Brooks, Jim [geochemist, former Vice-President, Geological Society]., "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, pp.84-85).


As for your question, that is a simple choice. I was looking for this particular saying of the Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings be upon him) when i came across a paragraph that would adequatly summarise my answer.

One day Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, noticed a Bedouin leaving his camel without tying it. He asked the Bedouin, "Why don't you tie down your camel?" The Bedouin answered, "I put my trust in Allah." The Prophet then said, "Tie your camel first, then put your trust in Allah" (Tirmidhi).

Muslims must never become fatalistic. Although we know only Allah is in control and that He has decreed all things, we are each responsible for making the right choices and doing the right thing in all situations of our lives. We must take action. We must work to alleviate the hardships we, our families and our communities face.

The sea did not part by itself. Moses had to do his part of striking the sea with the staff first before God parted the sea for Moses.
Reply

root
03-26-2005, 08:46 PM
But you do have faith. you have faith that science alone will provide you with all the answers to everything.
Actually not true, I don't have faith in Science. But when I drop a stone I know the stone will go downwards.

the organic molecules in the 'primordial soup' might have to undergo 10 to the 130 trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence.
OK, For the time being. I accept this.

"This generalized proposition-that processes of chance and natural law led to living organisms emerging on Earth from the relatively simple organic molecules in 'primordial soups'-is valid only if there is a finite probability of the correct assembly of molecules occurring within the time-scale envisaged.
So this scientist in "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985," Acknowleges that given the probability of time, even the extreme case is possible. However, not within sufficient time of our planet earth.

Back in 1986, why didn't they build the "Ion propulsion Drive"!!!!!!!!

Why did they not consider that life never originated on this planet, This in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and known facts. But that is all you deserve for quoting out of date material, (be honest with me, how did you find the resources you quoted). or are you obtaining them from "how to debate with an atheist" site. If you are I am so dissapointed, I am not interested in Islam or Evolution. I am interested in what "You" think? I will listen to scientific evidence, when asking myself "Why are we here". which I personally ask not "why are we here" instead "How we came to be".

If I go to a doctor and discover something very wrong, I will listen intently and follow his every instruction for it is based on logic. I would not seek forgiveness. And if I die, then I die and my tiny little spec of time will be no more and I return to where I came from. Star Dust.

If you care to investigate the probability of "how" it is possible for life to be spread around the universe, I think you will find that it is a near fact when compared to the "House made of brick on another planet" hypothisis you quoted. And once more the Quran agrees with me, though does not go as far as I would.

Regards & without prejudice

Root.

And finally.

The sea did not part by itself. Moses had to do his part of striking the sea with the staff first before God parted the sea for Moses.
http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/132.html
Reply

TrueMeasure
03-27-2005, 12:15 PM
i agree with you root. I am not interested in a debate either. they end up being a great waste of time. it is far better to share ideas and opinions and every intelligent human being can make their own conclusions. The prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) task was to convey the message, it was not for him to 'convert' the people, that is in the hand of God.

i found that quote when i was looking for the jumbo jet analogy. i remembered that quote being a useful way to put the chances of the beginning of life into perspective so i quoted it too. it is not really outdated. it still holds true. Also take into account its talking about a single useful small protien molecule. Life requires many protien molecules to exist and replicate. so you have to multiply this astronomically large number by a factor of times to get the true probability for even the meagrest of life form to come into being by chance. I think you will find that the probability of this given the time constraints from even the beginning of the universe is effectively zero.

remember also that for life to form, we would have to come from at least second generation stars from which heavier elements required for life could have been formed. That reduces the time scale available for such improbabilities quite drastically.

I am glad that you are being honest with yourself and have rejected the idea that life could have formed by chance on this planet alone. That is much further than any atheist i've met before is willing to go.


ps do you really believe that theory on the splitting of the sea by aliens or are you having me on? i've read the site and would have investigated further but it seems to have no real credibility. the article itself is written by 'unknown'!
Reply

root
03-27-2005, 06:56 PM
ps do you really believe that theory on the splitting of the sea by aliens or are you having me on? i've read the site and would have investigated further but it seems to have no real credibility. the article itself is written by 'unknown'!
It was to bring some fun into the debate and was entirely false.....

By Unknown - Reformatted by Kidd 11/2000 Some experts have even proclaimed that the bronze machine could not have been produced by the ancient Israelites themselves. They had been wandering in the desert for 40 years and did not possess great scientific knowledge, says Dr. Shaul Kelev.
:)
Reply

TrueMeasure
03-28-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by root
It was to bring some fun into the debate and was entirely false.....



:)
:D .
Reply

root
03-28-2005, 09:20 PM
I am glad that you are being honest with yourself and have rejected the idea that life could have formed by chance on this planet alone.
I have not rejected it. It cannot be rejected as a theory at present, it could still be what your claiming I reject. I merely agree with his point, but disagree that it is absolutely not possible for it is very possible. Though I personally beleive life came from outerspace.

"We think we know it all. We know nothing......"
Reply

sonofadam
03-29-2005, 12:24 AM
'Though I personally beleive life came from outerspace. '

Now thats faith.
Reply

root
03-29-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally Posted by sonofadam
'Though I personally beleive life came from outerspace. '

Now thats faith.
Why do you call that faith?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-29-2005, 09:48 PM
A belief that does not rest on material evidence.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-29-2005, 11:24 PM
i was under the impression that bacteria had been found in comet samples.
Reply

root
03-30-2005, 10:41 AM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
i was under the impression that bacteria had been found in comet samples.
Agreed. Their not just simple lumps of rock.

Did our oceans come from comets?

Reply

TrueMeasure
03-30-2005, 12:09 PM
In reality theories such as the panspermia theory do nothing other than to push the problem back a notch.

They try to explain how life originated on this planet yet do nothing to solve the ultimate origin of life.

Furthermore, they do nothing to help explain the supposed "evolution" of life and its mechanism of "natural selection" and "mutation" with the all important dash of luck.

Evolution is a dying theory. Period. In the face of newer evidences/calculations and discoveries it is rapidly losing its foothold. Scientists refuse to let go of it since as "scientists" they cannot accept the alternative. I wouldnt be surpised at all if evolution was a completely rejected theory in around 10 years time although I have no idea what theory would take its place and be accepted by the "scientific" world.

ps interesting theory about the oceans from comets! did you know that if haleys comet was to hit the earth it would contain enough water in it to form a large lake!
Reply

root
03-30-2005, 12:51 PM
They try to explain how life originated on this planet yet do nothing to solve the ultimate origin of life.
I have scratched my head a little over this one. Nobody (Not even Islam) ultimately know the origins of life at this point. The Quran accepts "as part of the small print" that life beyond this planet is too probable not to be beleived. However, Islam seems to suggest understandably from their point that they would expect this life to be "Non-Intelligent" and a "stepping stone" for God's Adam & Eve. But in what form?

Furthermore, they do nothing to help explain the supposed "evolution" of life and its mechanism of "natural selection" and "mutation" with the all important dash of luck.
Of course it does, since if you take the starting point of life unrestricted to the age of the Earth and more the age of the universe, how can you say that it is not relevent.

Evolution is a dying theory. Period. In the face of newer evidences/calculations and discoveries it is rapidly losing its foothold.
Utter nonsense, Evolution is taught in the Science class. islam is taught in "Religous Education". maybe you should understand better a "theory" from a "hypothosis".

Scientists refuse to let go of it since as "scientists" they cannot accept the alternative.
Rubbish, Science is forced to accept Scientific fact. If you mean that the current "theory of evolution" in it's fullness cannot 100% fully explain everything about how we came to be (which it cannot) does not mean that the Religous explanation must be true, That is a silly notion and bad science.

I wouldnt be surpised at all if evolution was a completely rejected theory in around 10 years
That is a sure fire bet for me to win. And coincidently has been said as far back as I can remember, yet it grows stronger with time not weaker.

time although I have no idea what theory would take its place and be accepted by the "scientific" world.
The truth.............

Theory v Hypothsis

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
Reply

sonofadam
03-30-2005, 03:32 PM
Evolution collapses right at the beginning - the origin of life. The notion that life can be generated from inanimate matter is a joke and not scientific - there are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life - pinocchio and frosty the snowman. Evolution is a theory if not a fantasy and a very fable one at that - its no wonder well known atheist's such as Anthony Flew known for championing the cause of evolution and atheism are dumping their own theories. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.
Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (Richard N. Ostling, "Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator," The Washington Times 10 December 2004; http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3212-2782r.htm )

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (Antony Flew, "Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now; http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, "Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all," The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...400368,00.html)

Maybe you should take some advice from him and comtemplate on the complexity of life and the impossibility and absurdity of evolution.
Reply

root
03-30-2005, 04:57 PM
Evolution collapses right at the beginning
Would not mind knowing how you qualify that statement? If someone leaves Christianity, does this mean christianity is flawed. Funny how as an atheist I have not heard of this person. People leave faiths and people embrace faith, it is all swings and round abouts


Me thinks you don't fully understand the term "theory"..........
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-30-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by root
Would not mind knowing how you qualify that statement? If someone leaves Christianity, does this mean christianity is flawed. Funny how as an atheist I have not heard of this person. People leave faiths and people embrace faith, it is all swings and round abouts


Me thinks you don't fully understand the term "theory"..........
But thats the thing do you have faith in a theory which is through the limited capacity or thought of a fellow human.......

or do you put faith in a system/ideoloy/religion which has a complete way of life not only this but has rules and guidelines which govern humans. It also answers questions about exsistance and has the answers to life. which are not present in the other theories of life/exsistance.
Reply

root
03-30-2005, 08:51 PM
or do you put faith in a system/ideoloy/religion which has a complete way of life not only this but has rules and guidelines which govern humans. It also answers questions about exsistance and has the answers to life. which are not present in the other theories of life/exsistance.
I don't place faith in science, if I drop a stone then it falls to the ground. I know why it does this, That is not faith.

Your moving from theory to hypothosis and introducing faith with the above bolded text.
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-31-2005, 02:00 PM
Originally Posted by root
I don't place faith in science, if I drop a stone then it falls to the ground. I know why it does this, That is not faith.
okay, but the theories on the exsistance of life are theories and not science. As you stated above science does not require you to have faith to accept it.

yet you place faith in theories of exsistance which have no real proof or backing.

*its hard questioning someones belief without trying to attack it (shrug)*
Reply

root
03-31-2005, 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by Brother_Mujahid
okay, but the theories on the exsistance of life are theories and not science. As you stated above science does not require you to have faith to accept it.

yet you place faith in theories of exsistance which have no real proof or backing.

*its hard questioning someones belief without trying to attack it (shrug)*
Brother Mujahid

I think you need to go research what a theory actully is

Regards

Root
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-31-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by root
Brother Mujahid

I think you need to go research what a theory actully is

Regards

Root
googled it........... heres what i got

the·o·ry
n., pl. -ries.
-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Reply

root
03-31-2005, 02:37 PM
-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Correct. A typical example and I use this one only because both me and you posted on it. Science predicted based on it's knowledge of Evolution that "man" would shrink should he need to adapt to smaller surroundings. Then came "Hobit" the 3 ft man to confirm this. Though for years until the Hobit was found on flanders creationists stated science was wrong, and yet Science proved it was very much correct.

