Science today can explain almost everything we previously didn't know to a fairly good amount of detail and certainty. The evolution of life and its origin, the origin of the universe itself and how it came to be, why storms happen, what causes illness, where life came from, how our planet was formed, I could go on forever with this. My question now is: if science explains almost everything we observe and shows it to have come by through natural cause and effect, even the very beginning of the universe and how this beginning was provoked (e.e. quantum physics explaining the Big Bang), where does God fit into the picture? In other words, where is God's actual work?
Allah, with His infinite wisdom has not created anything without a reason.
This is a claim backed up with no evidence.
format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
One of the reasons why there exists some imperfections is to indicate the weakness of the creation and to show that each and everything will come to an end.
Imperfections are something and nasty faults are something else. When the optic nerve goes right through the light-sensitive cells of the retina and cause a blind spot, that's a fault if committed by an engineer they would be fired. Imperfection has a different meaning. A perfect eye would be able to see all light waves in the spectrum, for example. An imperfect eye would only be able to see a certain range. But in no way would the eye have a nasty mistake like the one described above. Especially when other animals in the animal kingdom, like the octopus, have an eye where the optical nerve comes from the back, not blocking the light.
format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
The beauty of the Holy Qur'an, in all its aspects, indicate it is truly the word of Allah.
It's repetitive, vague, unbalanced and full of weaknesses. If you ask for my opinion, people like Al-Mutanabbi and Abu-Firas Al-Hamadani have wrote much MUCH better work than the Quran.
format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
I am sure you know of other reasons why pork is forbidden.
Pork, when properly prepared, is not bad for you. The old testament prohibits the eating of animals with a cloven hoof because they are "unclean".When pork is not prepared properly and cooked thoroughly, you can get tapeworms and trichinosis. But you get those anyway from almost any undercooked meat or even unwashed vegetables. With modern cooking techniques, there are no problems with pork.
format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel
A sincere seeker of truth would not take long to realize that as well.
I'm a truth seeker. You're welcome to convince me.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
...doesn't make sense.
This whole paragraph doesn't make sense. First of all, your analogy is flawed. We KNOW a Toshiba laptop's been designed by Toshiba. We saw Toshiba design it. Second, synthetic life has already been created in labs. Check out one of my posts on this thread, it has a link to such project. And it's not new, it's a year old. Now thirdly, who told you that scientists are in disagreement? In one of my posts I have provided (with sources) the percentage of scientists who accept evolution. It's an astonishing percentage of 99.85% in America only. Let alone Europe or east Asia.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
will creation into being
Saying God willed creation into being is a nonsensical term. It is as sensical as saying he laughed creation into being, or swam it into being. It makes no sense and it explains nothing.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
somehow randomly appeared out of nothing, collided with other substance in an atmosphere that must have also somehow spontaneously come into existence from nothing, then exploded and separated according to a law which also somehow existed from nowhere, and those particles with no intelligence decided to follow that law (how did they decide?), or the law forced them to comply (how did the law think?),
Sorry, but this shows that you know absolutely nothing about science. No scientists ever claimed that things happened that way. If they did, they would be out of their mind.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
the ability to make decisions in a way different from all other creation,
Not true. Chimpanzees have the same ability, as well as orangutans and gorillas. They're also self-aware just like we are. Documentaries like "Ape Genius" and "Amazing Apes" are good places to start.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
how someone on the other side of the world would instantly see and hear you?
Are you implying that the vague words of Umm Salama were a foretelling of today's communication technology?! You know, this is how all Islamic "miracles" work. They take an Islamic statement and try so hard to shove it into a scientific prophecy. That's just wrong. If this were a miracle, it would have had more detail than that. I could deduce a million such miracles from the works of Shakespeare and call it the word of God, by your standards.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
I would like to mention that the work of man is not perfect and never will be. All that the scientists discovered is merely not their creation in any form, I cannot for a second take into consideration that something amazing was created without a purpose or by a greator source.
This is your own feeling that's backed up by nothing. I've already answered the fallacy of science being inaccurate.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
This earth also has a right to be protected, and cleaned it if it is full of dirt.
This is the most sadistic, unjust and cruel statement I've seen in my whole life. And hey, wasn't it your god who created us with the ability to do such things? Now what? He wants to punish us for practising our free will? Such free will we have..
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
perhaps a scientist can help in your case i believe.
True. Scientists explain this. How? It is an evolutionary constraint. If it weren't, then the only other explanation is a lousy creator. I'd rather go with the first.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
How does a religious scientist deny the involvement of God in natural processes?
I didn't say that religious scientists deny involvement in natural processes. I said they disapprove of direct magical intervention/creations of gods. In fact, many religious scientists, like Professor Kenneth Miller, have written books about God's position in natural processes, such as evolution.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
And if you were to even try to destroy this book, you could not, this is a fact.
No, it is not. Just as much as you can't destroy any other popular books. There are just too many people involved. As for why the Quran was not changed, this doesn't make it a divine book. Many books have never been changed, doesn't make them divine.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
There are many miracles in this book, some for example are of the Bee producing honey, we are made up of water etc etc.
These are not miracles. They are easily refuted. If you want, I could show you how.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
The benefit you would get from worshipping an invisible entity is similar to believing all the facts science puts out there but except realising the greatness of them,
No. Once again I say as I said a thousand times earlier, you do not "believe" in science. You acknowledge it. Science offers empirical evidence and works by a specific method. Religion does not.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
This is however your choice completely.
This is why I'm on this forum. I know a lot about the Quran and Islam, but I want to know more from Muslims themselves, in hope that there might be more to it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
If the world doesn't see anything wrong in praising some man who won the nobel prize of discovering the creation he lives in then I do not see anything wrong with praising the creator of the universe who created the creation we live in, eat in, survive by what he provides, if you will it is your choice to disagree or agree.
This is a false analogy. If a scientist built up a thousand robots just to praise him and tell him how great he is, you'd at least call him sick..
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
it is never known to be good for your health
False. Brandy was an important ingredient in many patent medicines for a long time. Wine fends off heart attacks and blood clots.
Here are two articles on some of the many benefits of both brandy and wine.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
may I ask, what about them?
Already explained one of the issues in the human eye.
The laryngeal nerve: The nerve 'wiring' of the mammalian larynx is strange. The larynx is in the neck, so one might expect that the relevant nerve would come off the spine at the neck. And, it does: the recurrent laryngeal nerve originates from the spinal cord in the neck, as a branch of the vagus nerve. But then, bizarrely, rather than taking a direct route across the neck, it instead passes down the neck and into the chest, loops under the posterior side of the aorta by the heart, then travels right back up again to the larynx. Which is a waste of materials by anyone's standard.
