Creation arguments vs. evolution arguments?

[minaz]

lol don't me remind us all of your puberty days!

 

[root]

lol don't me remind us all of your puberty days!

You mean like "Crator Face"

 

[Muezzin]

You mean like "Crator Face"

I don't have a Crater Face! I just eat well and used spot cream, since picking at 'em gives ya scars. Like one of our old English teachers. *shudders*

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I think it is time to get back on topic and I hope you don't mind if I go back a bit. I am very sorry for the late responses...

"Smoke" Could mean absolutely anything; I guess it's all to do with how easy you fit a square peg into a round hole.....

1. Morning Mist
2. Comet\meteorite trails
3. Clouds
4. Even the raw material of the universe "Helium & Hydrogen" could be construed as "Smoke".

I agree that one can go too far when interpreting religious texts, but is this really that far-fetched? The verse in question is:


“Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." [41:11]


To suggest that the smoke here could be referring to clouds or morning mist seems like a very feeble argument since how could such things exist when we are discussing the formation of the heavens and the earth i.e. before day and night even existed?


I am not an expert on the verse and I do not know its exact meaning but if you look at it from a logical point of view, it doesn’t seem that hard to acknowledge its concept. Sometimes people bend over backwards to disprove a verse, rather than the other way round. The fact remains that God chose such a word to describe such an event, out of a multitude of other possibilities, and this being in conjunction with modern day ideas is quite amazing – nobody is saying what smoke actually means but the fact it was used should at least invoke a sense of respect and interest.


My last point on this is the fact that the Qur’an, as you know, was revealed in the Arabic language. Hence to understand the verse in English might somewhat not quite be the same as it would be to understand it in Arabic – in fact many verses are like this. Sometimes an Arabic word can have 10 or so different meanings in English, and sometimes no sufficient translation can be made. Therefore to quote the verse in English is not a very accurate way to go about concluding whatever we want since to seriously consider it, it would need to be understood in its Arabic context along with scholarly opinions rather than our own. That is not to say that the gist of the meaning is always wrong, but rather should be researched properly and not over-speculated upon.

What gets me about a cretionist view is that the main supporting evidence for creation is the fact that we exist. Scripture does not create a supporting arguement either

The fact that we exist does indeed provide a good argument, but your arguments are based on disproving logic. Scripture does provide good argument actually, and I fail to comprehend how one can make such a judgement when he has not even read a scripture! I have explained before and I shall say again that the Qur’an tells us many many, many times to ponder and reflect, and that those with any sense and understanding will know that to God is Whom we belong; it is He Who deserves our thanks; as it is He Who is the Creator. Many times the Qur’an describes our creation, our origin, our surroundings, and thus encourages us to realise from our very existence that we were created.

Another issue is scientific evidence with a supporting view of creationism, can someone please post any scientific evidence supporting creationism..............

The only thing that requires scientific facts is materialism since it is they who suggest everything came into existence by itself; it is they who use science to support all their arguments – or so they claim – and as Muslims we believe in Allaah, which is sufficient evidence of the reasoning behind every last thing we can conceive about ourselves and the universe. Nevertheless, Islam has never shunned science since it is Allaah who created science, and that is why the two can never contradict. You might think it is quite implausible, but you have yet to disprove the existence of God. Might I also add that you don’t even have all the answers, and thus your theory of life is still incomplete – until it is, which I doubt it will be, you can search for this scientific evidence since we are in no need of any.

I don't see why not since islam speaks of the creation being a "Stepping Stone". Saves me banging my head against a brick wall......... Ok, you may need to re-think the origins od Adam ever so slightly. But in essence, I really cannot see why Islam could not support this theory......... Of course this would mean intelligent life throughout the Universe. Not sure Islam subscribes to that.

You still have not explained why you think of Islam like this. Please elaborate on what you mean by a stepping stone and what has led you to believe this. If you are suggesting that Adam came into existence as a result of comet collisions then as far as I can tell that does not comply with Islam because God Fashioned Adam Himself.

this is rubbish Steve, the fact the moon has no atmosphere merely allows us to see the number of times all space bodies are impacted. The Earth has been hit every bit as much as the moon.

I don’t understand how the moon and the earth are so similar. The moon is much smaller and has no atmosphere and thus is bound to display more comet collisions. You have been discussing how the atmosphere burns up comets, so to say that the absence of an atmosphere has no effect on the moon seems contradictory.

Their is not "Tonnes", their are over 2 billion of them within our solar system alone. Meteor impact with earth is the biggest threat that the Earth faces today. Only a few years ago creationists were telling us meteorites were in stable orbits as per the "perfect creation". Schumacker leevy 9 impacting on Saturn showed how wrong they are. Even the comet on the deep impact probes target was covered in impact craters........ Everywhere in the solar system we find evidence of meteor impacts, solar system bodies are covered with impacts and nothing is immune......... Meteorites/comets are constantly impacting & being knocked out of their orbit.

…and yet in the history of mankind (after the dinosaurs, if they existed) there has not been any such collision jeopardising all life on earth. Coincidence? Or controlled by God?


Regards.

 

[Preacher]

Greetings,

I think it is time to get back on topic and I hope you don't mind if I go back a bit. I am very sorry for the late responses...




“Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly." [41:11]

The Arabic words used in the Ayah 41:11 is "Dukhan دُخَانٌ" that is a noun. This word is also used in Ayah 44:10 and the name of the Surah 44 is based on this word.