The objection here is that some people on this thread actually predict the death of Evolution, which from a "faith" point I can understand since it goes against everything they think they know when in reality it should not change their faith in religion one bit.
Reply

TrueMeasure
04-01-2005, 12:00 PM
Evolution was much easier to support during the time of Darwin when the cell was known only as a very simple structure comprising of little but lumps of lipids and protiens and when it was believed that maggots spontaneously came into being from rotten meat. But given the advances of todays science in all of its diverse areas it is becomming increasingly difficult to accept the theory of evolution. Day by day it is becoming more of a dogma that people refuse to let go off in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it.

Even the evidence you quote of the hobit man is in hot debate and provides no solid evidence of evolution. I am registered with harun yahya and recieve his news letter that aim to dispell all the lies and brainwashing we come across REGULARLY in the media concerning evolution. I will direct you to an article of his clarifying the latest about the hobit man. You should know that his references and scientific evidence rarely come from creationist scientists.

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/7...esiensis_3.php

I believe strongly that evolution will die out eventually from main stream science. It is only a matter of time..
Reply

root
04-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Evolution was much easier to support during the time of Darwin when the cell was known only as a very simple structure comprising of little but lumps of lipids and protiens and when it was believed that maggots spontaneously came into being from rotten meat.
LOL, good one. Like the "Fire-Cracking" beetle was forced onto everyone as a "species" only capable of existence through creation thus evolution was wrong!!!!! Or are you still claiming this a "evidence" of design?

But given the advances of todays science in all of its diverse areas it is becomming increasingly difficult to accept the theory of evolution. Day by day it is becoming more of a dogma that people refuse to let go off in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it.
That is an opinion with a certain biased view. I tend to go with a majority and investigate very carefully minority views such as yours.

Even the evidence you quote of the hobit man is in hot debate and provides no solid evidence of evolution. I am registered with harun yahya and recieve his news letter that aim to dispell all the lies and brainwashing we come across REGULARLY in the media concerning evolution. I will direct you to an article of his clarifying the latest about the hobit man. You should know that his references and scientific evidence rarely come from creationist scientists.
I went to your suggested link...........

The evolutionist claim that Homo floresiensis represents a separate species to modern-day man continues to retreat in the face of increasing objections. The Times Online, the Internet edition of The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers, summarised the latest developments on the subject in these terms:

For a "hot Topic" as you have suggested, your source material was most recently dated at December 2004. Perhaps you should update yourself a little more:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0502...050228-13.html
March 3rd 2005

PS. Quoted from your site:

... Secondary microcephaly has a host of causes, from viral infection during pregnancy to injury or malnutrition shortly after birth. The specimens were found in an cave on an island. Who is to say that the island hadn't been swept by an viral epidemic 18,000 years ago that had caused an outbreak of the condition?
An interesting point. So, these were normal Homo-Sapians who were in the process of migration and caught a brain\bone shrinking disease and died. Or they were pygmies and one of them had the said disease.

No wonder the majority opinion is NOT with your "hypothosis". Faced with the evidence that we already know what caused the "new Species" to become extinct and it was a volcanic disaster which coincidently correctly dates back to the extinction of the hobbit man. Further, the size of tools used by the hobit man were in comparison with their size (i.e small hand tools).

To add insult to injury, the scientists you are quoting in your link actually got the sex wrong!!!

To add insult to injury, Professor Jacob said that the fossil on which the description of Homo floriensis was based was not female, as the Nature paper had claimed, but male.
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
04-01-2005, 01:59 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm just found this article on the bbc.........
Reply

root
04-01-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Brother_Mujahid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm just found this article on the bbc.........
I like that article.

Any philosopher of science will tell you that evolution is theory, not fact, but so is gravity and all other pieces of scientific knowledge. However, gravity being a theory (rather than irrefutable fact) doesn't stop us from putting astronauts on the moon. Creationists should really rethink what science is before criticising it.

When I drop a stone, Science theory tells me it will fall...........!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
04-01-2005, 02:21 PM
so do i.........

Reverend William.......Is evolution incompatible with Christianity? "Yes," he says, "because ultimately evolution simply dismisses God."

Before Darwin, creationism was the widely held view
He feels frustrated that the scientific evidence is not treated more seriously. "So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there."
Reply

root
04-01-2005, 02:42 PM
So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation,
I think this can be quite true and stems from the creationist opinion. "We are here and thus proves we are here by intelligent design"

That statement to support intelligent design is a very arrogant one.
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
04-01-2005, 02:47 PM
you missed the second part of the staement which says
when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there.
Reply

root
04-01-2005, 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by Brother_Mujahid
you missed the second part of the staement which says
It was not relevent to arrogance. But now you have said it even I myself do not rule out "creationism" by Intelligent design. But be wary if you link the existence of god with scientific creationism. For the two are not always related!!! We are in danger of going down the same old boring road as drawing opposite sides. One can beleive in god and the theory of evolution in it's current form?

Some should be less hostile and that way they get more respect. And I don't mean you Brother Mujahid.

Regards

Root
Reply

Uthman
04-01-2005, 04:01 PM
:sl:

Please forgive me for being off-topic but could you please tell me what would an atheist make of these drawings Root? :)


Reply

root
04-01-2005, 04:37 PM
Pleasing to the eye!
Reply

Uthman
04-01-2005, 04:38 PM
:sl:

No, seriously . . . . .

:w:
Reply

root
04-02-2005, 10:14 AM
Seriosly, I really don't make anything of it other than it is an interesting piece of art. Maybe a reflection of the physical self.

What is it suppose to represent?
Reply

Uthman
04-02-2005, 02:05 PM
:sl:

It could either represent the universe coming into existence without a creator or the creator himself coming into existence. I forgot why I asked for your opinion now :-[

Well, it's interesting to say the least. Just thought I'd ask. :)

:w:
Reply

Link
04-02-2005, 04:33 PM
it represents the chicken or the egg question
Reply

root
04-02-2005, 04:51 PM
Oh, that one.

*sigh*
Reply

Uthman
04-02-2005, 05:14 PM
:sl:

Stupid question :mad:

The chicken came first! :mad: Why? Because I said so :mad:

:w:
Reply

root
04-02-2005, 05:25 PM
Well, I would say the "chicken". when you get down to it ultimately where this is where it would lead. However, to this specific species I would say "Neither"

Trying to avoid the "Hypothosy" what came first, cell division or mutation (If any).
Reply

TrueMeasure
04-03-2005, 11:32 AM
Yes i went to your suggested link too. I'll take that as the latest development on the flores fossil but by far not the final. Like i said it is a hotly debated issue and i expect much to be revealed yet... there have been numerous embarrasing blunders by evolutionists in the past that time has uncovered.. i shall wait to see what arises from this yet...

as far as the fire cracking beetle is concerned, this amongst MANY MANY examples provides strong evidence for creation. There are just too many irreducibly complex creatures and systems in which evolution falls flat on its face.
Reply

root
04-03-2005, 12:06 PM
as far as the fire cracking beetle is concerned, this amongst MANY MANY examples provides strong evidence for creation.
Well the example of the firecracking beetle was proven to be every bit as possible under evolution than creationism. Though at first it did appear that evolution could never have evolved such a species as this.
Reply

Genius
04-03-2005, 12:36 PM
Every proven Scientific principle follows a law, what is that law for evolution? Randomness? are all mutations random? Well mutations have to be random they wouldn't be mutations if they had set rules.

Now evolution concerns random mutations which give a selective advanatage, what that doesn't explain is how the structure of a human eye and the structure of an octopus's eye are remarkably simmilar despite their' apparent common ancestor being blind.

Obviously some rule is being followed, the mutations occuring cannot be random since they produce 2 nearly identical organs in 2 very different species. Where does this rule come from? God i wonder?
Reply

root
04-04-2005, 11:47 AM
Hi Genius....

We have to be careful when discussing "Mutational Change" and "law's of nature".

An example of mutational change would be in the "evolvement" of single celled organisms that mutate and are able to reproduce their mutation by replication and thus a new life form has begun quite clearly under the rules of mutation. One cannot argue against this principle for it is a known fact.

Mutation is quite different from "Rules of nature" but do seem linked. An example of a rule of nature is "Eyes must be close to brain"..... Eyes as we know them today definately are not mutations as a single factor.

Evolution will use. (Mutational change, Time, Survival of the fittest\luckiest. Adaptation)

Each one being as important as the next. Another prediction of evolution other than "Hobit" man would be that some species would not need to evolve since their environment would remain the same. Indeed the deepest darkest places of our planet is the ocean floor. When a fossil was discovered of a species thought to have gone extinct was actually found "Living". This was a great thing for it allowed science to compare it's accuracy of what they felt the species was like compared to the real thing. We were not dissapointed.

Regards

Root
Reply

Abdullah_Afghan
04-09-2005, 10:28 PM
Allow me to tell you one little story about the existance of God.

In 1993 I took a taxi. The taxi drive was an African. I had physics books from uni with me. When he saw my books, suddenly he said "Are you studying science?" I replied "Yes".

He said "Do you believe in God?"

I answer "Yes I do believe in Allah."

He laughed.

I said nothing.

Then he said "How can you study scinece and still believe in God?"

I said "Why not?"

He looked at me with surprise and said "Well I was a Muslim back home - meaning in his motherland- but when I came in this country and learned about science then I stopped believing in God."

I said "That is your choice."

I did not talk any more at that moment but he insisted to continue his discussion by talking freely.

He said "How come you Muslims believe that their is a secret table in the skys named Lawhi Mahfuz, while if such a table exist it Must be very big and all the information about everything must be written on it? But you see today about a very ordinary matter people write 1000s of books. How come you thing such a big but secret table exists?"

I looked at him and let him to finish his sayings. When he ended his words I told him that you can see we humankind discovered computer and made it and then programmed it. I continued by saying to him that you can go to a computer store and ask for the CPU or even for a simple floppy disk. Then look at the memory of the CPU and the floopy disk. Can you tell me how come we humans made that CPU with such a big storing capacity and stored billions of data in it which are not seeable to our eyes? What about the simple floppy disk?

He looked at me and said "What is your point?"

"Well, if we can make our own secret information storing chip or floppy disk or CPU which contains billions of data, then why and how God Almighty must not have a very much advance system to store those data, which we call that system Lawhi Mahfuz?" I said.

He stopped talking for a moment and suddenly said "I was misled by blind thinking. He loudly said "O Almighty Allah please forgive my sins for thinking astray about your power and knowledge and ability." He said his Shahada and when he dropped me at my residencial place, he told me "I am not going to take money for this trip from you." I resisted his request and paid him $11.50 and told him "It is not just for me to take advantage of your request as it meant to be like this that we meet in such a circumstances. I do not want to contaminate my reward with your request."