The appendix: the appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. It does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system. In other words, it's useless and it gets inflamed in most people causing death if not taken out immediately.
The prostate: the male urethra - the tube via which urine exits the body - is a soft tube. And it runs through the prostate, an organ prone to infection and subsequent swelling. No engineer in his right mind would put an organ so prone to swelling around a collapsible tube.
These are some examples of many others. Now, are those examples of "bad design" explainable by evolution? Sure is! If you want to know more, just ask me.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
It just tells me that your not well learned in the studies of the Qur'aan, claiming the miracles are not 'miracle material'
No. I have encountered many of those "miracles" and found them to be utterly false.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
i recommend you read the Qur'aan.
Already have. A few times.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
Yes, i'll be honest I did watch half of it.
Well, you should watch all of it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
is a rather depressing thought to ponder on.
It shouldn't be. Take on this example: why is the Mona Lisa so valuable? Because it's unique. If Leonardo painted a hundred of those, it would be worthless. But the fact that it is the ONLY one makes it so valuable. And that's how we value our lives. It's the only life, therefore it's priceless. I don't feel depressed, and neither should you.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
is rather understanding and pleasing.
Not when there's a probability you'll spend a few thousand decades in a lake of fire..
chimpanzies do not make nuclear bombs or fly to the moon - nor do they make telescopes or write science books
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Imperfections are something and nasty faults are something else. When the optic nerve goes right through the light-sensitive cells of the retina and cause a blind spot, that's a fault if committed by an engineer they would be fired. Imperfection has a different meaning. A perfect eye would be able to see all light waves in the spectrum, for example. An imperfect eye would only be able to see a certain range. But in no way would the eye have a nasty mistake like the one described above. Especially when other animals in the animal kingdom, like the octopus, have an eye where the optical nerve comes from the back, not blocking the light.
so are you saying that a non-seeing object which exploded with a big bang formed micro-organisms without the ability to think or see - and then suddenly decided it was boring and that they might as well see what's appeared out of nowhere and been around all these years?
makes me think of this:
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
somehow randomly appeared out of nothing, collided with other substance in an atmosphere that must have also somehow spontaneously come into existence from nothing, then exploded and separated according to a law which also somehow existed from nowhere, and those particles with no intelligence decided to follow that law (how did they decide?), or the law forced them to comply (how did the law think?),
Sorry, but this shows that you know absolutely nothing about science. No scientists ever claimed that things happened that way. If they did, they would be out of their mind.
also we're your hosts & you a guest. No one is under an obligation to convince you of anything. It's the other way around & you've been quite inept..
in closure I'll quote the noble Quran:
Sahih International
I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders as assistants.
We don't actually know how life or creation came about & neither do you.. science only offers speculations.. it's yet to replicate it beyond a shadow.. We've no desire for leaps of faith when it comes to science!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I'm against parents who label their children as Christian children, Muslim or Hindu children. Children should be brought up secularly, and then given the choice whether to adhere to their parents' religion or not. But the indoctrination of children from birth turns them into mindless religious robots that will become tomorrow's fanatics, terrorists, anti-gays and racists.
You would rather have them brought up as atheistic evolutionists. Speaking of terrorists I know of no muslim that supports killing of innocent men, women and children, but yet the US military has done so repeatedly for the past 10 years and just brush it off as 'collateral damage'. Can you not see that the Iraqi and Afghan people have been terrorized?
And what evidence have you got to support such belief? How could you know of something that requires death as a passport? Telling me that the Quran says so will ignite another question: how do you know the Quran is the true, unchanged word of God?
Much about religion is faith which I have and you don't. I could very well be in your atheistic shoes today, but Allah in His mercy guided me to Islam to which I say, alhamdulillah.
Nobody EVER, whatever their crime, deserve an eternity of torture. The worst criminal ever to walk the earth only committed finite crimes. To award this with infinite torture is just unfair. It's basic mathematics.
Be sure and remember this when you are standing before Allah on Judgment Day. Whether you think something is fair or not will not change your reality.
And what if we're both wrong? How do you know it is your religion that is true and your god that is real?
I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me. My extensive knowledge of genetics and molecular biology supports my belief in Allah as the Creator and Sustainer of this world. I have made my choice (or as you might say I have placed my bet) to believe in Allah, that Muhammad was His Messenger through whom was revealed Allah's word, the Quran. That is the foundation of my faith and Allah willing I will hold to it until my final breath.
There is no winner in this betting game. So, why choose one over the other?
I beg to differ. If I am right (as I believe that I am) then I win and you loose. If you are right that there is no Hereafter, then none of this or our lives really matters any whatsoever. Plain and simple. I am reminded of a line in a song, "If you believe in forever, then life is just a one night stand." I would turn this around and say, "Life is a just one night stand and without forever, it is meaningless." I have never had a one night stand, but I can imagine that it doesn't amount to much, so also our lives if there is no Hereafter.
Just because you were born to parents who adhere to that religion?
I was born to Christian parents who were not religious and I chose Islam while I was in college almost 30 years ago.
You would rather have them brought up as atheistic evolutionists
Research courtesy of the 'scientific community' tells us that children re natural born believers in God.. Isn't criminal & a form of abuse to deny their very nature that of fitrah for a completely ailing ideology that's neither supported by science nor satisfactory to human nature? To actually go against the forces that naturally speak to our humanity.. & for what? to please an un-educated impotent underdog that makes up less than 10% of any given population?
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
We don't actually know how life or creation came about & neither do you.. science only offers speculations.. it's yet to replicate it beyond a shadow.. We've no desire for leaps of faith when it comes to science!
I agree with you. As I have said earlier ToE is no more than a hypothesis based on a few observations. Its foundation is a book by Charles Darwin and they erroneously grasped at genetics as evidence to support it. The real issue is that ToE is subject to experimentation little more than our faith in Allah. Naturalistic evolutionists claim to be scientists but they don't subject there work to the scientific method. When I hear an explanation for how meiosis supposedly evolved from mitosis, there is no logical sequence of events presented that confer selective advantage to the steps along the way.
I think the real aim of evolutionists is to disprove the existence of Allah and as Isam has said children be brought up secularly or in other words as atheists. It is not about showing where we came from, but rather it is about destroying religion and faith in Allah.