We read in Sahih Bukhari (there are more Ahadith, but I have chosen the following) the following Ahadith that shows it is kind of smoke:

2-CHAPTER: The saying of Allah (the Exalted and Almighty)

Nor am I one of the pretenders (a person who takes upon himself jobs which he cannot do».

[4809] Masruq narrated: We came upon Abdullah bin Mas'ud and he said: «O people! If somebody knows something, he can say it, but if he does not know it, he should say: Allah knows better, for it is a sign of having knowledge to say about something which one does not know. Allah knows better. Allah (the Exalted and Almighty) said to His Prophet (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him): -

Say (O Muhammad!) No wage do I ask of You for this (Qur'an), nor am I one of the pretenders (a person who pretends things which do not exist).

Now I will tell you about Ad-Dukhan (the smoke). Allah's Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) invited Quraish to embrace Islam, but they delayed their response. So he said: «O Allah! Help me against them by sending on them seven years of famine similar to the seven years of famine of Joseph». So the famine year overtook them and everything was destroyed till they ate dead animals and skins. People started imagining to see smoke between them and the sky because of severe hunger. Allah (the Exalted and Almighty) said: «Then watch you for the Day the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible, covering the people. This is painful torment». (44:10-11)

(So they invoked Allah): «Our Lord! Remove the punishment from us really we are believers». How can there be for them an (effectual) reminder when an Apostle, explaining things clearly, has already come to them? Then they had turned away from his and said: One taught (by a human being) a madman?

We shall indeed remove punishment for a while, but truly, you will revert (to disbelief)».

Will the punishment be removed on the Day of Resurrection?» Abdullah added: «The punishment was removed from them for a while but they reverted to disbelief, so Allah destroyed them on the Day of Badr. Allah said: -

The day we shall seize you with a mighty grasp. We will indeed (then) exact retribution».

Dictionary meaning of the word دخان is as follows:

Smoke; Gas; Vaporous matter with suspended particles; Fume resembling smoke; Soemthing fleeting or beclouding; Colored smoke; Suppressed state; Dust; Famine in which people feel a sort of smoke hanging before their eyes or because of no rain for a long time the atmosphere becomes dusty; Drought.

*** So brother Muhammad, your assertion of "mist" is not too far off, since it is stated in Sahih Bukhari as "kind of smoke."


Preacher

 

[Muhammad]

Br. Preacher

Jazakallahu Khayr for giving me a very important reminder and adding your insight into this matter, it is very much appreciated, may Allaah reward you.

 

[root]

Remember the title of the thread.

Creation Argument vs evolution arguments?

With these two comes two possible outcomes.

a. Man was created by God.
b. Man came into existence through evolution.

You beleive that man was created, your evidence for this is the fact that you are here & the Quran tells you this. Unscientific as that is, you state.

The fact that we exist does indeed provide a good argument, but your arguments are based on disproving logic.

Can I ask why you reach this conclusion?

Might I also add that you don’t even have all the answers, and thus your theory of life is still incomplete – until it is, which I doubt it will be, you can search for this scientific evidence since we are in no need of any.

I put it to you that you do not use scientific evidence, not because you feel you don't need to but simply because of the lack of it to support creation.

I don’t understand how the moon and the earth are so similar. The moon is much smaller and has no atmosphere and thus is bound to display more comet collisions. You have been discussing how the atmosphere burns up comets, so to say that the absence of an atmosphere has no effect on the moon seems contradictory.

Again, a contradiction between science and faith. The moon was part of the earth during the formation of the solar system. The fact that the moon has no atmosphere and that the moon is stagnated means that "ALL" comet\meteorite impacts remain visible, the number of impacts that the moon has suffered is no different to that of our own earth. Instead of a greater number of "air-bursts" that the earth will have, "most" scars, resulting from impacts on earth "heal". On the moon they do not. Their is no contradiction other than you would probably say that the moon was created by itself and not as a result of early solar system formation. Another example where the science does not support your case. But we know science does not support your case anyway.

…and yet in the history of mankind (after the dinosaurs, if they existed) there has not been any such collision jeopardising all life on earth. Coincidence? Or controlled by God?

OK, cool. Now you are considering "if" dinasaurs ever existed in the first place. And your even questioning the low probability of a cataclysmic event, which is by an impact from meteorite and not a comet. Remember, I use the comet theory to show how it is quite possible for organic matter to arrive on this planet, the most recent being june 30th 1908, that is less than 100 years ago.

Since a comet is very ice-rich, friction
with the Earth’s atmosphere will cause it to heat up. The water trapped
inside the comet will boil and produce steam that will probably blow the
comet apart above the Earth’s surface (depending on the comet’s size and
speed). This is what is thought to have happened during the Tunguska event
over Siberia on June 30, 1908. The explosion causes all the trees in the
area to be uprooted and blown over and even knocked people and animals to
the ground.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

a. Man was created by God.
b. Man came into existence through evolution.

Peace Root,
I don't think you've accurately described the two possibilites. In fact, it is possible for both of those statements to be true at the same time.

I believe the two possibilites are created in the present form, vs. evolution+abiogenesis. OR creation by God vs. Formation by coincidence.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

You beleive that man was created, your evidence for this is the fact that you are here & the Quran tells you this. Unscientific as that is, you state.

Yes that is part of what I am saying: don't forget that there is rational thinking behind the fact that we are here. I mean if we think about it, either we came into existence by ourself, or we were created by someone else. And from our experience of life, nothing comes into existence on its own. No order comes about from chaotic, random events.