I saw tears in his eyes and he replied "I will not forget this lesson in my life and will try to think wisely before making any irrational decision in my mind about any matter."

I forwelled with him. Three years latter I saw him in a mosque. He was praying and was very devoted to Islam. He said "Brother, I learnt a lot since then and now I know that the signs of the creation speak for themselves about the presence of Almight God. I have no doubt in my heart and mind about God Almighty because now I study about the science of the creation."

I advised him to study about the "physics of creation". We never saw each other for eight years until I caught a taxi one day. He was the driver. The brother said "Now I am in peace with God."

Wassalaam.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-10-2005, 12:54 AM
That is an incredibly touching story, Abdullah_Afghan.
Reply

Uthman
04-10-2005, 12:32 PM
:sl:

Indeed. A very touching story. :)

:w:
Reply

root
04-11-2005, 11:04 AM
"Well, if we can make our own secret information storing chip or floppy disk or CPU which contains billions of data, then why and how God Almighty must not have a very much advance system to store those data, which we call that system Lawhi Mahfuz?" I said.
Yes it was a nice story. Broke free from science since a "Chip" or "floppy" cannot contain billions of Bytes and A CPU contains none since it merely processes data and not store it.
Reply

Uthman
04-18-2005, 01:17 PM
:sl:

"Get it right" says root. :)

:w:
Reply

root
04-18-2005, 02:55 PM
Hi Osman

Well, I do like to remain within factual content. Hence I remain silent in a lot of religous threads.

Root
Reply

Uthman
04-18-2005, 09:42 PM
:sl:

Actually, you could prove useful in that way. :) Stop people from getting carried away . . . . :) Careful not to play on their nerves though! lol.

:w:
Reply

Ibn Syed
05-08-2005, 04:14 PM
:lol: lol
Reply

scared one
08-04-2005, 06:14 PM
didnt expect science to answer that question and it can't because that knowledge far beyond science and whatever is far behind science cannot be answered by anyone dealing with science, guess scientists are not the smartist. i kind of had a feeling science couldnt answer all our questions dam you people are ignorent, sorry no offense., but one thing is for sure we will never know the real truth til death come. we wont know wether any diety exists or not, read the encloypedia the r section look for religon, for now we will just stick with our religous beliefs that their is a god out their, you can't see him, you can't feel him he has no shape, color, and whatever else a human has. didn't any of you guyz take a theology course it studys anything dealing with god.
Reply

Bittersteel
08-04-2005, 07:01 PM
what's Lawh Mahfuz???
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
08-07-2005, 04:02 PM
:sl:
Its explained here.
Reply

root
08-13-2005, 06:13 PM
I read the link with a slight wry smile. I like the way they claimed "the evidence" from nothing then claimed that intelligence came before matter. Which of course has no basis of proof at all. It's on par with claiming that an alien species created the universe before matter came into it. Whilst this point could not be proven false, it could not be proven true either. Same goes for the hypothosis you linked to.

Regards

Root
Reply

Lateralus63
08-15-2005, 03:52 PM
:sl:

Human beings have multiple ways of perceiving events, i would classify these into two types, belief in what you cant see, what you cant understand intricately, but you still know its there because you believe it in your heart, and the second type would be belief in proof, how things are logically tested and proved and we have full belief in it because it has been proved.

Now it doesnt take a genius to say science cant prove everything, quite right it cant do that, but we still "believe" in the unseen, God as a belief concept has existed for over 2000 years, thats a pretty long time, logically it must be significant.

Empericism, is not a valid arguement to try and prove God,

If God wanted to test mankind, yet God was fully 100% provable then it wouldnt be a test in the first place.

Therefore God is not 100% provable, maybe only to a certain percentage using rational and creative thought we can prove god to an extent where we have to believe it in its entirety.

Science cant explain acupuncture, how it is able to physically affect the body by inserting needles, but it still works. Same thing, just because science or emperical thought cannot accept God in its wing of 100% accuracy does not mean God does not exist.
Reply

czgibson
08-15-2005, 08:19 PM
Greetings Lateralus63,
While I can understand the thrust of what you've said, I should point out a few inaccuracies, in the hope of promoting understanding further.
Originally Posted by Lateralus63
Human beings have multiple ways of perceiving events, i would classify these into two types, belief in what you cant see, what you cant understand intricately, but you still know its there because you believe it in your heart, and the second type would be belief in proof, how things are logically tested and proved and we have full belief in it because it has been proved.
Just because you believe something "in your heart", it does not constitute knowledge. Faith is not knowledge, by definition.
Now it doesnt take a genius to say science cant prove everything, quite right it cant do that, but we still "believe" in the unseen, God as a belief concept has existed for over 2000 years, thats a pretty long time, logically it must be significant.
It may well be significant, but not logically significant.
Empericism, is not a valid arguement to try and prove God,
You are right to say that empiricism is not a valid argument, because empiricism is not in fact an argument at all. It is a philosophical school of thought, named after the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus. Famous empiricists include John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume.
Therefore God is not 100% provable, maybe only to a certain percentage using rational and creative thought we can prove god to an extent where we have to believe it in its entirety.
Rational and creative thought? Rational thought should be sufficient to provide a proof - creative thought is surely more useful for art, poetry or literature.
Science cant explain acupuncture, how it is able to physically affect the body by inserting needles, but it still works. Same thing, just because science or emperical thought cannot accept God in its wing of 100% accuracy does not mean God does not exist.
Since my post so far has been quite negative, I'll end on a positive note. I fully agree that god cannot be proved or disproved using the methods of science currently available; acupuncture is an excellent example to use in this connection.

Peace
Reply

Lateralus63
08-16-2005, 06:22 PM
Peace

Just because you believe something "in your heart", it does not constitute knowledge. Faith is not knowledge, by definition
This isnt about knowledge, this is about percieving events and the world around us by using cornerstones in thought, either by proof, (science), or belief (religion), so my point is, God is fully perceived in belief, belief is strengthened when you strengethen the reason for God's existance for example, the intricacy of all creations.

It may well be significant, but not logically significant.
Logically in the way of, "If this event or concept can exist for 2000 years in the hearts of men it must be significant", why is say this, because to say "it is insigificant" is illogical, because its outside the boundries of common sense, which logic is also existant in.

You are right to say that empiricism is not a valid argument, because empiricism is not in fact an argument at all. It is a philosophical school of thought, named after the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus. Famous empiricists include John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume.
Sorry for writing it incorrectly, what i meant to say is, to accept everything around you because you've experienced it by your senses, God cannot be seen, touched, felt, heard, or tasted save in the metaphorical sense. Basically scientific ways of thought, that only by sensing and experiencing we can truly accept...is incorrect..to god.

Rational and creative thought? Rational thought should be sufficient to provide a proof - creative thought is surely more useful for art, poetry or literature.
Rational is only one side of the coin, rationality is based on logic and experience, creativity is based on inspiration and belief, these are the two sides of thinking it....logically, or creatively, if one hopes to find God correctly, he must either apply correct logic and/or creative thought or both.

I fully agree that god cannot be proved or disproved using the methods of science currently available; acupuncture is an excellent example to use in this connection.
Thank you for your words :)

Peace
Reply

ayub
08-18-2005, 11:25 AM
there are signs of allah subahnatallah. its Allah who created the world, us human being everything that we see today is created by God all mighty
Reply

root
08-18-2005, 04:49 PM
there are signs of allah subahnatallah. its Allah who created the world, us human being everything that we see today is created by God all mighty
For a thread titled "Atheism" and we have already established that their is no proof to validate your hypothosis. I question if you have read this thread.

Without Prejudice

Root
Reply

Lateralus63
08-22-2005, 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by root
My point being. How could one even begin to seperate the Placebo effect and faith in reality compared to faith as a placebo effect.
Peace

Right. lets get it clear first, the placebo effect is an effect induced and excarbated by ones expectation.

Now to say faith is a placebo effect is to say faith is an expectation

Faith is not expectation. Clear logic.

Expectation is accompanied with a desire for a result

Where as faith is simply compulsive, we dont expect results.

Now the placebo effect only works since the desire for a result is so strong so that result arrives, however since faith is totally devoid of desire for result, you cannot call it a placebo effect.

p.s i have to compliment you on a most excellent thought challenge you've given me.

Peace
Reply

root
08-23-2005, 12:05 PM
A person's beliefs and hopes about a treatment, combined with their suggestibility, may have a significant biochemical effect. Sensory experience and thoughts can affect neurochemistry. The body's neurochemical system affects and is affected by other biochemical systems, including the hormonal and immune systems. Thus, it is consistent with current knowledge that a person's hopeful attitude and beliefs may be very important to their physical well-being and recovery from injury or illness
Source:http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

Lateralus63 - Where as faith is simply compulsive, we dont expect results.
I hear what you are saying. But the other side of that coin is to achieve an improvement from a medical condition through belief is to say you God exists. For no improvement then your God knows best.

I think it is wrong to suggest you do not expect a result. I was under the impression that your result would be what you beleive will happen to you upon your death, unless you don't mind wether you go to heaven or hell........ Since to have a faith one must confront this question.
Reply

Lateralus63
08-24-2005, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by root
Peace

You can change the word, expectation to belief, and throw some red herrings around it still does not change the meaning, my logic and reasoning is clear, check it again if it doesnt make sense.

Belief is different from faith in definition. We are dealing with definition of the words so we may shine clarity upon the issues. Ok fine, lets change the word to belief, "i believe that this doctor will cure me", its still a result driven concept.

And this is the very concept of faith, we have faith in god's existance, that faith is not based...or founded on the concept of result driven thoughts, it is based on spiritual introspection, experience, and contemplation upon god's various signs.

We're speaking in definition here, if you wanna go on about heaven and hell thats something different, thats hope and fear, that ORIGINATES, from the faith in God's existance which is the main qualm that athieism has.

If you wanna change the definition of faith to suit your needs for this discussion, be my guest, but your an athiest, and im a person of faith, im telling you what faith is from my personal experience as a muslim. You can take it or leave it, if you choose to leave my definition this discussion more or less ends here.

Peace
Reply

root
08-24-2005, 05:37 PM
We're speaking in definition here, if you wanna go on about heaven and hell thats something different, thats hope and fear, that ORIGINATES, from the faith in God's existance which is the main qualm that athieism has.
I don't think Atheists have a problem with "Hope", even if it is one of the biggest lies we palm off. fear, on the other hand is quite another issue as you say.
Reply

czgibson
08-24-2005, 08:14 PM
Greetings lateralus63,

Sorry to interrupt like this - I'd like to check a few things about faith with you if I may.

Belief is different from faith in definition.
What dictionary do you use? These two words are synonyms according to most dictionaries.