I agree with you. As I have said earlier ToE is no more than a hypothesis based on a few observations. Its foundation is a book by Charles Darwin and they erroneously grasped at genetics as evidence to support it. The real issue is that ToE is subject to experimentation little more than our faith in Allah. Naturalistic evolutionists claim to be scientists but they don't subject there work to the scientific method. When I hear an explanation for how meiosis supposedly evolved from mitosis, there is no logical sequence of events presented that confer selective advantage to the steps along the way.
I think the real aim of evolutionists is to disprove the existence of Allah and as Isam has said children be brought up secularly or in other words as atheists. It is not about showing where we came from, but rather it is about destroying religion and faith in Allah.
They're certainly welcome to do so.. but fighting faith with faith of a different color won't cut it..
contrary to our dear atheist English teacher's assertion, the atheist position is the more precarious one.. they've neither refuted the existence of God, nor provided a reasonably logical explanation as to why something else is a better option.. Then when they drop dead .. what will they do beyond 'Dawkins told me so'?
This is your own feeling that's backed up by nothing. I've already answered the fallacy of science being inaccurate.
You see science isn't the answer for everything for me, science is man's research, studies. In other words it proves most of God's creation, I also use the Qur'aan. You may disagree, but you are free to do so.
My own feeling of what? to say that human isnt perfect?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is the most sadistic, unjust and cruel statement I've seen in my whole life. And hey, wasn't it your god who created us with the ability to do such things? Now what? He wants to punish us for practising our free will? Such free will we have..
I believe you mentioned that you've read the Qur'aan? If that is the case, i'm sure you've come across the verse stating that 'shaytaan is a plain enemy to mankind'? Have you any understanding of what 'free will' is in accordance to Islam?
You have a choice, obey your lord or follow your own desires! You live in a country by its law, you obey the law of the country or break the law so you may have to pay some sort of price, no?
As a believer in God I either follow his commands or I choose to live by man made law.
format_quote Originally Posted by ;1473333
This earth also has a right to be protected, and cleaned it if it is full of dirt.
That however is my statement, but i stand by it. explain to me what is sadistic in regards to it?
It is sadistic why? the earth you live in has no right? you can perform all horrific acts on it and think you will get away with that? The earth that provides you with all that you desire? And people wonder what are purposes of natural disasters, earth quakes etc. But if your saying my statement of God having control of his creation and doing so what he knows best, if that's sadistic then I believe the government who calls for capital punishment upon criminals who clearly deserve it are also sadistic! And also no man can prevent an earth quake or any natural disasters from happening no matter what science has to say about this!
Is it not sadisctic that when those who are to be relied upon are useless world leaders and some not to be relied upon because many caused bloodshed amongst millions of innocent civillians? Is it not sadisctic that they torture animals in the most cruel way in order to eat them in the end? Is not sadisctic to think that millions of innocents who have died without justice! and much more, and whose going to end this? Death surely isnt!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
True. Scientists explain this. How? It is an evolutionary constraint. If it weren't, then the only other explanation is a lousy creator. I'd rather go with the first.
A lousy creator? I don't think we need to use such words, I thought you agreed upon being respectful! A creator in whose permission you live on this earth by, who has the power to create what he wills and take away what he wills, i'm completely unsure to which of my statements you've not understood and failed to accept that all that science has researched is created, this I feel is something we will disagree on, so you may believe what you will and I shall believe what i will.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No, it is not. Just as much as you can't destroy any other popular books. There are just too many people involved. As for why the Quran was not changed, this doesn't make it a divine book. Many books have never been changed, doesn't make them divine.
This is just a fact you do not wish to accept, because you find that the rest of the beliefs of this faith do not meet your desires. Remember you do not always get what you want in life, things that are good for you ,you will not always like, and all that which is bad for you is usually what one wants and doesnt benefit you. You don't want to accept it, so be it! But i've not come across any other scripture claimings its the work of God and lasting so long without mistakes with miracles and all that which one should reflect upon in life and ofcourse much more. No book exists remaining the same for centuries, and having millions aorund the world memorise it in it's original, and not being able to destroy even if any fool wanted. Your right many books haven't been changed, but has a book remained the same from centuries ago till this day and age! Keep in mind there are many haters, haters of islam through since day 1 up till this day, none have been able to destroy it, no matter how much the world has developed over time.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
These are not miracles. They are easily refuted. If you want, I could show you how.
They may not be miracles in your views, but they have been proven by science.. you can say that the human eye is not a miracle, or the brain and so on, maybe you do not realise what a blessing is to have both and wondering if you had neither. I am not aware of your beliefs so I cannot say much..
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No. Once again I say as I said a thousand times earlier, you do not "believe" in science. You acknowledge it. Science offers empirical evidence and works by a specific method. Religion does not.
your right, and I agree not all religions have this method, though in my case the Qur'aan certainly does.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is why I'm on this forum. I know a lot about the Quran and Islam, but I want to know more from Muslims themselves, in hope that there might be more to it.
And I hope that is beneficial towards you in some way.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
This is a false analogy. If a scientist built up a thousand robots just to praise him and tell him how great he is, you'd at least call him sick..
Thats pretty silly, call it false analogy if you may, but I was stating a reason, I was simply trying to say if a human has the right to be praised, the creator has an even greator chance, no need to include robots, they are just a creation of mankind, compared to the creation of God.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
False. Brandy was an important ingredient in many patent medicines for a long time. Wine fends off heart attacks and blood clots.
Here are two articles on some of the many benefits of both brandy and wine.
I had a feeling you would mention this, so you disagree that alcohol has destroyed societies at all? I mentioned alcohol in the essence of drinking it at all, not how beneficial it is, but I wouldn't use alcohol as a cure personally, nor do I believe it is permissable.
Now, how much of the world who actually consumes it has benefited themselves from the 'benefits of alcohol'?
One of my reason being (just giving you an idea of my belief) is that when Allaah permits something, it is either because it is purely good or its goodness outweighs its evil. If He forbids something it is either because it is completely bad or because its evil outweighs its goodness. Allaah is All Wise and All Knowing. There are many kinds of medicine and remedies, both spiritual and natural. So if the medicine does not heal the disease, rather healing comes from Allaah when the medicine is used. Again, i provided my answer, and you can disagree all you want.
I feel explaining this to you has no point at all. and I am not trying to force you to believe, but I ask you atleast to respect this.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No. I have encountered many of those "miracles" and found them to be utterly false.
Respectively, I disagree.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Already have. A few times.
So have you studied it also?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
It shouldn't be. Take on this example: why is the Mona Lisa so valuable? Because it's unique. If Leonardo painted a hundred of those, it would be worthless. But the fact that it is the ONLY one makes it so valuable. And that's how we value our lives. It's the only life, therefore it's priceless. I don't feel depressed, and neither should you.