Science can be defined as:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

So being observant of the world around us is at least being scientific! God created us and did not leave us to reach our own conclusions, because he has explained it all for us (Praise be to Him). He sent Messengers to every nation to guide them and the guidance to ours is the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur'an. Hence the Qur'an is not the only thing that tells us of God's existence. There were also many other books revealed to other Prophets, but of course the only one which we can use today is the Qur'an due to its promised preservation.

So it is not like this is some new idea that formed overnight, because mankind has known since its beginning.

Can I ask why you reach this conclusion?

Now your position on the matter is that somehow, a tiny bit of dense mass exploded and due to its random expansion, the world as we know it today came about through evolution. You use time and infinitely small probabilities as factors to explain why complex processes took place, which would otherwise be impossible.

Leaving aside the scientific flaws, let us think about the purpose of our existence. From your view, it has taken us billions of years to first understand how we got here, and quite unfortunate is the fact that we just keep dying generation after generation and becoming just as non-existant as before - there seems to be no purpose except to enjoy and die! There have been nations in the past living for much longer than we do nowadays, and one would expect evolutionary changes to maintain if not increase such life expectancies, but in fact they have dropped. The case of height can be also be used as an example. Death seems to be a design of life, that nobody can ever escape, which is quite unfortunate for those wishing to live a life of enjoyment. My ultimate point is, that such a pointless existence seems quite tragic and to reach such a conclusion from mere conjectured theories plainly defies logical reasoning.

You have not seen what has happened in the history of mankind, yet it is quite acceptable to believe in Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Vikings, Saxons, etc. due to our history books... so why is so hard to believe in the Prophets sent to nations of the past, as guidance from God and teaching them our true purpose in life?

And speaking of the unseen, you say that it is wrong to believe in something just because you have not seen it, yet you so readily believe in parallel universes and gliding membranes or what not, neither of which are likely to ever be proven. It takes faith to believe in science, just as it takes faith to believe in religious teachings.

Everything points to God, and just looking at the Qur'an for one: we can see that it has never been proven to be a work of man, never has anyone found a fault, look at its remarkable preservation throughout time, the prophecies that have come true, and any doubts or questions about it have always been answered and cleared. How then can we deny such a scripture whereas on the other hand accept weak possibilites thought out by men? If we wish to be reasonable, we should use our God-given intellect wisely.

I put it to you that you do not use scientific evidence, not because you feel you don't need to but simply because of the lack of it to support creation.

If religion suggested scientific processes by which the universe came to be, then it would be fine to ask for supporting scientific evidence to back up the statements. The fact of the matter is, the very word "creation" means:
The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

and thus it is foolish to ask for scientific evidence for such a thing! It is not plausible to ask how God did something - for example, Jesus came into existence by God's saying the Word: "Be!" and he was! What scientific evidence do you think is obtainable from that?! And yet all that God has told us about science - all of that is evidence for us to use, since it is all supportive of modern knowledge on the subject, eg. Muslims might not have known the details of how the earth came to be, but they certainly knew details of the formation of the foetus before such a thing was scientifically observable (i.e. 1400 yrs ago)! God reveals what He wills out of His wisdom, and it is for us to accept rather than question.

Again, a contradiction between science and faith. The moon was part of the earth during the formation of the solar system. The fact that the moon has no atmosphere and that the moon is stagnated means that "ALL" comet\meteorite impacts remain visible, the number of impacts that the moon has suffered is no different to that of our own earth. Instead of a greater number of "air-bursts" that the earth will have, "most" scars, resulting from impacts on earth "heal". On the moon they do not. Their is no contradiction other than you would probably say that the moon was created by itself and not as a result of early solar system formation. Another example where the science does not support your case. But we know science does not support your case anyway.

Yes the bombardment on the moon might be more visible, but do you deny that it is also more than on earth due to the smaller size of the moon and no protective atmosphere? I still see a contradiction in your statement so science seems to be against you rather than me. When you say "case", I hope you are not referring to "Creationist views" as you call them.

OK, cool. Now you are considering "if" dinasaurs ever existed in the first place. And your even questioning the low probability of a cataclysmic event, which is by an impact from meteorite and not a comet. Remember, I use the comet theory to show how it is quite possible for organic matter to arrive on this planet, the most recent being june 30th 1908, that is less than 100 years ago.

Yet nothing as threatening to the whole of mankind as it was in the dinosaur theory has ever happened!

Regards (Sorry about the long post!)

 

[root]

Yes that is part of what I am saying: don't forget that there is rational thinking behind the fact that we are here. I mean if we think about it, either we came into existence by ourself, or we were created by someone else. And from our experience of life, nothing comes into existence on its own. No order comes about from chaotic, random events.

But it is not rational to state "nothing comes into existence on it's own"

Random mutational change brings "something" into existence and it was not "created". I don't see the logic nor rational here.

Science can be defined as:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

This should be expanded upon a little with "Experimental Investigation". For something to have a basis in science one must be able to make a prediction based on observation then test for the predicted outcome. Again theoretical explanation requires a prediction and succesful proof that the prediction was correct via scientific testing. So being observant of the world is partly scientific but cannot be classed in itself as scientific.

Now your position on the matter is that somehow, a tiny bit of dense mass exploded and due to its random expansion, the world as we know it today came about through evolution. You use time and infinitely small probabilities as factors to explain why complex processes took place, which would otherwise be impossible.

My being born defied all the odds you care to throw at me. The fact we all came to be is a supporting case on infinate chance.