We're speaking in definition here, if you wanna go on about heaven and hell thats something different, thats hope and fear, that ORIGINATES, from the faith in God's existance which is the main qualm that athieism has.
Belief in heaven and hell is part of your faith is it not? Therefore your faith is partly driven by expectation and results, no? This is not what you said earlier:

Right. lets get it clear first, the placebo effect is an effect induced and excarbated by ones expectation.

Now to say faith is a placebo effect is to say faith is an expectation

Faith is not expectation. Clear logic.

Expectation is accompanied with a desire for a result

Where as faith is simply compulsive, we dont expect results.

Now the placebo effect only works since the desire for a result is so strong so that result arrives, however since faith is totally devoid of desire for result, you cannot call it a placebo effect.
If you wanna change the definition of faith to suit your needs for this discussion, be my guest, but your an athiest, and im a person of faith, im telling you what faith is from my personal experience as a muslim. You can take it or leave it, if you choose to leave my definition this discussion more or less ends here.
My friend, you've changed your own definition of faith at least twice over the last few posts.

Maybe I've not understood you correctly, in which case I apologise, but your various uses of the word "faith" here suggest something is not right.

Peace
Reply

Lateralus63
08-24-2005, 10:04 PM
:sl:

Peace.

I used dictionary.com, as well as the collins english dictionary, however im sure you and me have had sufficient, or more aptly, more that sufficient english education, i've taken the words from their purity, in my analysis, and by the definition thats written in the dictionaries, synonymity in belief and faith is by the religious context. When dealing with the placebo effect, its not in a religious context, rather scientifical.

Now, to deal appropriately with the excellent arguement set forth by root, i had to take the literal meaning of faith. In order to refute it.

Once i felt i had appropriately dealt with the arguement, "off" the case of the placebo arguement, i refuted what root had said with "belief in heaven or hell as a result of faith in god" by saying heaven and hell was hope and fear......UNDER the genre of faith in the existance of God.

So, i hope its clear, with heaven or hell, this was a seperate arguement (which root brought up, changing the meaning of faith first) so therefore i did have to change the definition of faith to refute it.

But with the placebo effect arguement. I used faith in its literal form.

Apples with Apples, Oranges with Oranges.

Hope this makes sense.

Peace.
Reply

root
08-29-2005, 09:51 AM
Lateralus63 But with the placebo effect arguement. I used faith in its literal form.

Apples with Apples, Oranges with Oranges.

Hope this makes sense.
I am sorry but no, it does not make sense to seperate faith and the placebo effect. Here is an example that someone posted in this forum......

A few years ago, European scientists snickered when studies in the United States — for example, at Harvard and Duke universities — showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness.
My point with the placebo effect and faith seems to be validated.
Reply

czgibson
08-29-2005, 08:49 PM
Greetings Lateralus63,

First of all, what a great name you have! Where does it come from?

In other matters, I haven't really been able to make sense of your post, I'm afraid. I'm not sure why this need to use separate definitions of faith has arisen.

Originally Posted by Lateralus63
i've taken the words from their purity, in my analysis, and by the definition thats written in the dictionaries, synonymity in belief and faith is by the religious context.
What do you mean by "from their purity" here?

With regard to the last part of your sentence, do you mean that "belief" and "faith" are only synonymous in a religious context?

When dealing with the placebo effect, its not in a religious context, rather scientifical.
Right, but some scientists believe that religious experience can be partly explained by reference to the placebo effect, so there's no need for this distinction.

Now, to deal appropriately with the excellent arguement set forth by root, i had to take the literal meaning of faith. In order to refute it.
What do you mean by "the literal meaning of faith"?

Once i felt i had appropriately dealt with the arguement, "off" the case of the placebo arguement, i refuted what root had said with "belief in heaven or hell as a result of faith in god" by saying heaven and hell was hope and fear......UNDER the genre of faith in the existance of God.
So once you have faith in the metaphysical concept of god, you automatically have faith in heaven and hell? I don't really see how that follows, but surely having faith in heaven and hell is nonetheless a result-driven concept?

So, i hope its clear, with heaven or hell, this was a seperate arguement (which root brought up, changing the meaning of faith first) so therefore i did have to change the definition of faith to refute it.
Can you clarify where exactly root changed the meaning of "faith"? I was not aware that he had done so.

OK, I'm sorry for all this nit-picking, but in a technical discussion like this it's necessary for everyone to know what everyone else is saying, so that the validity of their statements can be assessed. Added to this, I'm normally pretty slow on the uptake, especially when the subject is quite deep (just ask Ansar or Muhammad!). :)

Peace
Reply

akulion
11-16-2005, 06:09 AM
Salam Alaikum

Personally in my opinion Athiesm is a self defeating idealogy - And I dont just say this - I say this after taking on an entire room full of athiests in a debate (in the Christian vs Athiesm debate room in Yahoo) about a year ago.

I simply presented them the argument:

If you are an athiest then you can not call Hitler or Saddam or any one 'evil'.
Why?
Becasue since according to your belief there is no "God" then whatever 'moral standards' are set - will be done purely by humans.
Therefore none can truly say that my system is right and urs is wrong - because each system would have a right to propogate itself and in thus it would become a matter of 'Survival of the Fittest' rather than 'Right or Wrong'

The same argument would apply to crimes such as: theft, rape, murder and all others.

After 1 hour of arguing in the end all the athiests arguing (there where 6 main participants in that debate including me) admitted that what I was saying was right and indeed it was survival of the fittest.
Now look at the arrogance of these people - i was shocked - instead to admitting that indeed God exists and it is his order and laws and systems we should be living by for peaceful existance, instead they then started cussing and swearing to 'prove that there is no need for laws'....so it was time for me to leave.

lol go figure!
Reply

czgibson
11-16-2005, 08:38 PM
Greetings,

Atheism does not imply a lack of moral standards - why should a metaphysical position such as atheism necessarily have anything to do with morality?

Having an established moral system is, in fact, beneficial for the survival of a society, and does not have to rely on any divine authority.

Peace
Reply

akulion
11-17-2005, 01:16 AM
AHA but then how would u define morality?
Who decides?

The majority?

Well if I am an individual whose existance is based with no purpose except living and dying I would much rather live as I please - which I think would eventually turn out to be the case for a very large majority of people as a result of which there would be chaos since everyone would try and assert their own idealogies and systems causing widespread war and violence in my view.

Once again - i stress my point - if My only purpose of existance is to live and die - then let me live as I please and I will do whatever it takes to have the best of the best - cos hey I only live once!
Reply

Muezzin
11-17-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
AHA but then how would u define morality?
Who decides?

The majority?

Well if I am an individual whose existance is based with no purpose except living and dying I would much rather live as I please - which I think would eventually turn out to be the case for a very large majority of people as a result of which there would be chaos since everyone would try and assert their own idealogies and systems causing widespread war and violence in my view.

Once again - i stress my point - if My only purpose of existance is to live and die - then let me live as I please and I will do whatever it takes to have the best of the best - cos hey I only live once!
Yes, but also remember there's no such thing as absolute freedom. Otherwise people would be allowed to rape and murder others becuase they feel like it, and it'd all 'be cool'. Or something.

Edit: I think I've just missed the entire point of your post lol. Oops.
Reply

czgibson
11-17-2005, 06:59 PM
Greetings,

I think you're right, Muezzin. We have laws which aim to prevent things like rape and murder simply because the majority of people think those actions are wrong. If large numbers of people don't agree with a law, they'll break it routinely and the law will eventually disappear (e.g. British laws forbidding homosexuality).

The only purpose of human life that I know of is to survive. There are other things that are very important to me, such as getting on with people, making friends and pursuing a career, but I don't know if those could be said to be the purpose of human life. The reasons I don't rape or murder people are a) because those actions would have serious consequences for me (i.e. jail) and, more importantly, b) because they are intrinsically wrong - not because of any divine authority, but because of the authority of human society.

Peace
Reply

akulion
11-17-2005, 08:01 PM
Well once someone told me "the brave may not live for ever, but the cowards never live at all"

And that is where I am coming from.

If I truly believed there is no accountability for my actions in the hereafter - there is not a thing which would prevent me from being totally immoral when I choose to be and moral when I choose to be. To me the only issue which would exist is the fact that I dont want to be dictated to by any individual or group as to what I should do or not do - I will live my life as I please. As a result of which I will seek out like minded individuals (which I am sure I will be able to find easily) and then form gangs and groups or even governments based on such idealogies.

Now here is the important part, so read carefully: Lets assume there are 2 groups now, Group A and Group B. Their beliefs are as follows:

Group A: To preserve peace and life through setting up a legal framework

Group B: To live to the max and do whatever it takes to be on top

Now taking into consideration that there is no Divine Being - there is no one to define a "universal right or wrong". Thus the opinion of Group A is just AS arguable as the opinion of Group B. They can both claim that they are right or wrong, but in reality they will both be right form their own prespective and neither will have the right to say the other is wrong! Thus the actions of both will be justifiable and legal since there is no creator and thus no universal "rights or wrongs" or no universal "judge"

I hope you get my point?


We take the concept of Morality very lightly - yet if you look at sociological studies conducted throughout the years they have found that Human being are NOT born with morality built into them!

Our moral values are tought to us, it is the reason why people in the USA may have different moral standards while those in Japan would have different etc. In some cultures people eat dogs and cats and is seen as perfectly ok, and in others pigs are forbidden and in yet others people may eat different things (ie vegans, etc etc).

Now we as Muslims are told in the Quran and in the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) that when mankind came to this planet - he / she did not even know what hunger was! God sent down angels to instruct mankind on how to hunt and forage! And that is why revelations were sent to humanity to instruct them as to the right and wrong. Proof of this? Look at a baby, even a grown up kid who has not seen fire - he will probably hurt himself investigating it before he LEARNS the truth about it!

But in Athiesm - NO ONE holds the right to tell another he is right or wrong. Why ? Because all humans are Equal and each one holds the right to have their opinions and ACT upon them. Wether a majority holds a different opinion or not is irrelevant - since to that individual it is his beliefs which count the most. Thus he should live by what he believes in.

Now if you will tell me thats not possible, I will simply tell you this: If athiesm is the right system then you can count on ME to bring forward the idealogy of Group B and cause anarchy and chaos because I would much rather live life to the max have fun plunder loot murder and do whatever it takes to be on top until the day I die! Every man faces death eventually anyways, so why worry, PARTY ON! (The only thing that holds me back from this wild animilistic side of me is the belief in Allah believe it or not!) And you can be pretty sure there would be countless people out there who will follow me in my ststem and you would have no right to say I am wrong since I could easily argue "Mankind is already set at the brink of destruction. And we know this by science and the big bang theory that all things will come to an end, so I say lets PARTY! lol.

Well I dont know if I am explaining this properly but I hope I made some sense.
Peace be upon you too
Reply

czgibson
11-17-2005, 08:46 PM
Greetings Akulion,
Originally Posted by akulion
If I truly believed there is no accountability for my actions in the hereafter - there is not a thing which would prevent me from being totally immoral when I choose to be and moral when I choose to be.
What about the police? Laws? The disapproval of other people? Wouldn't they give you pause for thought?