That isnt the point I was trying to make, yes i agree there is no denying our lives our unique! But why so?
How are they 'unique' if by dying and knowing you have no purpose at all? In the sense you remain a 'nothing' eternally. If so, again I disagree.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Not when there's a probability you'll spend a few thousand decades in a lake of fire..
Yeah sure, I cannot accept at all that you've actually read the Qur'aan or atleast not studied the book, as your statements do not convice me at all. If you've actually read the Qur'aan and studied it you would have realised that an individual is not punishment without reason! If I were to live by your statement that would make me utterly foolish, indeed! You see, one of the names attributed to Allaah/God is the God of justice, and those who do not recieve their justice in this world will recieve so in the court of his on a day called Judgment day/day of Resurection..
Have you wondered why and who those individuals are who will spend a few thousands decades in a lake of fire?
Also i assume punishment should be made illegal by your views? I speak of those who deserve punishment, not of those who have been treated injustly and punished without reason.
I would finally like to come to a conclusion which I am sure we both can agree upon. I believe there is a God who controls this universe, and I believe that is not the case with you. I respect your views, though I do not agree on the majority.
"Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), Al-Hayyul-Qayyum (the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists).".."[Al Qur'aan 3:2]
This is the most sadistic, unjust and cruel statement I've seen in my whole life. And hey, wasn't it your god who created us with the ability to do such things? Now what? He wants to punish us for practising our free will? Such free will we have..
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29)
If you're going to read the Quran, read it with an open-mind, and ponder on it. After all Allah swt has blessed you with intellect. Use it wisely.
I'm against parents who label their children as Christian children, Muslim or Hindu children. Children should be brought up secularly, and then given the choice whether to adhere to their parents' religion or not. But the indoctrination of children from birth turns them into mindless religious robots that will become tomorrow's fanatics, terrorists, anti-gays and racists.
Please give me example how secular education for children work?
Where do parents obtain values and instruction for this secular ideology?
What are contained in the secular ideology for children?
what are the values of secular ideology? Where can farmers in Toraja, sulawesi, Indonesia get this secular ideology from to teach their children?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Oh, yeah. Primate ERVs do not confirm evolution. Chromosomal fusion does not confirm evolution. Evolution before our very own eyes does not confirm evolution. Mitochondrial DNA does not confirm evolution. Transitional fossils do not confirm evolution. Way to be current..
Please give me scientific sources and journals where those things confirm evolution as fact.
Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!
If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!
Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
To Him belong all (creatures) in the heavens and on earth: Even those who are in His (very) Presence are not too proud to serve Him, nor are they (ever) weary (of His service): They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they ever flag or intermit. [21:16-20]
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Imperfections are something and nasty faults are something else. When the optic nerve goes right through the light-sensitive cells of the retina and cause a blind spot, that's a fault if committed by an engineer they would be fired. Imperfection has a different meaning. A perfect eye would be able to see all light waves in the spectrum, for example. An imperfect eye would only be able to see a certain range. But in no way would the eye have a nasty mistake like the one described above. Especially when other animals in the animal kingdom, like the octopus, have an eye where the optical nerve comes from the back, not blocking the light.
That just shows your ignorance on the subject. A cephalopod like an octopus has blue blood. They have hemocyanin oxygen transportation instead of hemoglobin, which is essential for them in their living conditions. But hemocyanin binds with oxygen in a non-cooperative fashion and are only 25% efficient at transporting oxygen per amount of blood as compared to hemoglobin under normal conditions. Moreover, the cephalopods do not have blood cells. Their oxygen carrier is extracellular, freely floating in blood and through the tissues. See this for details: http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/47/4/645
In cephalopods, the oxygen is delivered to the organs in a single pass by extracting lots of oxygen from huge amounts of water passing through the gills.
Our retina is one of the highest oxygen consuming tissue of the body, even more than the brain. It combines frenetic pigment synthesis with expensive neural processing which requires a lot of oxygen and nutrients to sustain. Like the muscle tissues that have their own oxygen carrier, myoglobin, the retina has its own Oxygen carrier, neuroglobin, but Oxygen is delivered to the retinal receptors directly by haemoglobins in the blood vessels. These vessels are absolutely essential there, next to the cones, because oxygen has no means of diffusing through its thickness at such consumption rates, see http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/M209909200v1.pdf
The true reason why cephalopds do not have the optic disk blocking their visual fields is that they can get away with it. They deliver oxygen to their retinas using extracellular haemocyanins, so they do not need the blood vessels to go right next to their rhabdomeres. Faster Oxygen metabolism and lack of cooperativity make this mode of oxygenation possible. The animals that deliver oxygen using haemoglobin containing specialized blood cells cannot allow themselves such a luxury. Since the arterial blood has to enter the retina anyway, Allah has created this entrance for the optic nerve, which makes good practical sense: the nerve grows around the artery, so the nerves get their oxygen, too. Better still, our sharp central vision is by fovea, which is cleared of blood vessels and innervated and oxygenated from behind, through the choroid. That is the reason why the fovea (which is only 1% of the retina) operates under hypoxic stress under bright light and why we avert our eyes from it. The marine animals do not encounter this problem because they do not deal with bright light, so the oxygen demand of their retinas is lower. That is another reason they can get away with letting the oxygen only through the posterior arteries.
The blind spot is not about nerves; it is about oxygen and blood. The design of our eye is optimal for us and the design of cephalopod eyes is optimal for them. It is ridiculous to lay a claim of suboptimality for the design of such ubiquity and antiquity.
I am not a biologist. But a simple research shows how ignorantly you dismissed the Wisdom of the Creator with no shame. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators. [23:14]
Similarly, everything else that you mentioned are created for a reason. By dismissing their use, you are just professing your ignorance.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
It's repetitive, vague, unbalanced and full of weaknesses. If you ask for my opinion, people like Al-Mutanabbi and Abu-Firas Al-Hamadani have wrote much MUCH better work than the Quran.
Qur'an is not a piece of poetry. The repetition lays emphasis on important matters. It is consice and complete. Its beauty is unmatched.
They way you are insulting just shows your lack of comprehension.
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I'm a truth seeker.
Yet you disregard every single reply and only stick to hypothesis and theories.
^^ let me give you another reason why he's nothing more than an underwhelming and undereducated troll:
laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occurring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilities increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.
This is from ansar try to find the original thread pls. I am typing from my iPhone and don't care enough to protract this given lack of interest in the OP
A person can have a perfectly healthy brain and just knock out,
Or be brain dead and survive on life support,
When insufficient amounts of blood reach the brain, you pass out.