Leaving aside the scientific flaws, let us think about the purpose of our existence. From your view, it has taken us billions of years to first understand how we got here,

No you have assumed this and are wrong. It's 30 - 50,000 years ago. However, evolution was concieved & has survived only 130 (something) years.

and quite unfortunate is the fact that we just keep dying generation after generation and becoming just as non-existant as before - there seems to be no purpose except to enjoy and die!

I think the spreading of ones genes happens to be a major part of the life-cycle to. Adaptation to ones surroundings and variable genetic mixing relies upon the constant life & death system.

There have been nations in the past living for much longer than we do nowadays, and one would expect evolutionary changes to maintain if not increase such life expectancies

Your wrong again, life expectency is closely associated to ones surroundings and life expectency goes up and down all over the globe. here for example is the best & worst; (Country, Life Expectency)

Zambia 37.1
Mozambique 37.5
Malawi 36.6
Andorra 83.5
Japan 80.7

Mozambique has fallen from a poor 45.4 years to a worse 37.5 within just two years.

but in fact they have dropped.

No that is not a fact.

The case of height can be also be used as an example. Death seems to be a design of life, that nobody can ever escape, which is quite unfortunate for those wishing to live a life of enjoyment. My ultimate point is, that such a pointless existence seems quite tragic and to reach such a conclusion from mere conjectured theories plainly defies logical reasoning.

it's a shame that you see a "pointless" existence for life. And I don't think you can support your claim of conjectured theories plainly defying logical reasoning....... In the West life expectency keeps increasing. And it is science that will continue it's increase.

You have not seen what has happened in the history of mankind, yet it is quite acceptable to believe in Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Vikings, Saxons, etc. due to our history books...

No, I think it is wrong to state just "History Books". Archeological and other sciences also prove the above.

so why is so hard to believe in the Prophets sent to nations of the past, as guidance from God and teaching them our true purpose in life?

It's not a question of beleiving simply because it is claimed. I would feel a lot better about "Any" religion if the "observations around" us as you stated earlier even glimpsed at the possibilty of the truth. The fact of the matter is that it does not. We see no supporting science for many of the things you feel we should beleive. Creation of man being the first.

And speaking of the unseen, you say that it is wrong to believe in something just because you have not seen it, yet you so readily believe in parallel universes and gliding membranes or what not, neither of which are likely to ever be proven. It takes faith to believe in science, just as it takes faith to believe in religious teachings.

No. Again, your misunderstanding is quite visible. Parallel\multi\membrane universes are mere hypothisis, Science due to Einstienes E = Mc (Square) "Predicted" that the universe started with an explosion, the knid of explotion we cannot imagine. This prediction was correct for years later we discovered the remenent echoes of the big bang. Same thing that science predicted and has now proven the existence of "dark matter". It does not take faith one bit to understand science, after-all man does not beleive in science, science is a tool not a faith.

Everything points to God, and just looking at the Qur'an for one: we can see that it has never been proven to be a work of man, never has anyone found a fault, look at its remarkable preservation throughout time, the prophecies that have come true, and any doubts or questions about it have always been answered and cleared. How then can we deny such a scripture whereas on the other hand accept weak possibilites thought out by men? If we wish to be reasonable, we should use our God-given intellect wisely.

Can you please provide me with a single piece of scientific knowledge that you was able to predict and test an outcome then allow man to benefit from as "knowledge". I mean a testable prediction and not hindsight views. I would be impressed if that was part of the creation theory. For their are hundreds of scientific "knowledge" that extends man's life based on the facts of evolution.

Yes the bombardment on the moon might be more visible, but do you deny that it is also more than on earth due to the smaller size of the moon and no protective atmosphere? I still see a contradiction in your statement so science seems to be against you rather than me. When you say "case", I hope you are not referring to "Creationist views" as you call them.

No, it remains the same. Scientists today go out on "Salt lake city" just about daily to collect pieces of meteorites that have impacted over a 24 hour period, don't forget our earths mass increases by 100,000 tonnes of "space matter" every year...... "It has to fall somehere"!!!!!!

Yet nothing as threatening to the whole of mankind as it was in the dinosaur theory has ever happened!

yes you are right, but it is not a question of "if" but "When". And statitically we are over due quite a large impact.

 

[Bittersteel]

I don't think you've accurately described the two possibilites. In fact, it is possible for both of those statements to be true at the same time.

I thought man's creation by God was a separate creation not through evolution unlike other creatures.Correct me if I am wrong which is most possible.

 

[root]

Quote:
I don't think you've accurately described the two possibilites. In fact, it is possible for both of those statements to be true at the same time.


I thought man's creation by God was a separate creation not through evolution unlike other creatures.Correct me if I am wrong which is most possible.

I am not sure. I think Ansar means that he is open to the possibility that man did evolve though the creation of life was God's work. (I think, he means this)

I think you are getting getting confused between the evolution of micr-life. Single celled organisms v multi-celled organisms........ Of which man is one of the latter.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings root,

But it is not rational to state "nothing comes into existence on it's own"

Random mutational change brings "something" into existence and it was not "created". I don't see the logic nor rational here.

Random mutational change happens to something that already exists, and thus cannot be used to explain how matter arises from no matter. The only possible event that could do this is creation by God.

This should be expanded upon a little with "Experimental Investigation". For something to have a basis in science one must be able to make a prediction based on observation then test for the predicted outcome. Again theoretical explanation requires a prediction and succesful proof that the prediction was correct via scientific testing. So being observant of the world is partly scientific but cannot be classed in itself as scientific.