To me the only issue which would exist is the fact that I dont want to be dictated to by any individual or group as to what I should do or not do - I will live my life as I please. As a result of which I will seek out like minded individuals (which I am sure I will be able to find easily) and then form gangs and groups or even governments based on such idealogies.
I think you'd struggle to do this if you lived in a country where the actions you're considering were severely frowned upon.

Now taking into consideration that there is no Divine Being - there is no one to define a "universal right or wrong". Thus the opinion of Group A is just AS arguable as the opinion of Group B.
Certainly both are arguable - and both have been argued. John Stuart Mill and John Rawls have put forward arguments for Group A, and Friedrich Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade have done the same for Group B. Morality does not deal with issues of fact, simply what people in general are prepared to put up with.

They can both claim that they are right or wrong, but in reality they will both be right form their own prespective and neither will have the right to say the other is wrong!
True in theory, but in practice the majority opinion prevails.

Thus the actions of both will be justifiable and legal since there is no creator and thus no universal "rights or wrongs" or no universal "judge"
They would perhaps be justifiable, although that would certainly depend on one's perspective, but it's not possible for them both to be legal. After all, if Group B were running things, the concept "legal" would have disappeared.

But in Athiesm - NO ONE holds the right to tell another he is right or wrong. Why ? Because all humans are Equal and each one holds the right to have their opinions and ACT upon them.
Each person should have the right to their own opinions, but not necessarily the right to act upon them. If someone's beliefs lead them to commit crime, they do not have the right to act upon those beliefs, surely?

Now if you will tell me thats not possible, I will simply tell you this: If athiesm is the right system then you can count on ME to bring forward the idealogy of Group B and cause anarchy and chaos because I would much rather live life to the max have fun plunder loot murder and do whatever it takes to be on top until the day I die!
Why would you want to murder anyone? Is that fun?

Every man faces death eventually anyways, so why worry, PARTY ON! (The only thing that holds me back from this wild animilistic side of me is the belief in Allah believe it or not!)
That's pretty scary to be honest.

"Mankind is already set at the brink of destruction. And we know this by science and the big bang theory that all things will come to an end, so I say lets PARTY! lol.
Do we know for sure that all things will come to an end?

Peace
Reply

akulion
11-17-2005, 09:21 PM
referring to the last parts of your reply:
- Why would you want to murder anyone? Is that fun?
and
- That's pretty scary to be honest.

I am not a violent man, however if I was poor and did not see hope and did not believe in God or any judgement upon me. I would not care for the law what so ever and thus turn to crim as a means for my sustenance.

The high figures of crime rates around the world already demonstrate what I am telling you. That people who lose all hope in life (due to poverty) and all faith in God often find themselves on the path to crime.

And as for your first comment :
- What about the police? Laws? The disapproval of other people? Wouldn't they give you pause for thought?

Why would I care how anyone else thinks of me? To me it would be a matter of my survival. And since I may not agree with a lot of 'laws' and 'rules' I will refuse to live by them. And to enforce my decisions I will probably seek like minded individuals and groups and join forces with them to be able to successfully fight the 'lawkeepers' which in my view would then become the 'supressors'.

It is a very complicated topic all the same - yet I sincerely believe that the role of "Belief in God" has played, still plays and will always play a huge role in keeping balance upon this Earth.

After all if you think about it: One mans terrorist is another mans hero!
So who decides who is right?
Majority?
I dont believe so!
Why?
Because under a system where there is no God - I am the 'God' of my own life. I would not fear the law simply because I know for a fact that I will die one day and to live to the fullest by what I believe in is what would matter to me the most.

As for "Is there really an end" (ur comment to the big bang theory)
That is undeniable - Science has observed that the universe is expanding and will eventually collapse onto itself. Killing and destroying everything. Eventually everything will be 'reformed' according to scientific theories.
And if you look around you will see that death cannot be prevented, even through cryogenic means! The human body decays naturally and will eventually die no matter how many precautions u may take! You can replace organs but for how long? And there is no gurantees in organ replacement operations that it will be successful.
Allah says in the Quran, "every soul shall face death, and if you dont believe, then avert death from your neck"
It is an open challenge in the Quran which has yet to be disproved! One may survive and accident, or be successful in cancer therapy - but eventually everyone dies!

Anyways I am in the middle of working on 10 different things currently - so ill end here lol. Insha'Allah catch u sooner or later.
Peace be upon you too.

PS: oh yea i forgot to say one thing which I wanted to but now I recalled!
- Only because you are a peace loving individual who loves law and order does not mean that everyone else will see through your eyes as well. That is why we have differing political idealogies around the world, religious idealogies, criminals, gangs, groups, mafia, cartels and so on and so forth. It is a reality of life - not something to be denied. And if one was to say Yes there is no God, then it becomes a free for all situation - things like 'terrorism, crime, murder, lies, incest, rape, etc" are then just subject to defination by each group and not a universal truth by any way! So in the end it comes down to survival of the fittest - might is right and such things!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
01-18-2006, 11:43 AM
I must say I completely agree with akulon here. The key issue is opportunism. People are opportunistic by nature. Of course you'd have to consider law inforcement and public opinion. But what if nobody's watching? Murder isn't fun indeed. But being destructive is a much easyer way to gain rather then doing so by being constructive. Of course everybody has his/her limitations. But as an atheist the borders are very vague at best, and its very challanging to keep by it. Looking back now; I'm suprised just how decadent and egocentric, how opportunistic I used to be back when I was atheistic. And the worst thing was that I didn't even realise it. As an atheist there's no basis to start from, as long as it's explainable, everything goes.

Maybe one could say a religious person is also opportunistic. Afterall, he does believe in heaven and hell, reward and punishment, so what's the difrence between that and the police?

Well First of all an act can have a lot of reasons, just because one of those reasons are beneficial, doesn't make the whole act opportunistic. Secondly, A religious person trys to be as honest as possible towards himself (or at least, is expected to do so). So he/her isn't supposed to be hypocrite. Being concequent in what you believe is right.

Let me end with a simplistic example.
everybody knows that stealing is wrong. Its such a universal value, it would be pointless to deny that. But lets look at some cases and how an atheist (I don't mean to say every atheist, just some) or religious person might react on it.
Lets say your late and you need to catch a bus for work, but you don't have any change. If you can't take the bus there's a high chance your boss will fire you, or at least give you a hard time about it. The bus fare is 1$. You see a guy stepping into a limosine and while doing so he accedentally drops a 1$ bill. He didn't notice. You could just pick it up and ask if you could have it but this guy has such an arrogant look that you're to afraid to ask him for the bill or you could wait a sec 'till he drives away. What do you do?
An atheist knows that stealing is wrong. But this guy won't even miss that bill and since there's no afterlife; what difrence does it make to keep the bill? For you a lot, for him not. See how morality is a lot more opportunistic for an atheist?
Reply

hidden_treasure
01-18-2006, 01:09 PM
assalamu alaikum,
I cant believe that there are some people that dont believe in the Creator of the heavens and earth.

Just look at how we are created. We have been blessed with eyes ! We are able to see a broad spectrum of colours. we are able to see our loved ones, watch sunsets and view the stars.

We have been created so perfectly with fingers and toes, hands and feet. We all have our own fingerprints, which are unique, and there is not one person in the world with the same.

We hear birds that sing, children that play, sweet (and not so sweet words).

We are able to smell sweet aromas, and we are able to breath.

Do you consider the body?....look at all the organs, how perfectly they function, and how many purposes they serve.

Look at how the human embryo is developed. That in itself is absolutley amazing! We all start off as a blood clot, but are able to feed and grow within our mothers womb.

What about our brain...where would we be without it? Would we be able to think?...speak?...walk?...talk?...see?...function? ...

There is no denying the existence of the One Supreme Creator. Look at all the miracles surrounding us...look at all His creation !!!!

Allahu Akbar (God is great)...SubhanAllah (Glory be To Him).....
Reply

Imam786
01-19-2006, 05:46 PM
i believe in 1 God but it all depends on ur faith
Reply

Abu Omar
01-23-2006, 07:53 AM
Listen to the profound wisdom of the Bedouin when he was asked about the evidence for Allaah's Existence (from Tafsir ibn Kathir):

"All praise is due to Allah! The camel's dung testifies to the existence of the camel, and the track testifies to the fact that someone was walking. A sky that holds the giant stars, a land that has fairways and a sea that has waves, does not all of this testify that the Most Kind, Most Knowledgeable exists."

The atheists simply can't beat that profound wisdom.

In fact, this post testifies to that someone was writing it.

Atheists often claim that they are "rational" and "free-thinkers" and that religionists are superstitious, primitive, and stupid. But despite their supposed "rationalism", atheists can be truly zealous. Look at the fanatical frenzy they enter when it comes to defend the theory of evolution, and their devout attempts to supress and criticism against it. When criticism against their beloved theory is put forth, more often than not they resort to ridicule the critic rather than answering his arguments. So much for their "rationalism".
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 05:47 PM
Of course there are evidence that there is a creator


I mean look at everything

How did it get here???

The tress,Birds,Bugs,Grass,US God created everything
That is in the heavens and the Earth.

I remember i was walking in the park

With my little sister(it was in the summer)and
MashAllah she is soooo smart for her age

I was like,''icky(her nickname)Who created God???

She said,''God created himself''

So i said,''who created the tress and us???

She said,''Allah of course!

And then i said,''where is Allah???

She said,''Above the heavens looking down at us''

I mean MashAllah can you imagine a 5 year old saing this?(she was actually 4 at the time)

She prays and knows ALOT of surahs

O.k i think im going OFF TOPIC

But yeah there is alot of evidence to back there is a God


SaLaMz
Reply

czgibson
01-26-2006, 07:08 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Jihad_spun
Of course there are evidence that there is a creator
I mean look at everything
How did it get here???
The tress,Birds,Bugs,Grass,US God created everything
That is in the heavens and the Earth.
Does anyone else want to throw up the argument from design? It's been seriously questionable for at least 200 years now, yet people still bring it up.

Here's an article discussing it in detail:

Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God

I remember i was walking in the park

With my little sister(it was in the summer)and
MashAllah she is soooo smart for her age

I was like,''icky(her nickname)Who created God???

She said,''God created himself''
By asking "Who created God?" you've asked a very important question, one that blows a hole in the cosmological (first cause) argument for god's existence. If you believe god created himself, can you think of anything else that has also created itself? I can't.

Peace
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Does anyone else want to throw up the argument from design? It's been seriously questionable for at least 200 years now, yet people still bring it up.

Here's an article discussing it in detail:

Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God



By asking "Who created God?" you've asked a very important question, one that blows a hole in the cosmological (first cause) argument for god's existence. If you believe god created himself, can you think of anything else that has also created itself? I can't.

Peace
Well God is diffrent from us

He is the unique.Nobody is like him.