If your brain is completely dead, you could "survive" on life support but you're never ever going to recover. And without life support, you'd never make it. This shows that you're not actually "alive." By scientific standards, you're long dead. But your body's machinery still works thanks to good technology.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
Since the biological cells alone would be responsible for keeping them alive, and the biological cells would be perfectly healthy,
Wrong. With no sufficient fuel, brought in by blood, which is pumped using the heart, which is controlled by areas of the central nervous system, the cells would die. Simple as that.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
In Islam we call this thing a soul, something which causes a body to stay in tact while it is here, and cause all organs and cells to decompose once it leaves.
In science, we call it a central nervous system that controls all other parts of the body.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
And now we live in an age of weather modification,
So, are we all Anti-Christs then? Read my post above for an answer to such "miracles.."
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
I am challenging you to list them all
I'd need a whole library if I'm to list all those. But here are a few:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
Resources:
Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002.
Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.
I didn't use that figure to show that evolution is true. I used it just to refute the claim that says the scientific community is unsure about it.
Yes, I have. Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. Just Google that and see for yourself.
Purpose is in its title: Public beliefs about evolution and creation.
Go to the above source and read for yourself.
The study clearly states "biologists." Read, for God's sake!
Wow, you're more ignorant than I thought you were. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Go grab a biology textbook and get a little education.
Belief in God and acceptance of evolution are compatible.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
I'd hate to see another mindless troll gain so much attention by piggy back riding on the 'scientific community without understanding its intricacies!
If I'm a mindless troll then why respond to my post anyway? If you've got nothing good to say, don't bother at all. I don't appreciate people like you calling me things like that when they clearly have no idea what they're on about.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
will isam isn't that exactly what you're doing here?
No? I came here asking a question? Did you even read the original post? I'm not forcing anything down anybody's throat. I've provided sources and evidence to everything I claimed and asked no-one to take my word for it. If you don't have an answer to my question, then don't bother replying.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
After all who is forcing you to write on a religious forum?
My desire to know what people think, and if what they think makes a good point from which I might learn something.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
perhaps you can do us the grand favor or proving 'speciation through evolution'
I could write a whole big post on the subject of speciation, but you're not worth tiring my fingers for. And besides, I still have many more posts to reply to. Therefore, I'm going to give you one or two links instead that would do the job for me.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict
I have no problem with that. I never said religion and science are incompatible. My atheism was never caused by knowing too much science. That is your assertion.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
there's nothing quite as bad as being a pseudo intellect & proud of it!
If that's what you think I am, then don't reply to my posts.
And hey.. Maybe next time you reply try to have a bit of manners? You're supposedly a lady, you should be much more well-mannered than that. I don't appreciate an ignorant child coming about accusing me of things she imagines. Have a little respect to someone who's here asking a genuine question.
Go ahead & elaborate on that with other than an eloquent 'oh yeah'
I'm going to make it short and brief. For more details just Google it. We share over 98% of our DNA with our most recent cousins the chimpanzees. But it's not only the functional pieces of DNA that we share together. ERVs are relics of a viral infection, i.e. a virus that inserts itself randomly into the host's genome. Now this virus perishes when the cell dies, but if the infection happened in a germ cell (sperm or ovum) and then you reproduce, you pass that ERV to your descendants. Now, if we look at the short arm of chromosome #10 in the human genome, we find one of those ERVs. What's interesting is that chimps have the exact same ERV in the exact same location. Coincidence? Seeing we have over 3 billion nitrogenic bases in our genome, this gives a chance of 1 in 3 billion. And guess what? There are 16 instances of human ERVs having exact matches with chimp ERVs. The probability of that happening asymptotes to zero.. What's the only viable explanation? Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Any retrovirus that inserted into the genome of our common ancestor would be inherited by both chimps AND humans. Do ERVs violate nested hierarchy? No.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Chromosomal fusions, acrocentric breaks & translocations have given us everything from Leukemia to down syndrome but not a different species!
You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. Here, Professor Kenneth Miller can explain it to you.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
what is evolving before our very eyes?
Here's one of the best examples of evolution within our lifetime. Italian Wall Lizards..
Other examples include elephants evolving smaller tusks, which helps them survive poacher attacks. Russian dogs evolving to learn the subways. Hudson River fish are becoming immune to toxic waste. Bacteria evolving TWICE to digest nylon. Google any of these from any reputable scientific journal/website and see for yourself.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
How does Mitochondrial DNA confirm evolution?
Mitochondrial DNA - maternal DNA - is used to construct evolutionary trees. DNA is present inside the nucleus of every cell of our body but it is the DNA of the cell's mitochondria that has been most commonly used to construct evolutionary trees. Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother. Every few generations, a random mutation creeps into this familial signature. So comparison of two samples of mtDNA will show degrees of kinship and ancestral origin. Random infrequent changes once again provide a way of estimating the number of generations back to a shared ancestor.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
I am just dying to see those transitional fossils..
Oh, listing all of those would take hours.. I'll list a few of them and if you're interested in seeing more, have a look here.
Fish to amphibian: Osteolepis, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Eryops.
Amphibian to reptile: Proterogyrinus, Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Paleothyris.
Reptile to mammal: Archaeothyris, Dimetrodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon.
Primate to human: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo erectus.
Just to name a few..
How do we know these are transitional fossils?
They possess mid-way characteristics and characteristics from the two species that preceded it and succeeded it.
It falls into the exact chronological order between the predecessor and the successor.
It's found in the exact place where the evolution of that lineage is concluded to have happened. Most of these transitional fossils weren't found by accident, they were anticipated.
And if that doesn't do it for you, then it's quite apparent that you're the mindless uneducated troll, which I strongly suspect you are.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
do they get the choice of whether to adhere to the rules of corrupt politicians who no longer represent the wishes of the people?
Sorry, mate. This only happens in Arab countries. When a politician is corrupt in Europe, they're kicked out of their position. Besides, politicians don't enslave people. That only happens, again, in your Arab countries.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
i've heard of people getting things like 50 life sentences, that's their eternal life on earth + more.
But once you're dead, that's it. Torment is over. The difference between that and eternity in hell is vast. Eternity in hell is a mathematical infinity of time. Life on earth at its best is not over a hundred years. You can't compare this to that.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
the religion you were trying to discredit
I'm not trying to discredit anything. How's asking a simple question then discussing the answers an act of discrediting? It's odd how almost 99% of Muslims think everyone's either attacking them, their religious idols or their religion.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
Actually, Islam was known from the start.