I thought you might say that… but what I was trying to say is that Islam is not based upon scientific findings. God has encouraged observation and reflection to realise His great Power, but as for experimental investigation: well science hasn’t always been as advanced as it is now, so God taught us the science before mankind was in a position to prove it. I am not saying God taught us every last thing about the subject, but He taught us what He knew was best for us to know. As time passed, man became able to prove such science for himself, thus it is more like foresight rather than “hindsight” as you have stated –

Can you please provide me with a single piece of scientific knowledge that you was able to predict and test an outcome then allow man to benefit from as "knowledge". I mean a testable prediction and not hindsight views. I would be impressed if that was part of the creation theory. For their are hundreds of scientific "knowledge" that extends man's life based on the facts of evolution.

as for specific examples: you can read about cloud formation, thunderstorms, details about insects, significance of mountains, movement of celestial bodies, deep seas and internal waves, human embryonic development, origin of the universe etc. etc. Nobody was capable of determining scientific facts about these topics such as those mentioned in the Qur’an. And yet you think it “unscientific” to believe in the Qur’an!

My being born defied all the odds you care to throw at me. The fact we all came to be is a supporting case on infinate chance.

So you admit that the bottom line to your theory is that chance and probability are the sole determinants of our ordered world; that randomness brought about precise scientific laws governing the universe… well that is what I call defying logic.

I think the spreading of ones genes happens to be a major part of the life-cycle to. Adaptation to ones surroundings and variable genetic mixing relies upon the constant life & death system.

To what end? What is the purpose of adapting to the environment, living for a bit longer but ultimately dying?

Your wrong again, life expectency is closely associated to ones surroundings and life expectency goes up and down all over the globe. here for example is the best & worst;

I wasn’t talking about small scale changes occurring in modern day times, but rather nations that existed way back in history. But of course you will ask for proof other than ‘scriptures’ so I guess its not a good point to bring to the argument.

No that is not a fact.

In comparison to past nations: it is a fact!

No, I think it is wrong to state just "History Books". Archeological and other sciences also prove the above.

It's not a question of beleiving simply because it is claimed. I would feel a lot better about "Any" religion if the "observations around" us as you stated earlier even glimpsed at the possibilty of the truth. The fact of the matter is that it does not. We see no supporting science for many of the things you feel we should beleive. Creation of man being the first.

And archaeological findings confirming religion do exist! Take the pharaoh of Egypt as an example, whose preservation since his death confirms his story. And geographical locations that contain evidence of perished nations such as the dead sea - I believe its called. And those houses carved into the mountains (can’t remember where they are) – evidence of inhabitants as mention in scriptures. Scriptures themselves are such evidence as they date back very long periods of time - some might be tampered with but nevertheless they exist.



Does all this not glimpse at the possibility of truth?

No. Again, your misunderstanding is quite visible. Parallel\multi\membrane universes are mere hypothisis, Science due to Einstienes E = Mc (Square) "Predicted" that the universe started with an explosion, the knid of explotion we cannot imagine. This prediction was correct for years later we discovered the remenent echoes of the big bang. Same thing that science predicted and has now proven the existence of "dark matter". It does not take faith one bit to understand science, after-all man does not beleive in science, science is a tool not a faith.

It takes faith to believe predictions without direct experimental evidence. If science is but a tool, why do you only rely on scientific evidence? We can use science to obtain evidence, but why should that mean all evidence must be scientific?

No, it remains the same. Scientists today go out on "Salt lake city" just about daily to collect pieces of meteorites that have impacted over a 24 hour period, don't forget our earths mass increases by 100,000 tonnes of "space matter" every year...... "It has to fall somehere"!!!!!!

Well if the earth is so heavily bombarded then why don’t these scientists find space matter on their doorstep?! I doubt it would be as difficult on the moon…

yes you are right, but it is not a question of "if" but "When". And statitically we are over due quite a large impact.

Perhaps that’s a prediction that went wrong?

it's a shame that you see a "pointless" existence for life.

I am not the one seeing the pointless existence of life... but merely trying to think using your logic. Perhaps you would like to share with us your perspective of the purpose of life?
Regards.

 

[root]

Hi Muhammed,

Random mutational change happens to something that already exists, and thus cannot be used to explain how matter arises from no matter. The only possible event that could do this is creation by God.

This is totally irrelevent, firstly I am not stating that random mutational change is responsible for the beginning of life. I am saying that it in itself brings about new species who have a connection to another species but is different. It's the theory of ancestoral evolution. We don't use evolution to explain how matter arise from matter for it does not. Matter is produced from raw energy and visa versa.

I thought you might say that… but what I was trying to say is that Islam is not based upon scientific findings. God has encouraged observation and reflection to realise His great Power, but as for experimental investigation: well science hasn’t always been as advanced as it is now, so God taught us the science before mankind was in a position to prove it. I am not saying God taught us every last thing about the subject, but He taught us what He knew was best for us to know. As time passed, man became able to prove such science for himself, thus it is more like foresight rather than “hindsight” as you have stated –

OK, then give me foresight where the Quran or any other religous text has given mankind a scientific leap forward and lead to a benefit for mankind!

So you admit that the bottom line to your theory is that chance and probability are the sole determinants of our ordered world; that randomness brought about precise scientific laws governing the universe… well that is what I call defying logic.

No, laws exist with anything. Even chaos, perhaps you should look at fundamental laws of chaos a little closer.

To what end? What is the purpose of adapting to the environment, living for a bit longer but ultimately dying

Survival, and the life & death cycle is the most efficient way for evolution to work for only the survival of the fittest\luckiest will continue to spread a genetic link.