SaLaMz
Reply

czgibson
01-26-2006, 08:09 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Jihad_spun
Well God is diffrent from us

He is the unique.Nobody is like him.

SaLaMz
Anyone can make up a concept that is unlike any other, to which no other known category can apply, and declare that it exists. The point is that what you've got there is a fiction, and nothing more.

Peace
Reply

afriend
01-26-2006, 08:18 PM
Urm......check this out:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...of+allah&hl=en
Reply

czgibson
01-26-2006, 08:46 PM
Greetings fozley,
Originally Posted by fozley
Urm...what am I supposed to be looking at?

Peace
Reply

sumay28
01-26-2006, 08:51 PM




A sign for me...
Reply

afriend
01-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings fozley,


Urm...what am I supposed to be looking at?

Peace
Shows all signs of Allah, did u even click the link?

BTW What does the atom gotta do with anything.......Please explain sister Sumay28
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Anyone can make up a concept that is unlike any other, to which no other known category can apply, and declare that it exists. The point is that what you've got there is a fiction, and nothing more.

Peace
I have proof.What proofs do you have???:?

SaLaMz and may GOD guide you.AAmeen
Reply

czgibson
01-26-2006, 09:24 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by fozley
Shows all signs of Allah, did u even click the link?
Of course I clicked the link, it's just that I'm not convinced by random patterns of clouds, trees and so on.

Originally Posted by jihad_spun
I have proof.What proofs do you have???
You may think you have proof that god exists, but you don't.

I don't have proof that he doesn't, of course, only the extensive evidence of human credulity throughout history.

Peace
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 09:25 PM
Soooo who do you think created you?????

SaLaMz
Reply

czgibson
01-26-2006, 09:28 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Jihad_spun
Soooo who do you think created you?????
My parents. Who created you?

Peace
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 09:29 PM
God created me,you,everything

How did you get in your mothers womb???

Who put you there???

SaLaMz
Reply

czgibson
01-26-2006, 09:44 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Jihad_spun
How did you get in your mothers womb???

Who put you there???
I'm sure you don't need me to explain that to you.

Peace
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 09:47 PM
You REALLY belive that????

MashAllah

May GOD guide you.

AAmeen

SaLaMz
Reply

Blue_Moon
01-26-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Jihad_spun
God created me,you,everything

How did you get in your mothers womb???

Who put you there???

SaLaMz

YES WHO DID IF YOU SAY THERE IS NO GOD:?
Reply

Tasneem
01-26-2006, 11:46 PM
mwillet.org/atheism/atheism/atheism1.html

inshallah check this out

SaLaMz
Reply

Abu Omar
01-27-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


My parents. Who created you?

Peace
Who created your parents?

How did the first human come about? Or the first animal for that matter?
Reply

Mohsin
01-27-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally Posted by Jihad_spun
mwillet.org/atheism/atheism/atheism1.html

inshallah check this out

SaLaMz
Link doesn't work
Reply

czgibson
01-27-2006, 05:36 PM
Greetings,

People seem to be very keen to find out who put me in my mother's womb, when I would have thought the answer is obvious. Maybe this is some sort of wind-up, but I'll answer anyway:

My father did, when his sperm joined with one of my mother's eggs in the process known as sex.

As for how the first humans and animals came about, well, I wasn't there, but I believe they evolved from simpler substances. You may find this hard to believe, but not half as hard as I find it to believe the creation myths put forward by some religionists.

Peace
Reply

tahir
01-27-2006, 06:31 PM
hey, do you know what the chance was to create one cell?

it was 1 in 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

now that is a really really low chance of happening and normally scientists stop counting after 30 0's anyway assuming this did happen by some miracle the cell would not have lasted for long because the earth used to be very unstable and no cells would have been able to form
Reply

faisalxz
01-27-2006, 07:24 PM
Everyone person can go somewhere where nobody can see them...thats deep in their heart.

So everybody do that and you say "God, if you're there, guide me!"
If you mean it and you want the guidance, you'll get it and you'll know who its from because you asked for it.

Look for the truth, not something that pleases you. Muslims ask for guidance 20 times a day in salah bare minimum. Whether you're a believer or not, you can ask for guidance in your heart - so that you don't feel as if you're compromising your ego.
Reply

czgibson
01-27-2006, 08:12 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by tahir
hey, do you know what the chance was to create one cell?

it was 1 in 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
Says who?

Peace
Reply

Samee
01-27-2006, 09:12 PM
:sl:

Bro, take all the parts of a cpu, and put it on the floor. In a million years, the scene will stay the same. The CPU wont have put itself together.

Compare that complex notion with a human being being created by itself. There is lots of evidence to prove there is a God, the only thing that stops people from believe in God is their minds. Their minds don't want to believe, so they just don't believe.
Reply

Mohsin
01-27-2006, 10:16 PM
:sl:
Czgison
I myself can't also see how you can't believe in God, everythings just so perfect, we as humans are so complex that it just makes me think i cnt have been created by chance. I've studied Biology at A levels and am now doing medicine in uni, and the more i read and learn about the human body the more i'm like this can't have een a fluke, the smallest of things have a function. How is it that the sun is at the perfect length away from us, one mm further or closer would mean we'd have no life as humans, as seen on other planets. Just the whole concept of male and female is miraculous. If we were originally one cell, or one thing or whatever, then what do you suggest, the male and female just evolved to form two opposite types of people, who yet are attracted to each other, and that their sexual organs have evolved differently, and when these organs come into contact with each other they manage to produce another human, which can be male or female. I know it sounds like simple stuff but I just can't think how evolution led to this happening, a fluke leading to something so complex and perfect almost.
there are so many miracles of islam to prove existence of God, i know you don't believe in a lot of the scientific miracles in the Qur'an, ut there are some like irrefutable ones, like how it mentions bees in the female tense, how it talks about the birth of the baby. One of my textbooks in Medical Uni is written by keith Moore, and i'm sure you've read his comments on what he had to say about the verses regarding embryology after studying it for himself
And then theres the prophecy in the Quran in Surah lahab where it is said Abu Lahab will perish in the hell fire. The thing that makes this prophecy so miraculous to me is that it was said when so many people were revrting to islam, so why would he say to his uncle that you're going to perish in the hell fire rather than wait and see if he converts like everyone else. It was like a suicide trap, all his uncle, Abu Lahab, had to do was pretend to e a muslim, and the Qur'an would have been proved wrong, and yet this prophecy was made, and this just re-emphasisies for me how Muhammed SAW can't have made that prophecy, and it must have been God
What about like Muhammed SAW being mentioned in the Hindu scriptures, by name on more than one occasion, and so many other descriptions of his battles and companions are made, it's just too much.
And then also i just find it really difficult to believe that all these prophetic figures, like Abraham Moses Jesus Muahmmed PBUT,that they all lied and they all were myths, surely theres some foundation to them, somebody holy must have built the Ka'bah all those years ago before Muhammed SAW for a purpose, there must be some truth somewhere, and for me Islam provides the truth so well it just makes so much sense
Also its just there must be a purpose to our lives, it can't be that we're born, die 60 years later, and then that's it, surely a creation so complex and amazing as us has more of a purpose than just this, the evil people who got away in this life surely they should be punished, and similarly the good people who didn't do so well, surely theres something there for them
Alhumdulillah, i just thought i'd add my views as to why i believe in the existence of God and in Islam. I know you're going to have your own views,opinions and replies as to what i've said, but inshallah God willing you should give it more consideration, i know it's not as philosophically challenging as other posts that have been addressed to you, but i believe theres simple proofs to see Gods existence, if you yourself are wanting to find it
Reply

tahir
01-27-2006, 10:40 PM
hey czgibson

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

it's in chapter 10 but if you got time please read all of this book, it explains all the flaws in the evolution theory

thanks
Reply

czgibson
01-29-2006, 04:10 PM
Greetings Moss,

Thanks for putting your views forward. I think many of them have been mentioned elsewhere, so I'll just take two of the points you've raised.

Originally Posted by Moss
I've studied Biology at A levels and am now doing medicine in uni, and the more i read and learn about the human body the more i'm like this can't have een a fluke, the smallest of things have a function.
What about vestigial organs such as the appendix? Or Meckel's diverticulum, which only appears in 2% of the population? These are organs that no longer appear to be useful to us, remnants from our evolutionary past.

Also its just there must be a purpose to our lives, it can't be that we're born, die 60 years later, and then that's it, surely a creation so complex and amazing as us has more of a purpose than just this, the evil people who got away in this life surely they should be punished, and similarly the good people who didn't do so well, surely theres something there for them
Is there any good reason to believe there must be an afterlife, or a sense of supernatural justice, other than your wishful thinking? Just because you would like something to be the case does not mean that it actually is.

Peace
Reply

Abu Omar
01-29-2006, 06:25 PM
What about vestigial organs such as the appendix?
Unfortunately, it isn't as useful as you would wish...

Immunity, "Vestigal Organs" and Embryology

And even if they were vestigal, it would be no proof for evolution. What would be more impressing is if you could show some new organ appear through evolution.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
01-29-2006, 07:03 PM
Salam

Like for those who think Air exist yet they cant show it but we know we breath it, Show me Air for those athiests
Reply

czgibson
01-29-2006, 07:22 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Abu Omar
Unfortunately, it isn't as useful as you would wish...
I'm not saying it's useful. I'm suggesting it's likely to be useless.

Ah, Harun Yahya, the master of straw-clutching. Any scientific findings that oppose his thesis are conveniently ignored. The function of the appendix is a controversial area, so for Yahya to present the lymphatic function as fact is unwarranted. What is not in doubt is that most physiologists believe the appendix to be vestigial.

And even if they were vestigal, it would be no proof for evolution. What would be more impressing is if you could show some new organ appear through evolution.
Of course. Evolution cannot be proven, as everybody knows. However, the presence of vestigial organs and reflexes (such as the goosebump reflex) strongly suggests that humans have evolved.


Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Like for those who think Air exist yet they cant show it but we know we breath it, Show me Air for those athiests
I'm not sure what you mean here. There are numerous standard tests for the presence of the various components of air. Oxygen relights a glowing splint, for example. I think that's one of the first standard tests you learn about in chemistry lessons.

Peace
Reply

Abu Omar
01-29-2006, 08:52 PM
I'm not saying it's useful. I'm suggesting it's likely to be useless.
I mean useful as evidence for evolution.

Ah, Harun Yahya, the master of straw-clutching. Any scientific findings that oppose his thesis are conveniently ignored.
The same could be said about evolutionists? Ever seen Richard Dawkins reviewing books not of his liking?

Of course. Evolution cannot be proven, as everybody knows.
Then why is it propagated as a fact? When I had about evolution in school, it was taught as an absolute fact. The school books often view evolution as the scientific world view, and bleief in a Creator as superstitious, although they propagate this view in a disscrete way.

However, the presence of vestigial organs and reflexes (such as the goosebump reflex) strongly suggests that humans have evolved.
I don't know in the other cases, but at least about appendix, there was no certainty that it really was vestigial. Yet, what would be much more impressing as proof for evolution would be if they could show some new beneficial organ developing through random mutations.

I don't think I can disprove the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective, since I do not possess that scientific knowledge. But from my view, what strongly talks against evolution is the evolutionist anger when the theory is questioned. Look at the fanatical frenzy they enter when it is suggested that the puils in school shall also be informed of the flaws in evolution. They zealously supress every criticism raised at the theory, while ensuring that the theory of evolution is a fact and that believers in a Creator are fanatical and superstitious...
Reply

czgibson
01-31-2006, 04:36 PM
Greetings Abu Omar,
Originally Posted by Abu Omar
The same could be said about evolutionists? Ever seen Richard Dawkins reviewing books not of his liking?
No, I haven't, but since he's a scientist I would expect him to back up his views with evidence that's not chosen selectively.

Then why is it propagated as a fact? When I had about evolution in school, it was taught as an absolute fact.
Then your teachers were wrong, plain and simple. They should know it is a theory. It's a strong enough theory to be taken on board as "almost fact", but that's obviously not the same.

The school books often view evolution as the scientific world view, and bleief in a Creator as superstitious, although they propagate this view in a disscrete way.
Evolution is undoubtedly more dominant a world-view than creationism among scientists, so your school textbooks are right to mention this. As an atheist, I obviously have no problem with textbooks that suggest belief in a Creator is superstitious. If you study History or English Literature in any depth you'll find the same thing.

I don't know in the other cases, but at least about appendix, there was no certainty that it really was vestigial.
It has no known significant function, according to a majority of physiologists. It may not be absolutely certain to be vestigial, but it certainly looks as though it is. How about Meckel's diverticulum? That must be vestigial, surely?

Yet, what would be much more impressing as proof for evolution would be if they could show some new beneficial organ developing through random mutations.
I agree, that would be impressive, but these things take time. As far as I know, no new organs have been developed by humans since recorded history began.

But from my view, what strongly talks against evolution is the evolutionist anger when the theory is questioned.
When, and by whom? I've seen no evidence of this.

Look at the fanatical frenzy they enter when it is suggested that the puils in school shall also be informed of the flaws in evolution.
I think you're wrong here. First of all, any self-respecting scientist or science teacher would be only too pleased to have someone point out flaws in their theory. That is what science is all about. Secondly, what annoys evolutionists is the intrusion of creationism into science classes. Creationism is not science; it is religious belief clothed in the terminology of science, and nothing more. It clearly belongs in classes devoted to religious studies, not science classes.

They zealously supress every criticism raised at the theory,
Who does? Do you have any evidence for this? Science is all about raising criticisms at particular theories. That's how new theories are developed.

while ensuring that the theory of evolution is a fact
One more time for the world: evolution has not been proven, and should not be accepted as incontrovertibly true.

Peace
Reply

sumay28
02-09-2006, 05:32 AM
i'm tired, so bear with me;

Atheism is a load of donkey dung. It is beyond me how respected scientists, that is, people who study science, don't believe in a creator.
Reply

Issa
02-09-2006, 06:02 AM
Salaamz everyone,

The great thing about being Muslim is that "if" I were wrong and the atheist is right then I will have lived a happy life believing in something and doing the very best I can to please Allah and when I die I will just be dead. But if he(the atheist) is wrong... well, I had a happy life here and when the end comes I will be happy in Junnah.
Now, that being said. I am not saying that a person who is an atheist can't try to live a "good" life (not killing, raping, stealing, etc.) and I am sure that most they are happy in their beliefs. I don't want anyone to be offended with what I said...
Reply

Issa
02-09-2006, 06:12 AM
Originally Posted by sumay28
i'm tired, so bear with me;

Atheism is a load of donkey dung. It is beyond me how respected scientists, that is, people who study science, don't believe in a creator.
Salaam Sister,

I think it is because of arrogance. No offense to anyone really. When I thought long and hard about it that is what I came up with. Why should Allah(swt) have to show proof to us? This is what I tell my younger brother ( he is atheist). Who are we to ask for more as He has sent numerous proofs, but yet they say "do some magic" and even if Allah was to do it they would say "that was science not God"...
Reply

sumay28
02-09-2006, 11:26 AM
http://www.missionislam.com/science/scientist.htm

Why a Scientist Believes in God


This article of Mr A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the "Reader's Digest" (January 1948); then on recommendation of Professor C. A. Coulson, F. R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the "Reader's Digest" November 1960 - It shows how science compels the scientists to admit to the essential need of a Supreme Creator.

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the 90 years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humanity and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself I count seven reasons for my faith.

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, pulling back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze. Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our season; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere. Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading Intelligence. What life itself is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the element, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations. Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird to sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life. Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt less sea could not meet the necessary requirements. Who, then, has put it here?

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river; and travels up the very side of the river into which flows The tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately. Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere - those from Europe across thousands of miles of oceans - all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parent came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds - so that each body of water is always populated with eels. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing iruptilse originate? A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed, to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies way and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of Universal Intelligence.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know - such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultra- microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However; the facts are beyond question. Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small space? Here evolution really begins - at the cell, the entity which holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence - no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry. Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking a defence, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality.
Reply

aljawaad
02-09-2006, 11:30 AM
The proof that Allah exist is al-Qur'an.
Reply

aZn_pLayGurL
02-09-2006, 12:53 PM
The 2 MajoR ProOf

1) HoLy QuraaN Paak

aNd

2) tHe SayN *LaiLaHa iLLaHLa***

:wub: uZi :wub:
Reply

HeiGou
02-09-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Issa
The great thing about being Muslim is that "if" I were wrong and the atheist is right then I will have lived a happy life believing in something and doing the very best I can to please Allah and when I die I will just be dead. But if he(the atheist) is wrong... well, I had a happy life here and when the end comes I will be happy in Junnah.
Ahh Pascal's Wager in a Muslim guise. Have you thought, what if you and the atheist are wrong? What if the Catholics are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever. But what if you, the atheist and the Catholics are wrong? What if the Jews are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever. But what if you, the atheist, the Catholics, and the Jews are wrong? What is the Sikhs are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever. But what if you, the atheist, the Catholics, the Jews and the Sikhs are wrong? What if the Buddhists are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever.

You see I can do this all day. What you come down to is that there is not just two choices - atheism and Religion. There are dozens of viable options and millions of theoretical options. How do you know your God is the right God given He is not the only God on offer? There are dozens of good reasons for believing. This is not one of them.
Reply

HeiGou
02-09-2006, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by sumay28
http://www.missionislam.com/science/scientist.htm

Why a Scientist Believes in God


This article of Mr A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the "Reader's Digest" (January 1948); then on recommendation of Professor C. A. Coulson, F. R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the "Reader's Digest" November 1960 - It shows how science compels the scientists to admit to the essential need of a Supreme Creator.
It is good to see that Christians and Muslims can sit down and share something in common! A Christian apologetics text on a Muslim site.

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the 90 years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humanity and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself I count seven reasons for my faith.

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, pulling back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million.
The more mathematically minded may have noticed a slight flaw in this reasoning. Suppose you pull ten coins out of your pocket. The chances of getting any given ordered ten (say 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) is one in ten billion as the good Professor says. But suppose you have done so already. What is the chance, having drawn the ten, that the ten are in that order? Roughly 100 percent. That is, with Earth we do not start out and see ten coin draws, we are here at the end of the ten coin draws and we wonder what are the chances of those ten. A slight difference.

By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.
Admittedly that is so. But all that means is that "our" vegetation would not have evolved and some other vegetation, perhaps, would have. Given that the vegetation has evolved over billions of years for this exact planet, is it any surprise it is reasonably well suited for this exact planet?

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this 'eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our season; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere. Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.
Except there is the slight fact that we have drawn the coins. We are here. The good Professor could write that piece. Some one can post it. I can comment on it. You are reading this. Given you are in your seat what are the chances the Sun is the right distance away? Roughly 100 percent. Given you are in your chair reading this, what are the chances that the Earth's crust is the right thickness? We know that answer already. If any one of these things were different, we would not be here to see it. We would not have evolved. But we are. So they must be right. The question to ask is why is God so wasteful with the Universe? Why is there no one on Mars?

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading Intelligence. >deletions< Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt less sea could not meet the necessary requirements. Who, then, has put it here?
Science has moved on and provides a fairly good explanation of how life evolved out of the primordial soup.

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river; and travels up the very side of the river into which flows The tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately.
This is learned behaviour based on the smell of the river. It is amazing, but it is, surely, not hard to work out how it evolved.

Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey.
Perhaps the good Professor did not notice that those that did not delay the onset of maturity died?

Where does the directing iruptilse originate? A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed, to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies way and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.
I think the more important question to ask is what sort of God creates a world where this happens - read what the Professor is describing carefully. A wasp paralyses, but does not kill, an insect. It lays an egg inside it, but without killing it. The egg hatches, and the grubs slowly eat the insect from inside. All without killing it until the last minute. Think how it must feel to be eaten from the inside and not being able to move. Charles Darwin said he could not reconcile a Loving and Merciful God with these sorts of wasps. The most you can say is that God knows things we do not. You cannot say this is proof of His design.

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten.
Which is not true. Ducks can count to thirteen. If a duck has fourteen or more chicks it will not notice if one goes missing. If it has thirteen or less it will.

No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of Universal Intelligence.
And yet again, we are here, contemplating. If we did not have reason, we would not be. Is that a miracle? Think of the billions of billions of stars. Some of these may have life on them. But if they have intelligence we do not know. Awfully wasteful of God really. So many Stars. So few of us.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know - such as the wonders of genes. >deletions< How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence - no other hypothesis will serve.
Actually I do not follow the logic of that so I cannot comment. If anyone knows what he is talking about please let me know.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry.
Nature is, as it happens, wasteful. Fish lay tens of thousands of eggs. Maybe one survives. Corals million and millions. Not that it counts either way.

Such checks and balances have been universally provided.
Well naturally. Evolution would suggest it was so.

Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!
Which proves that any intelligence that sits on this planet and contemplates its existence would not be a six foot wasp. Good thing too because I hate those things especially those that eat people from the inside.

Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof.
The fact that we believe is proof of our belief? That is a neat argument. Can anyone spot the flaw in this logic?

The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world - the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality.
These are seven really bad reasons to believe in God. There are good ones. These are not them.
Reply

czgibson
02-09-2006, 06:11 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Ahh Pascal's Wager in a Muslim guise......What if the Buddhists are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever.
Your overall point is sound, but I should point out that Buddhists don't believe in god. Buddhism can be described as an "agnostic" religion.

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
02-09-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Your overall point is sound, but I should point out that Buddhists don't believe in god. Buddhism can be described as an "agnostic" religion.
Depends on your Buddhist. It can so be described, but Asian Buddhism and Western Buddhism are two different creatures.
Reply

Issa
02-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Ahh Pascal's Wager in a Muslim guise. Have you thought, what if you and the atheist are wrong? What if the Catholics are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever. But what if you, the atheist and the Catholics are wrong? What if the Jews are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever. But what if you, the atheist, the Catholics, and the Jews are wrong? What is the Sikhs are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever. But what if you, the atheist, the Catholics, the Jews and the Sikhs are wrong? What if the Buddhists are right? Then you have wasted your life here and really annoyed God and so you will burn in Hell forever.

You see I can do this all day. What you come down to is that there is not just two choices - atheism and Religion. There are dozens of viable options and millions of theoretical options. How do you know your God is the right God given He is not the only God on offer? There are dozens of good reasons for believing. This is not one of them.
Salaam,

Actually, I didn't say it was WHY I believed. Only that it was a perk. I haven't wasted my life here, either. I will have conducted myself better than some and not as well as others. Plain and simple. Allah knows best. I didn't say Jews and Christians will rot in hell, do you know why? because... Allah knows best.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-09-2006, 06:43 PM
Salam Alaikam


Dont worry sister i got ya covered,

HeiGou How do we know Air is what we are breathing yet we cant see it?
Scientists prove it through reasoning and science

So when an illiterate man who comes out of a cave with words that shake this world if you understood them in arabic, how would you believe that?

And how do we know Islam is the right path? Understand it study it, we dont deny jews and christians of the time their Torah and injeel were revealed. They arent wrong, some are. But everywhere no one is perfect only the religion of Islam is. And the big question how do we know God exist? Dont give me the theory that Religion is suppose to keep man in check because if thats the case The jewish religion could have dominated the world by now.

Third What is your arguement and what are you trying to say?
So if we are wrong, that must mean that a few of the 2 billion people on this earth who have proved Christianity and judaism wrong Thousands of times they must be wrong too?

I congradulate a athiest because an athiest loosk for logic and reasoning of God. So i advise you To Listen to Zakir Naik.

Only Allah swt judges what happens after we die.

How many contradictions are there in the bible and torah? Countless.

How many in the Quran? ZERO.
Reply

czgibson
02-09-2006, 07:31 PM
Greetings mahdisoldier19,

I know your post is addressing HeiGou, but since I'm an atheist I hope its OK if I respond to this too.

Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
HeiGou How do we know Air is what we are breathing yet we cant see it?
Scientists prove it through reasoning and science
I don't really understand what point you're making here. There are standard tests to determine the presence of the constituent parts of air.

So when an illiterate man who comes out of a cave with words that shake this world if you understood them in arabic, how would you believe that?
That's an interesting point. Muslims (obviously) make great claims for the power of the Qur'an in Arabic. As someone who doesn't understand Arabic, I can't comment on that, but I can say that I've always found English translations to be flat and uninspiring in terms of content.

And the big question how do we know God exist? Dont give me the theory that Religion is suppose to keep man in check because if thats the case The jewish religion could have dominated the world by now.
Eh? In case you hadn't noticed, different religions have had huge amounts of control over different cultures throughout history. It's not surprising that no single religion has dominated the whole world, since there is no single global culture.

So if we are wrong, that must mean that a few of the 2 billion people on this earth who have proved Christianity and judaism wrong Thousands of times they must be wrong too?
Who has proven Judaism and Christianity wrong? If anyone had actually done this then no-one would believe in those religions any more.

I congradulate a athiest because an athiest loosk for logic and reasoning of God. So i advise you To Listen to Zakir Naik.
I think you're making reference to a statement made by Dr. Zakir Naik there, aren't you? I've watched him debating, and while his knowledge and recall of the Qur'an and the Bible are truly impressive, his arguments are weak. Of course, they don't sound weak to someone who agrees with him...

Only Allah swt judges what happens after we die.
Bodily putrefaction is what happens after we die.

How many contradictions are there in the bible and torah? Countless.

How many in the Quran? ZERO.
There are lots of apparent contradictions in the Qur'an, which is why so many refutations have to be written by Muslim scholars, even though, apparently, "truth stands out from error."

Peace
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-09-2006, 08:52 PM
Salam Alaikam

Gibson I Challenge you Bring any contradiction Foreward ANY in the Quran.

For every contradiction you put, i will find Many more from the bible.

I give you that open challlenge

But nonetheless i respect you on your post and i appreciate you responding kindly.
Reply

czgibson
02-09-2006, 09:25 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Gibson I Challenge you Bring any contradiction Foreward ANY in the Quran.

For every contradiction you put, i will find Many more from the bible.

I give you that open challlenge

But nonetheless i respect you on your post and i appreciate you responding kindly.
I certainly don't deny there are contradictions in the Bible - for the most part I believe it's a load of nonsense anyway, and I've pointed out some of those contradictions myself on the forum.

Regarding the Qur'an, I said there were apparent contradictions in it. By this I mean that they look to me like contradictions, but according to Muslims they are not.

Here's one that I still find impossible to understand. It looks like a clear contradiction to me, yet apparently it is not. It regards surah 2 ayah 62 and others, and you can read posts by some kind members of the forum patiently trying to explain it to me on this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-alike-2.html

Read from post 20 on. There was an earlier thread on it too, but it seems to have been deleted.

(Notice that by the end I'm even more confused than before.)

Peace
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-10-2006, 03:38 AM
Salam Alaikam

Refutation of that Surah 2:62


Those who believe (in the Qur'an).
And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Christians and the Sabians,
Any who believe in Allah
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With their Lord on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Now if you dont read the Quran in Arabic context. My friend you will be even more confused then you are now.

You can 2 approaches to this a Concurrent or Conflicting approach.

Concurrent Ok ill Agree with you its talking about the Jews and christians and Sabaans BUT Does it Say Paradise? It mentions a reward. It is like i tell you i will 1 son who believes 1 million dollars. But ill give a son who believes more deeply 1 billion dollars.


Conflicting approach. Now if we are approaching it with a conflict. We state that At that moment of time and even today The christians worship the trinity. And jews denied Christ as theyre savior and Jibril. Bu the christians before the worship of the trinity worshiped Allah swt and the jews and sabians that worshiped Allah swt and worked in rightousness will indeed taste their reward. So by approaching it with a conflict you state Oh Why doesnt it just say they will recieve Paradise?

Because we dont know if they will or not? it is logical that only that knowledge is with Allah swt.

if Allah swt said they will go straight to paradise? Then that would mean every christian jew and sabian of that time that worked hard will go straight to paradise? But how do we know? There are christians and jews who work towards rightousness and Allah swt yet some of their actions may anger Allah swt. That is why Allah swt has the answer alone whether or not they will taste paradise or reward.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-10-2006, 04:31 AM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Regarding the Qur'an, I said there were apparent contradictions in it. By this I mean that they look to me like contradictions, but according to Muslims they are not.

Here's one that I still find impossible to understand. It looks like a clear contradiction to me, yet apparently it is not. It regards surah 2 ayah 62 and others, and you can read posts by some kind members of the forum patiently trying to explain it to me on this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-alike-2.html
I'm a little bit surprised by this comment since I referred you a while ago to my completed and detailed article on the subject:
http://www.islamicboard.com/139684-post49.html

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had forgotten, but at any rate, there's the refutation of the alleged contradiction.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
02-10-2006, 09:58 AM
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Dont worry sister i got ya covered,

HeiGou How do we know Air is what we are breathing yet we cant see it?
Scientists prove it through reasoning and science
Well we can feel it too. No one has ever had a problem dealing with air.

So when an illiterate man who comes out of a cave with words that shake this world if you understood them in arabic, how would you believe that?
As I said, there are good reasons to believe. The previous post was not an example of this. As it happens I also do not believe what you have said, but I accept that many Muslims do believe this and it seems a reasonable basis for belief to me.

And how do we know Islam is the right path? Understand it study it, we dont deny jews and christians of the time their Torah and injeel were revealed. They arent wrong, some are. But everywhere no one is perfect only the religion of Islam is. And the big question how do we know God exist? Dont give me the theory that Religion is suppose to keep man in check because if thats the case The jewish religion could have dominated the world by now.
Well Jews do not actively convert so it would be hard for them to dominate the world. I do not follow how the rest of your argument goes. How do we know God exists? As far as I can see there is no proof He does.

Third What is your arguement and what are you trying to say?
So if we are wrong, that must mean that a few of the 2 billion people on this earth who have proved Christianity and judaism wrong Thousands of times they must be wrong too?
My argument is that of all the reasons to believe, those cited above were bad ones. Nature does not show "God's fingerprints". Regardless of whether you believe He created the world or not, there is no observable evidence that He did. Certainly the evidence cited ("I think the world is beautiful and I can't think of a better reason other than God") is not a convincing argument to anyone who thinks about it.

I congradulate a athiest because an athiest loosk for logic and reasoning of God. So i advise you To Listen to Zakir Naik.
Ahhh, I'd rather bathe in mud.

Only Allah swt judges what happens after we die.

How many contradictions are there in the bible and torah? Countless.

How many in the Quran? ZERO.
Hmmm. How many contradictions in Jane Austen's _Mansfield Park_?

Do you think this is a good argument? I'd just ask, how many contradictions according to whom? May I ask neutral third party observers in both cases or do I have to rely on believers from each Faith?
Reply

mahdisoldier19
02-10-2006, 05:59 PM
Salam Alaikam

First, i dont think you gave relevant answers

Second, I remember someone told me that the Prophet sws said when you argue with blind people Just tell them bye

So my friend in this case you are blind and i will tell you Bye.

but before i conclude,

Yes i think this is a good arguement. Because 2 billion followers of christianity believe their book to be the book of God when in fact it has alleged contradictions that i dont God would ever have put in his holy book supposdly.

You can bring anyone from different faiths, its not faith error Its all Modern Science errors in the bible.
Reply

HeiGou
02-12-2006, 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
First, i dont think you gave relevant answers
I am sorry to hear that. Are you sure you understood them?

Second, I remember someone told me that the Prophet sws said when you argue with blind people Just tell them bye

So my friend in this case you are blind and i will tell you Bye.
Well it has been a short pleasure, but no less treasured for that.

but before i conclude,

Yes i think this is a good arguement. Because 2 billion followers of christianity believe their book to be the book of God when in fact it has alleged contradictions that i dont God would ever have put in his holy book supposdly.
Sure. It has alleged contradictions. You, or Dr Naik, allege them. But they probably do not allege them any more than you allege, or even recognise contradictions in the Quran. Yet I could find people who claimed there were such contradictions. Believers believe what they want.

As for Christians, they do not depend on the literal text of the Bible in the same way Muslims do. It is utterly irrelevant how many contradictions you think you can find.

You can bring anyone from different faiths, its not faith error Its all Modern Science errors in the bible.
Que? You think that until recently Muslims did not think that the Quran told them things that were in contradiction to the Quran?
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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-13-2009, 09:43 PM
  2. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 03:05 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 05:08 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!