That's why there's absolutely no historical evidence of it whatsoever.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
Because only one answer is correct.
How do you know that? And this is not a rhetorical question.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless
you seem to want to force your view on others.
No. I'm just answering questions that I'm being asked and discussing answers that I've been given. What, now, I'm not even allowed to question the answers?
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Developmental psychologists...
Irrelevant. I'm not here to claim there is no god.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
How is the crime finite when the victim is also 'gone forever'?
Like I said, once you're dead, that's it. You're gone forever, but you don't feel it. I'm not justifying killing, by the way. It's a punishable crime. But to punish such crime for an infinity of torture, that's unfair. Why not punish the killer with a specific number of years in hell that are equivalent to the number of years the victim could have lived had they not been killed? The main reason why I find difficulty believing in God is the concept of hell, I'm being honest here.
chimpanzies do not make nuclear bombs or fly to the moon - nor do they make telescopes or write science books
So what? Pre-historic humans did none of that either, doesn't make them less sapient/self-aware. Some of today's African tribes don't even know how to read, yet we still call them people with perfectly fine sapience and self-awareness. Your point is invalid.
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
so are you saying that a non-seeing object which exploded with a big bang formed micro-organisms without the ability to think or see - and then suddenly decided it was boring and that they might as well see what's appeared out of nowhere and been around all these years?
What?
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
you tell me what you think as to how it happened
The only thing that remains a mystery to this day is what was before the Big Bang, everything else is thoroughly explained + evidence. Your ignorant of the facts doesn't make them wrong. Read one or two books on the subject if you want. Remember one thing, just because we don't yet know the answer to something, doesn't mean that a god did it. It may have well been, but as long as there's no evidence for that, it's nothing more than a baseless claim.
Give me the gist of that. I really don't have time to read a 50-page PDF..
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
also we're your hosts & you a guest. No one is under an obligation to convince you of anything. It's the other way around & you've been quite inept..
First of all, you're not my host. IB staff are. Second, the purpose of this post is clear in its title. If you don't like it, tough, nobody invited you in to start with.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You would rather have them brought up as atheistic evolutionists.
I'd rather call them "critically-thinking free children." I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with Christians or Jews raising their children secularly and then telling them about the world's religions (and their own) and having them choose for themselves.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I know of no muslim that supports killing of innocent men
OK no problem. Nonetheless, it was Muslim fanatics who terrorised the world in incidents like in the year 2005 only:
United Kingdom, July 7: London bombings – Suicide bombers attack one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 52 people and injuring over 700.
Israel, July 12: Islamic Jihad takes responsibility for a suicide bombing in Netanya, which kills five people at a shopping mall.
Egypt, July 23: Sharm el-Sheikh bombings – Car bombs explode at tourist sites in Sharm el-Sheikh, killing at least 88 and wounding more than 100.
Jewish terrorism: Israel, August 4: Jewish settler in an IDF uniform opens fire on a bus in Shfaram, killing four Israeli Arabs and wounding five.
Jordan, November 9: Three explosions at hotels in Amman, leave at least 60 dead and 120 wounded.
And I could go on forever. I don't think you'd argue with me that the main reason for these terrorist attacks are religious indoctrination. It doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not, it IS religious.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Much about religion is faith which I have and you don't.
Some people like myself have a problem taking things for granted with no evidence to support them. This seems to be absent from your ideology.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
May I ask what your field and level of education is?
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I beg to differ. If I am right (as I believe that I am) then I win and you loose. If you are right that there is no Hereafter, then none of this or our lives really matters any whatsoever.
And if we're both wrong we both lose. And strictly statistically speaking, the probability of this is very high.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
Isn't criminal & a form of abuse to deny their very nature that of fitrah for a completely ailing ideology that's neither supported by science nor satisfactory to human nature?
I don't remember saying anything about raising children with an atheistic view on life. I didn't say children should be told 24/7 that there is no god.
format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll
& for what? to please an un-educated impotent underdog that makes up less than 10% of any given population?
According to adherents.com, there are over 1.1 billion people around the world who are non-religious/atheists/agnostics comprising a 16% of the world's population. And if you think this is a minority, think again. Islam is only a few percent over that number. Those "uneducated impotent underdogs" you speak of make up 85% of the population in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 65% in Japan, 54% in France and 49% in Germany. And guess what? They're some of the most advanced societies in the world in all aspects. Check your facts next time, dimwit.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I agree with you. As I have said earlier ToE is no more than a hypothesis based on a few observations.
Are you joking? Please read a little more on the topic from proper scientific journals. Or just Google the number of pieces of evidence for evolution.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Its foundation is a book by Charles Darwin
Actually, Charles Darwin was the first person to propose a plausible mechanism for evolution. The idea of evolution has been around since the Arab Golden Age. People like Ibn Khaldun in his Introduction and Ibn Sina were the first to talk about evolution, although they couldn't get far with explaining its mechanism. In fact, Darwin's contemporary, Sir William Draper, called it the Mohammedan Theory of Evolution. Google that term anywhere on the internet and you'll find loads of entries on it.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
The real issue is that ToE is subject to experimentation little more than our faith in Allah.
Wrong. Evolution makes predictions which should be met in order to strengthen its authenticity. Unsurprisingly, every single prediction made by evolution has been confirmed. Falsifying evolution is easy. You just need a pre-Cambrian fossil mammal and the whole of evolution will collapse. That's just one example.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Naturalistic evolutionists claim to be scientists but they don't subject there work to the scientific method.
Wrong again. Evolution can be falsified by finding evidence that it is incorrect, and an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that our origins began by other means. Replication does not mean a phenomenon has to be replicated, otherwise we would have very few theories in science, it means that the experiments, calculations and some observations that make up the evidence for evolution have to be able to be replicated. So the theory can indeed be tested. Evolution fits the scientific method perfectly, unless you have a different idea on how the scientific method works.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
When I hear an explanation for how meiosis supposedly evolved from mitosis, there is no logical sequence of events presented that confer selective advantage to the steps along the way.
I've already shown you how. If that doesn't make sense to you, then look it up further. If that also doesn't make sense to you, then the problem is with you, not science.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I think the real aim of evolutionists is to disprove the existence of Allah and as Isam has said children be brought up secularly or in other words as atheists.
Wrong and wrong. Look up people like Professor Kenneth Miller and Professor Francisco Ayala along with many others who believe in God AND accept evolution. Even William Craig, a famous advocate for the existence of God, says that there is no problem with the belief in evolution and God. As for children, I've already explained this above. I hold great respect for you Mr Mustafa, don't make that change by saying such ridiculous statements.