I wasn’t talking about small scale changes occurring in modern day times, but rather nations that existed way back in history. But of course you will ask for proof other than ‘scriptures’ so I guess its not a good point to bring to the argument.

Your talking life expectency here. This has increased over the last 30,000 years on average I fail to see your point.

And archaeological findings confirming religion do exist! Take the pharaoh of Egypt as an example, whose preservation since his death confirms his story. And geographical locations that contain evidence of perished nations such as the dead sea - I believe its called. And those houses carved into the mountains (can’t remember where they are) – evidence of inhabitants as mention in scriptures. Scriptures themselves are such evidence as they date back very long periods of time - some might be tampered with but nevertheless they exist.

yes they do, I agree with you. A lot of what Jesus discusses is true, and evidence is their. Since it was written during that time one would expect this to be apparent. However, when it comes to splitting of the moon, noah's great flood & the parting of the sea, Adam etc etc then you go onto very shaky ground.

Does all this not glimpse at the possibility of truth?

You do get glimpses of the truth as I stated above, however the fine line between truth and fiction becomes very murky would you not agree!

It takes faith to believe predictions without direct experimental evidence. If science is but a tool, why do you only rely on scientific evidence? We can use science to obtain evidence, but why should that mean all evidence must be scientific?

Because it would take you beyond rationality and into leaps of faith if you do. Such as the "splitting of the moon"

Well if the earth is so heavily bombarded then why don’t these scientists find space matter on their doorstep?! I doubt it would be as difficult on the moon…

They do! even pieces of mars end up falling to earth!

I am not the one seeing the pointless existence of life... but merely trying to think using your logic. Perhaps you would like to share with us your perspective of the purpose of life?
Regards.

Sure, to pass on my genetic material and extelligence to my off-spring. In return, I get to live. so I value every single day that I do live.

 

[Muhammad]

Hello Root,

This is totally irrelevent, firstly I am not stating that random mutational change is responsible for the beginning of life. I am saying that it in itself brings about new species who have a connection to another species but is different. It's the theory of ancestoral evolution. We don't use evolution to explain how matter arise from matter for it does not. Matter is produced from raw energy and visa versa.

Yes my point exactly! Random mutational change may bring a species into existence from an existing species, but the first species to exist cannot have arisen from such a process! I was talking about existence from nothing as in the creation of the universe.

OK, then give me foresight where the Quran or any other religous text has given mankind a scientific leap forward and lead to a benefit for mankind!

I did mention:

cloud formation, thunderstorms, details about insects, significance of mountains, movement of celestial bodies, deep seas and internal waves, human embryonic development, origin of the universe etc. etc.

I think there may have been some misunderstanding about this so I will attempt to clarify: The Qur’an indeed has many benefits and its purpose can be identified from certain verses such as:

[2.2] This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).

[3.3] He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.

[17.82] And We reveal of the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust.

[10.57] O men! there has come to you indeed an admonition from your Lord and a healing for what is in the breasts and a guidance and a mercy for the believers.

We see the purpose of guidance being mentioned many times, and spiritual healing is mentioned as a benefit, these, I believe, are perhaps among the most important aspects to consider. However, the Qur’an addresses many perspectives and people of all kinds, and since people of scientific minds look to the Qur’an to find such issues discussed, they will find them, but this does not mean it is going to explain every fact of science, or else it would lose its prime message. I cannot explain everything that God has chosen to do, because He is the All-Knowing, All-Wise, and as humans, we do not have such capabilities.

Therefore, what I am saying is that scientific miracles can be found in the Qur’an, such as those mentioned in my above quote, and they may or may not be designed to give mankind a scientific leap forward – I don’t know – but that is besides the point. The fact remains that, of what HAS been mentioned, how could an illiterate man suggest such things? How could he describe the world in such accurate words that cannot be rendered scientifically wrong? Looking at one verse for eg:

We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them… (Qur'an, 21:31)

So from merely looking at one (the scientific) angle, we see a sign that the Qur’an could not have been written by a man but is the Word of God.

Let us not lose sight of the argument:

You beleive that man was created, your evidence for this is the fact that you are here & the Quran tells you this. Unscientific as that is, you state.

This should be expanded upon a little with "Experimental Investigation". For something to have a basis in science one must be able to make a prediction based on observation then test for the predicted outcome. Again theoretical explanation requires a prediction and succesful proof that the prediction was correct via scientific testing. So being observant of the world is partly scientific but cannot be classed in itself as scientific.

So taking this into the context of our discussion, I am trying to show how it is acceptable to believe in the Qur’an, as one of the many signs that God has given mankind to prove His existence. A verse to help out here:

[2.164] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.

This verse mentions some signs other than the Qur’an itself.

I hope it makes sense now that not everything must have a scientific explanation/evidence. Look at dreams for example, or exorcism, do they have clear scientific explanations? Such things point to supernatural ideas. So it should not always be the case that we depend on archaeological findings or laboratory experiments to believe in things, but rather we need to have room to accept other means of proof.

No, laws exist with anything. Even chaos, perhaps you should look at fundamental laws of chaos a little closer.

So when did such laws come about…or did they always exist?

yes they do, I agree with you. A lot of what Jesus discusses is true, and evidence is their. Since it was written during that time one would expect this to be apparent. However, when it comes to splitting of the moon, noah's great flood & the parting of the sea, Adam etc etc then you go onto very shaky ground.

True, it is unlikely that there is scientific evidence to be found today of splitting of the sea, because that was a temporary event. As was the splitting of the moon. There are some signs that were for the people at that moment in history, and there are those which are meant for mankind till the end of time, among these is the Qur’an.

The perfectness of our religion (note: not all the people!) allows us to not only believe in the signs present today, which strengthen our belief, but also those that have passed before us. This is how we know the difference between fact and fiction. One incident in history comes to mind:

When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) went on the Night Journey to the heavens and met prophets etc. (I am not sure if you know about this)… but when the people heard of this they mocked at him and thought how ridiculous it seemed! But those who knew him for the truthful man he was, and the truth with which he came, they believed in him without a question of a doubt. The disbelieving folk asked him to describe the Mosque at which he ascended (in Jerusalem – hundreds of miles away if I am not mistaken) and God allowed him to describe its every detail – this being their evidence of the truth of his story.

So accurate preservation of religious texts throughout history are what allow us to continue to believe in such incidents, yes it takes faith, but when you look at the overall picture it is not the same as believing a fictional tale told by a stranger on the street. I hope from all the thinking described above, I have been able to communicate this concept to you, I know I have made it very long and I sincerely apologise for that.

Sure, to pass on my genetic material and extelligence to my off-spring. In return, I get to live. so I value every single day that I do live.

Thankyou for sharing that with us, I am happy to hear your perspective! Let’s think about it then and I hope I will not offend you by this… is our purpose to live to demonstrate our devotion to God and earn His reward – thus in return achieving an eternal life of happiness, or is it to simply have offspring and live for a limited period on earth… without a defined end or sense of aiming for an eternal achievement? They are two very different views, and we need to consider which is the explanation that our innate nature tells us to be true.

Regards.

 

[root]

Hi Huhammed

I read what you posted, However. though I understand your perspective It is going off topic, and proof beyond science is something I don't want to get involved with.

Regards

Root

UPDATED

Thankyou for sharing that with us, I am happy to hear your perspective! Let’s think about it then and I hope I will not offend you by this…

You wil not offend me, it's cool

is our purpose to live to demonstrate our devotion to God and earn His reward – thus in return achieving an eternal life of happiness,

Yes, I would agree with you if you are of a religous nomination.

or is it to simply have offspring and live for a limited period on earth… without a defined end or sense of aiming for an eternal achievement?

I agree with you also here, though one would question what you mean by a defined end. The atoms that make me will never die and thus for me are eternal

They are two very different views, and we need to consider which is the explanation that our innate nature tells us to be true.

I agree with you also, you were created by allah or came to through an evolutionary process or both.

 

[Muhammad]

It is going off topic, and proof beyond science is something I don't want to get involved with.

Thankyou for your reply. I would just like to add that although I might have been going off-topic, it is quite inevitable to bring in proof beyond science, because the very difference, I believe, between creationism and materialism is that creationism doesn't rely solely on science, in fact it doesn't rely on it at all. Therefore the only way to discuss the issue if we are to discuss it with just science is to dismiss the materialistic side, or at least prove that it does not disprove the former, as was stated earlier:

"the purpose of the thread is not to prove creationism, but to dismiss evolution as an argument against it."

I am interested to know why you don't want to get involved with proof beyond science...

And a thought provoking question to finish off...

The atoms that make me will never die and thus for me are eternal

How do you know that they will never die? If they came into existence, then why can't they become non-existent?

And when I say defined end, I mean a conclusive finish to our lives; an expected outcome; just like an argument like this needs a conclusion, so do our lives to make them 'complete' or 'worth living' as it were. Why else do humans have so much intelligence with regards to all other creatures, if our sole purpose is to pass on our genes?

I must also add, your statement almost sounds like you believe in reincarnation!

 

[root]

Hi Muhammed,

Thankyou for your reply. I would just like to add that although I might have been going off-topic, it is quite inevitable to bring in proof beyond science, because the very difference, I believe, between creationism and materialism is that creationism doesn't rely solely on science, in fact it doesn't rely on it at all. Therefore the only way to discuss the issue if we are to discuss it with just science is to dismiss the materialistic side, or at least prove that it does not disprove the former, as was stated earlier:

Of course you are right to state that creationism does not use any science to support it's case, though this in itself is not through the lack of trying. The question of man being created from a creationist view is quite bizarre to say the least and the origins of created man is quite murky.

am interested to know why you don't want to get involved with proof beyond science...

it's simply because anything that requires faith to me becomes more than questionable. To say for example that the moon was split, despite our current modern understanding is a big leap of faith. True, their is much to discover still and man himself is not "safe" from nature and man itself may be wiped out as it has happened many times before. Microbial life was all but wiped out, Dinasaurs were wiped out in fact the planet has suffered around six near extinction events. A personal note of mine is that your prophet encourages to look around and take observation, little did he know in my opinion how close to the truth he was for the fossils we find today could have been found then. And what would religouns of the world made of what we know now. To think they walked on the earth, blissfully unaware of the history recorded of our evolutionary past.

And a thought provoking question to finish off...

Cool, for I appreciate your comments.

The atoms that make me will never die and thus for me are eternal

How do you know that they will never die? If they came into existence, then why can't they become non-existent?

Ah, Death. Of course death is only a concious ending of my life, for the atoms that make my body and everything around us are merely atoms. The only difference between my atoms and the atoms that make up this computer keyboard I am typing on is the way that they form their complex structures. My atoms that make my body originated from the big bang, and it is possible that my atoms one day will be part of a Sun or other interstella space object, for atoms are never destroyed though they can be. A nuclear bomb is what you get if you was to destroy just a small handfull of my atoms, however the paradox is that atoms will also be produced from such a high energy explosion. M=Mc (Square) gave us the matter in the universe from the big bang. when we talk matter we talk atoms.

And when I say defined end, I mean a conclusive finish to our lives; an expected outcome; just like an argument like this needs a conclusion, so do our lives to make them 'complete' or 'worth living' as it were.

Depends how you look at it. I don't expect upon my death to be eternal in anyway from a concoius point of view, I don't remember the billions of years before my life so it does not worry me the billions of years after my life. Besides, sleeping is another state of conciousness but I have no conciouse time of sleep. Though, as I say I expect my atoms to form other complex patterns. Though this is not reincarnation as we understand it. More a simple fact of the universe.

Why else do humans have so much intelligence with regards to all other creatures, if our sole purpose is to pass on our genes?

because we survived near extinction by adaptation. we repeatedly survive the earths changes because we are the number one species at adapting. Intelligence & communication is our key. To say, when food is short. Go to the other side of that mauntain where you find food in a form of whatever is a powerful tool of adaptation that no other species can replicate as yet. Our earth is constantly changing constantly evolving, and only those that can adapt to this change can survive. Personally, I have a hunch that DNA & life giving molocules never had the "starting point" on earth but life itself is evolutionary within the universe and our origins are further away now than they have ever been. I am also open to "creation" as a possibility, but creation from our current understanding I just don't buy into because the scientific evidence does not support it, and sadly I don't think I will ever know the answer to the question in my short life.

I must also add, your statement almost sounds like you believe in reincarnation!

he he. Not at all.........

Thanks for reading

Root........

 

[Muhammad]

Hello again!

Of course you are right to state that creationism does not use any science to support it's case, though this in itself is not through the lack of trying. The question of man being created from a creationist view is quite bizarre to say the least and the origins of created man is quite murky.

If we think about it, is the creationist view really so bizarre when compared to the materialistic view? I mean humans essentially coming about from nuclear explosions and microbial interactions, evolving over the centuries... it isn't something so easy to believe.


Creationist view does not rely on science, but rather science supports it. But this does not mean that the reason we believe in it is because we have scientific evidence. Nor does it mean that there is scientific evidence for every aspect of it.

it's simply because anything that requires faith to me becomes more than questionable. To say for example that the moon was split, despite our current modern understanding is a big leap of faith. True, their is much to discover still and man himself is not "safe" from nature and man itself may be wiped out as it has happened many times before. Microbial life was all but wiped out, Dinasaurs were wiped out in fact the planet has suffered around six near extinction events. A personal note of mine is that your prophet encourages to look around and take observation, little did he know in my opinion how close to the truth he was for the fossils we find today could have been found then. And what would religouns of the world made of what we know now. To think they walked on the earth, blissfully unaware of the history recorded of our evolutionary past.

So you are saying that everything beyond scientific discovery requires faith, i.e. you are limited by science. You do not approve of logical thinking, only what scientists claim to be a theory. I have already explained about the incident of the splitting of the moon - an incident which you seem to be quite fond of I might add - when we consider science to support creation we don't look at miracles that existed for a temporary moment in history! I mean it could be supported by science but if they are not then that is not a reason to disbelieve them. I am not sure what you mean about how close our Prophet (pbuh) was "to the truth"... but if you mean he did not find fossils then what would be the point of digging up the earth when God Himself has encouraged reflection of current surroundings,

[3.190] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand.
[3.191] Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: Our Lord! Thou hast not created this in vain! Glory be to Thee; save us then from the chastisement of the fire:

If your parents told you that your great grandfather saw a ghost, would you ask for scientific evidence (even though such an incident could not be proven by science!) or would you believe them? If preservation of knowledge by truthful people, along with truthful texts tell us that there lived a Prophet and thousands like him, we believe! (Not only that but we have the tool of inborn conscience and logic to believe in God. He did not leave us to form our own opinions but created signs to guide us.) Point being, faith is not wrong. Science has limits and is merely a tool, not a criterion of right and wrong.

Regards.

 

[root]

If we think about it, is the creationist view really so bizarre when compared to the materialistic view? I mean humans essentially coming about from nuclear explosions and microbial interactions, evolving over the centuries... it isn't something so easy to believe.

I find it hard to imagine a way in which a thousand-ton piece of metal could fly through the air. Therefore, airplanes will never work..................................

Creationist view does not rely on science, but rather science supports it.

It's high time creationists stop saying this downright LIE. Science does not support a creationist view.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31

So you are saying that everything beyond scientific discovery requires faith, i.e. you are limited by science.

In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.

In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to "have more faith" that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of 'letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence' is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he's murdered them.

Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It's their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they're already right, pretty much, close enough.

If a scientist says "I have faith this theory is true," he doesn't or shouldn't mean it in the religious sense of "I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don't try to change my mind, here I stand."

Instead, he means or ought to mean "I've tested this theory, and I've seen the results of other people's tests, and I'm as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted."

Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like 'faith' and 'truth'. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than "probably close enough," scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.

If your parents told you that your great grandfather saw a ghost, would you ask for scientific evidence (even though such an incident could not be proven by science!) or would you believe them? If preservation of knowledge by truthful people, along with truthful texts tell us that there lived a Prophet and thousands like him, we believe! (Not only that but we have the tool of inborn conscience and logic to believe in God. He did not leave us to form our own opinions but created signs to guide us.) Point being, faith is not wrong. Science has limits and is merely a tool, not a criterion of right and wrong.

I don't beleive in ghosts