I'd need a whole library if I'm to list all those. But here are a few:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
and I said that I'll be waiting for that library no? we have several types of mutations, frameshift, nonsense, missense, silent etc. I am asking you to use the given science to show speciation not to synthesize nylon, was that difficult for you to understand? I am still waiting
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I didn't use that figure to show that evolution is true. I used it just to refute the claim that says the scientific community is unsure about it.
Yes, I have. Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. Just Google that and see for yourself.
Purpose is in its title: Public beliefs about evolution and creation.
Go to the above source and read for yourself.
The study clearly states "biologists." Read, for God's sake!
Wow, you're more ignorant than I thought you were. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Go grab a biology textbook and get a little education.
Belief in God and acceptance of evolution are compatible.
I happen to have my B.S in in molecular bio. and happen to have a doctorate, I happen to also be heavily involved in research. without getting into too much detail of a yet to be published study. I had two completely different sets of data concerning the same two subjects both nullifying each other & we're actually speaking of random double blind, P value, types I and types II error, not a survey to which I have already posted two other similar surveys that display completely different results. Are those who hold bachelors in biology privy to some occult science the rest of the scientific community is blind to? if yes-- why do you a layman subscribe to such an enigmatic science that is elusive to geneticists, astrophysicists, epidemiologist, etc. etc.?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
If I'm a mindless troll then why respond to my post anyway? If you've got nothing good to say, don't bother at all. I don't appreciate people like you calling me things like that when they clearly have no idea what they're on about.
For fun!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
No? I came here asking a question? Did you even read the original post? I'm not forcing anything down anybody's throat. I've provided sources and evidence to everything I claimed and asked no-one to take my word for it. If you don't have an answer to my question, then don't bother replying.
Beyond cutting & pasting irrelevant topics that are a non-sequitur to what you're trying to assert, and inability to gauge the subject matter in a non-puerile manner & actually refute articles that speak of the impossibility of evolution as you describe using the probability of assembling a primitive cell or even by means of physics what have you brought to the table?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
My desire to know what people think, and if what they think makes a good point from which I might learn something.
you'd be better off defining your own beliefs and having a point of view, you are light years away from having some sort of leveled understanding!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I could write a whole big post on the subject of speciation, but you're not worth tiring my fingers for. And besides, I still have many more posts to reply to. Therefore, I'm going to give you one or two links instead that would do the job for me.
Why start a topic you can't finish? I want that big post please, I think we're all eagerly waiting!
in fact I insist!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I have no problem with that. I never said religion and science are incompatible. My atheism was never caused by knowing too much science. That is your assertion.
Really? I could have sworn the thread title reads 'Where does God fit in'? are you swallowing your own words again because yet another someone is on to the transparency of your charade?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
If that's what you think I am, then don't reply to my posts.
But I already told you I am having so much fun with it.. while my morning cup of joe brews I get to have a hearty guffaw.. it is good for the soul!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
And hey.. Maybe next time you reply try to have a bit of manners? You're supposedly a lady, you should be much more well-mannered than that. I don't appreciate an ignorant child coming about accusing me of things she imagines. Have a little respect to someone who's here asking a genuine question.
These are the manners I have for your type. 'an ignorant child' is an adequate assessment of your person.
I am not going to meander the the thread on catharsis.. I am waiting for the science. This is the health & science section & we take it seriously here.
otherwise I'll ask a mod to move this to the humor section under atheist farce!
best,
Last edited by جوري; 10-30-2011 at 03:27 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Give me the gist of that. I really don't have time to read a 50-page PDF..
Again, don't request science in a health & science section if you're not going to make minimal effort to read, and by the same token reference us all the same to irrelevant and unrelated sources to somehow glean the conclusion of your desire. Put up or shut up!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
First of all, you're not my host. IB staff are. Second, the purpose of this post is clear in its title. If you don't like it, tough, nobody invited you in to start with.
Muslims are your host here the Muslims here are IB.. if you can't handle what is coming your way then take a hike & enroll in some vocational course to foster self-esteem!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
I don't remember saying anything about raising children with an atheistic view on life. I didn't say children should be told 24/7 that there is no god.
What is does a secular upbringing mean to you? has the meaning changed because you were caught in another charade?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
According to adherents.com, there are over 1.1 billion people around the world who are non-religious/atheists/agnostics comprising a 16% of the world's population. And if you think this is a minority, think again. Islam is only a few percent over that number. Those "uneducated impotent underdogs" you speak of make up 85% of the population in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 65% in Japan, 54% in France and 49% in Germany. And guess what? They're some of the most advanced societies in the world in all aspects. Check your facts next time, dimwit.
adherents.com is a .com. let me know when you've a govt. census bureau .. 15% of the population albeit a jump from the accepted 10% is a far off from1.86 billion Muslims.. but congratulations all the same for finding another fast growing religion. The dimwit again here an adequate assessment of yourself.. thanks for being so apt!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Nobody can prove the NON-existence of gods. The burden of proof lies on those who make the positive claim that there is one, i.e. you.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
I believe you mentioned that you've read the Qur'aan? If that is the case, i'm sure you've come across the verse stating that 'shaytaan is a plain enemy to mankind'? Have you any understanding of what 'free will' is in accordance to Islam?
Why did God allow the creation of Satan in the first place? Wasn't it already hard enough for us?
format_quote Originally Posted by Jεώel oғ ωïѕdoм
explain to me what is sadistic in regards to it?
It's sadistic because not only does your god mercilessly kill those people you're talking about, but he also plans on burning them forever later on. Now that, in my book, is sadistic. Capital punishment (or any court punishment) is not sadistic. First of all, it suits the crime. For an explanation of that read one of my above posts. Second, it's a death sentence, not an everlasting torture. Third, if a person in a country chooses a different view than the government, he doesn't get killed for that. Whereas your god has no problem with forever torturing people who choose something different.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ghazalah
If you're going to read the Quran, read it with an open-mind, and ponder on it. After all Allah swt has blessed you with intellect. Use it wisely.
Thanks.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Please give me example how secular education for children work?
Where do parents obtain values and instruction for this secular ideology?
What are contained in the secular ideology for children?
what are the values of secular ideology? Where can farmers in Toraja, sulawesi, Indonesia get this secular ideology from to teach their children?
Religious people argue that religion is important for society because it provides a guideline and a manual for human ethics. The truth is that morality does not come from religion. For example, many secularists are moral and their morality is based on desire to prevent suffering and try to improve the welfare of other human and sentient beings, whereas religious morality has an additional element to this: sin. A religious person may be "moral" from a selfish point of view – they don’t want to go to hell. Another illustration of how morality does not come from religion is that when you ask a Christian or a Muslim (most of them anyway) about the punishment for breaking the Sabbath or committing adultery, which are both punished by stoning to death, they will say "we don’t do that anymore, we've grown out of it." In other words, they are cherry-picking. This shows how they do not get their morality from their religious scriptures, but from somewhere else: a secular moral philosophy that humans carefully picked up through rational discussion and a humanist consensus.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Please give me scientific sources and journals where those things confirm evolution as fact.
Facts are different from theories. You can't call evolution a fact just as much as you can't call gravity a fact. However, relate to my previous posts to see more. If still not satisfied, ask.
I'm going to make it short and brief. For more details just Google it. We share over 98% of our DNA with our most recent cousins the chimpanzees. But it's not only the functional pieces of DNA that we share together. ERVs are relics of a viral infection, i.e. a virus that inserts itself randomly into the host's genome. Now this virus perishes when the cell dies, but if the infection happened in a germ cell (sperm or ovum) and then you reproduce, you pass that ERV to your descendants. Now, if we look at the short arm of chromosome #10 in the human genome, we find one of those ERVs. What's interesting is that chimps have the exact same ERV in the exact same location. Coincidence? Seeing we have over 3 billion nitrogenic bases in our genome, this gives a chance of 1 in 3 billion. And guess what? There are 16 instances of human ERVs having exact matches with chimp ERVs. The probability of that happening asymptotes to zero.. What's the only viable explanation? Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Any retrovirus that inserted into the genome of our common ancestor would be inherited by both chimps AND humans. Do ERVs violate nested hierarchy? No.
should I take short & brief to denote you don't understand what in hell you're typing?
any idiot with fifth grade biology knowledge will tell you that our DNA is 50% shared with bananas, 97% with fruit flies.. are you half bananas? well in your case perhaps.
let's put this in terms even you can understand!
we've 26 letters in the English alphabet we use it to make endless words, by the end of the day synonymous will not be one in the same with antonymous because they share syllables. These are simply the building blocks of our universe!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. Here, Professor Kenneth Miller can explain it to you.
A person who uses sources without discussing them to make his point is someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. When your teacher at school or whatever cesspool you go to or work in gives you an assignment or more amusing yet when you suggest an assignment do you stand on the podium with a reference and say Dr. primate can explain it better. Are you for real?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Here's one of the best examples of evolution within our lifetime. Italian Wall Lizards..
Other examples include elephants evolving smaller tusks, which helps them survive poacher attacks. Russian dogs evolving to learn the subways. Hudson River fish are becoming immune to toxic waste. Bacteria evolving TWICE to digest nylon. Google any of these from any reputable scientific journal/website and see for yourself.
I see '' modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s'' wow Lizards have adapted to their environment and remained Lizards.. Again, I am going to pose the same question I asked earlier. Do you understand the difference between micro and macro evolution? essentially the difference between adaptation and speciation?
You know there's no shame in either shutting up or admitting you're in way over your head, because we can see it already!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Mitochondrial DNA - maternal DNA - is used to construct evolutionary trees.  NA is present inside the nucleus of every cell of our body but it is the DNA of the cell's mitochondria that has been most commonly used to construct evolutionary trees. Mitochondria have their own genome of about 16,500 bp that exists outside of the cell nucleus. Each contains 13 protein coding genes, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother. Every few generations, a random mutation creeps into this familial signature. So comparison of two samples of mtDNA will show degrees of kinship and ancestral origin. Random infrequent changes once again provide a way of estimating the number of generations back to a shared ancestor.
etc etc etc. it hasn't given us primates to humans to date. I am still waiting for you to prove that.. while at it you might want to get those fits of logorrhea & cachinnation looked at by a psychiatrist who enjoys a challenge!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Oh, listing all of those would take hours.. I'll list a few of them and if you're interested in seeing more, have a look here.
Fish to amphibian: Osteolepis, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Eryops.
Amphibian to reptile: Proterogyrinus, Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Paleothyris.
Reptile to mammal: Archaeothyris, Dimetrodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon.
Primate to human: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo erectus.
Just to name a few..
How do we know these are transitional fossils?
They possess mid-way characteristics and characteristics from the two species that preceded it and succeeded it.
It falls into the exact chronological order between the predecessor and the successor.
It's found in the exact place where the evolution of that lineage is concluded to have happened. Most of these transitional fossils weren't found by accident, they were anticipated.
And if that doesn't do it for you, then it's quite apparent that you're the mindless uneducated troll, which I strongly suspect you are.
you keep writing of how it will take hours or reference to a source. I must insist that you discuss what you bring to the table us. Make us 7c simpletons understand how that milatonic mind of yours works!
putting names next to each other I assure you doesn't a scientific point make, it just takes up web space wastes my time & everyone else's. One can easily construe them as falling in the same kingdom, phylum/class/order/family/genus/species etc.
Now ending graciousely again on an appropriate note of self assessment!
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Irrelevant. I'm not here to claim there is no god.
what are you here to claim with 'where does God fit in' you like to descend to word play?
format_quote Originally Posted by IsamBitar
Like I said, once you're dead, that's it. You're gone forever, but you don't feel it. I'm not justifying killing, by the way. It's a punishable crime. But to punish such crime for an infinity of torture, that's unfair. Why not punish the killer with a specific number of years in hell that are equivalent to the number of years the victim could have lived had they not been killed? The main reason why I find difficulty believing in God is the concept of hell, I'm being honest here.
Why would you care of infinite torture if you believe there's no such thing? There's no point in discussing how cholesterol gives us aldosterone if you don't believe it can do anything other than clog your arteries. And that should actually hold true for any science or religion subject you attempt to gauge.. you've a long way and many years ahead of you to become slightly seasoned and have a slight clue of how to integrate the science or philosophy you think you know to branch into other arts or sciences!
best,
oh P.S. I am still waiting on how trinucleotide repeat expansion fit into your 'natural selection'
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Nobody can prove the NON-existence of gods. The burden of proof lies on those who make the positive claim that there is one, i.e. you
Correction, the burden of proof is on you. You're starting with a double negative. You've neither disproven the existence of God, nor have you given an adequate and scientific explanation to the origins of life and the universe we find ourselves in that would satisfy the principle of parsimony and doesn't loan itself to long stretches of the imagination!
I am not into substituting a belief for a less adequate one!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks