Around the sun orbits a giant tea pot, we can't see it, so we can't prove or disprove it exists (R. Dawkins, 2006). The same goes for the idea of god in any faith.

What we can prove is evolution by the fossil record, molecular anthropology, mitochonrial DNA decant, chromosome territory preseraation across primates (we are primates!), etc.

Allah never created earth and homo sapiens, both evolved by national processes. If Muhammed really talked to god, as proof, god would have told him, Energy equals Mass times Energy Squared as evidence. This never happened, Mudammed made it up and islam is like no other created faaith based religion.

Show me in the quran where E=MC2?

F

first, scriptures are not science books so I doubt that you'll find E=mc2.

While I am for evolution and big bang theory than creation myself....

second, so if we cannot prove or disprove God exist, so really we cannot prove or disprove creation really  

tea pot!? interesting

fogtrik wrote:   Around the sun orbits a giant tea pot, we can't see it, so we can't prove or disprove it exists (R. Dawkins, 2006). The same goes for the idea of god in any faith. What we can prove is evolution by the fossil record, molecular anthropology, mitochonrial DNA decant, chromosome territory preseraation across primates (we are primates!), etc. Allah never created earth and homo sapiens, both evolved by national processes. If Muhammed really talked to god, as proof, god would have told him, Energy equals Mass times Energy Squared as evidence. This never happened, Mudammed made it up and islam is like no other created faaith based religion. Show me in the quran where E=MC2? F

you can't see an atom, so therefore according to you, IT DOESN'T EXIST!! 

so atoms don't exists, therefore you can't say there is protons or electrons cuz they're 100,000 times smaller than an atom so THEY DON'T EXIST according to your idea. 

but wait- you want to know about energy, if god stated it?  hey man, energy DOESN'T EXIST since you can't see it!! so don't ask such propostrous questions!

you don't even know if space exists-  the stars are billions of light years away from us and it takes that much time for light to travel to earth.  your eyes decieve you.  the stars in the sky are not where you think you see them- since it takes light some time to travel, what you see presently is the constelation of those same stars long, long ago.

let this be a rule of thumb for you: the organ you use to see with cannot be set as the determining factor to whether something exists or not.  therefore this sense could not be used to determine if God exists or not.

you want to know if god exists?  look deep into your soul, when you connect with your soul, you connect with Allah. it is He who hath blown his soul into each embryo bringing us to life in our mother's womb.

you connect with your soul, you connect with Allah.  Look up 'thikr'.

fogtrik wrote:   Around the sun orbits a giant tea pot, we can't see it, so we can't prove or disprove it exists (R. Dawkins, 2006). The same goes for the idea of god in any faith. What we can prove is evolution by the fossil record, molecular anthropology, mitochonrial DNA decant, chromosome territory preseraation across primates (we are primates!), etc. Allah never created earth and homo sapiens, both evolved by national processes. If Muhammed really talked to god, as proof, god would have told him, Energy equals Mass times Energy Squared as evidence. This never happened, Mudammed made it up and islam is like no other created faaith based religion. Show me in the quran where E=MC2? F

Hi fogtrik,

Below is a good link that explains the position of Qur'an on relativity.

http://www.islamicity.com/Science/QuranAndScience/relativity/GeneratedFiles/index.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/Science/QuranAndScience/relativity /GeneratedFiles/index.htm

Verily a Day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning  --(Surat al-Hajj, 47)

THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE

The origin of the universe is described in the Qur'an in the following verse:

He created the heavens and the earth from nothing. (Surat al-An'am, 101)

This information given in the Qur'an is in full agreement with the findings of contemporary science. The conclusion that astrophysics has reached today is that the entire universe, together with the dimensions of matter and time, came into existence as a result of a great explosion that occurred in no time. This event, known as "The Big Bang" proved that the universe was created from nothingness as the result of the explosion of a single point. Modern scientific circles are in agreement that the Big Bang is the only rational and provable explanation of the beginning of the universe and of how the universe came into being.

Before the Big Bang, there was no such thing as matter. From a condition of non-existence in which neither matter, nor energy, nor even time existed, and which can only be described metaphysically, matter, energy, and time were all created. This fact, only recently discovered by modern physics, was announced to us in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.

THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE

In the Qur'an, which was revealed 14 centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described like this:

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat, 47)

The word "heaven", as stated in this verse, is used in various places in the Qur'an with the meaning of space and universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning. In other words, in the Qur'an it is revealed that the universe "expands". And this is the very conclusion that science has reached today.

Until the dawn of the twentieth century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that "the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time". The research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology, however, have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning, and that it constantly "expands".

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding.

This fact was proved also by observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding. This fact was explained in the Qur'an when that was still unknown to anyone. This is because the Qur'an is the word of Allah, the Creator, and the Ruler of the entire universe.

http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge24.php - http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge24.php

Finally, you have to also keep in mind that Qur'an is not the book of science, it is book of guidance. With that said, let us keep in mind that it also has desciption  on creation, relativity, embroynic development etc, to name a few, that are also supported by modern science. It was absolutely impossible for a Prophet ( who could not read or write ) 1400 years back to know these advanced concepts that are known to us today with the help of sophisticated astronomical and technological equipments.

Qur'an doesn't depend on science, but an open mind with scientific knowledge may help one understand Qur'an and Islam better, not necessarily though.

Of course, faith comes first. Even in the face of technological backwardness that existed 1400 years back, opposed to our modern times, Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ) and his companions  still believed in everything what was there in Qur'an and Islam, and they were the best community ever raised in the history of mankind.

Peace

peacemaker wrote: fogtrik wrote:   Around the sun orbits a giant tea pot, we can't see it, so we can't prove or disprove it exists (R. Dawkins, 2006). The same goes for the idea of god in any faith. What we can prove is evolution by the fossil record, molecular anthropology, mitochonrial DNA decant, chromosome territory preseraation across primates (we are primates!), etc. Allah never created earth and homo sapiens, both evolved by national processes. If Muhammed really talked to god, as proof, god would have told him, Energy equals Mass times Energy Squared as evidence. This never happened, Mudammed made it up and islam is like no other created faaith based religion. Show me in the quran where E=MC2? F Hi fogtrik, Below is a good link that explains the position of Qur'an on relativity. http://www.islamicity.com/Science/QuranAndScience/relativity/GeneratedFiles/index.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/Science/QuranAndScience/relativity /GeneratedFiles/index.htm Verily a Day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning  --(Surat al-Hajj, 47)   THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE The origin of the universe is described in the Qur'an in the following verse: He created the heavens and the earth from nothing. (Surat al-An'am, 101) This information given in the Qur'an is in full agreement with the findings of contemporary science. The conclusion that astrophysics has reached today is that the entire universe, together with the dimensions of matter and time, came into existence as a result of a great explosion that occurred in no time. This event, known as "The Big Bang" proved that the universe was created from nothingness as the result of the explosion of a single point. Modern scientific circles are in agreement that the Big Bang is the only rational and provable explanation of the beginning of the universe and of how the universe came into being. Before the Big Bang, there was no such thing as matter. From a condition of non-existence in which neither matter, nor energy, nor even time existed, and which can only be described metaphysically, matter, energy, and time were all created. This fact, only recently discovered by modern physics, was announced to us in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.   THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE In the Qur'an, which was revealed 14 centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described like this: And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat, 47) The word "heaven", as stated in this verse, is used in various places in the Qur'an with the meaning of space and universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning. In other words, in the Qur'an it is revealed that the universe "expands". And this is the very conclusion that science has reached today. Until the dawn of the twentieth century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that "the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time". The research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology, however, have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning, and that it constantly "expands". At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding. This fact was proved also by observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding. This fact was explained in the Qur'an when that was still unknown to anyone. This is because the Qur'an is the word of Allah, the Creator, and the Ruler of the entire universe. http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge24.php - http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge24.php Finally, you have to also keep in mind that Qur'an is not the book of science, it is book of guidance. With that said, let us keep in mind that it also has desciption  on creation, relativity, embroynic development etc, to name a few, that are also supported by modern science. It was absolutely impossible for a Prophet ( who could not read or write ) 1400 years back to know these advanced concepts that are known to us today with the help of sophisticated astronomical and technological equipments. Qur'an doesn't depend on science, but an open mind with scientific knowledge may help one understand Qur'an and Islam better, not necessarily though. Of course, faith comes first. Even in the face of technological backwardness that existed 1400 years back, opposed to our modern times, Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ) and his companions  still believed in everything what was there in Qur'an and Islam, and they were the best community ever raised in the history of mankind. Peace

Bismillah,

Brother, in reading your post I see that you think it's worth your time to allow atheists and Islaam bashers to come to this site making anti-Islaamic declarations for the purpose of your providing refutation of their grossly mistaken ideas.

I suggest that you form another posting section specifically for this activity.  Possibly:  Atheists and Anti-Muslims section.

Salaamu Alaykum

Cyril wrote: Peacemaker Your quote: "Finally, you have to also keep in mind that Qur'an is not the book of science, it is book of guidance. With that said, let us keep in mind that it also has desciption  on creation, relativity, embroynic development etc, to name a few, that are also supported by modern science." Nice contradiction: the Quran is not a book of science but it is supposed to have a lot of science in it. Some of the "scientific" facts in the Quran are not supported by modern science but rather by mythological thinking. For example man created from clay, or the fact that heaven and earth can talk.

Cyril:

Let me repeat. Qur'an is primarily a book of guidance. It is not contradiction if you see science, mathematics, geography, history, astronomy,language ( unmatched arabic ) etc etc. in this book. Let us stick first to those scientific aspects I pointed out in my post before going to others such as the one you mentioned, " For example man created from clay, or the fact that heaven and earth can talk." And when you do want to discuss any scientifc aspect with respect to what Qur'an says about that, please quote Qur'anic verse(s) and scientific position so it can be discussed.

Whether or not any scientific aspect backed Qur'an at any point in the history, Muslims have been believing in Qur'an and seeking inspiration from this book, taking it in its entirety, without any concern to what science or others may say about it otherwise. 

Peace

herjihad wrote: peacemaker wrote: fogtrik wrote:   Around the sun orbits a giant tea pot, we can't see it, so we can't prove or disprove it exists (R. Dawkins, 2006). The same goes for the idea of god in any faith. What we can prove is evolution by the fossil record, molecular anthropology, mitochonrial DNA decant, chromosome territory preseraation across primates (we are primates!), etc. Allah never created earth and homo sapiens, both evolved by national processes. If Muhammed really talked to god, as proof, god would have told him, Energy equals Mass times Energy Squared as evidence. This never happened, Mudammed made it up and islam is like no other created faaith based religion. Show me in the quran where E=MC2? F Hi fogtrik, Below is a good link that explains the position of Qur'an on relativity. http://www.islamicity.com/Science/QuranAndScience/relativity/GeneratedFiles/index.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/Science/QuranAndScience/relativity /GeneratedFiles/index.htm Verily a Day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning  --(Surat al-Hajj, 47)   THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE The origin of the universe is described in the Qur'an in the following verse: He created the heavens and the earth from nothing. (Surat al-An'am, 101) This information given in the Qur'an is in full agreement with the findings of contemporary science. The conclusion that astrophysics has reached today is that the entire universe, together with the dimensions of matter and time, came into existence as a result of a great explosion that occurred in no time. This event, known as "The Big Bang" proved that the universe was created from nothingness as the result of the explosion of a single point. Modern scientific circles are in agreement that the Big Bang is the only rational and provable explanation of the beginning of the universe and of how the universe came into being. Before the Big Bang, there was no such thing as matter. From a condition of non-existence in which neither matter, nor energy, nor even time existed, and which can only be described metaphysically, matter, energy, and time were all created. This fact, only recently discovered by modern physics, was announced to us in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.   THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE In the Qur'an, which was revealed 14 centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described like this: And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat, 47) The word "heaven", as stated in this verse, is used in various places in the Qur'an with the meaning of space and universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning. In other words, in the Qur'an it is revealed that the universe "expands". And this is the very conclusion that science has reached today. Until the dawn of the twentieth century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that "the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time". The research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology, however, have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning, and that it constantly "expands". At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding. This fact was proved also by observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding. This fact was explained in the Qur'an when that was still unknown to anyone. This is because the Qur'an is the word of Allah, the Creator, and the Ruler of the entire universe. http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge24.php - http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge24.php Finally, you have to also keep in mind that Qur'an is not the book of science, it is book of guidance. With that said, let us keep in mind that it also has desciption  on creation, relativity, embroynic development etc, to name a few, that are also supported by modern science. It was absolutely impossible for a Prophet ( who could not read or write ) 1400 years back to know these advanced concepts that are known to us today with the help of sophisticated astronomical and technological equipments. Qur'an doesn't depend on science, but an open mind with scientific knowledge may help one understand Qur'an and Islam better, not necessarily though. Of course, faith comes first. Even in the face of technological backwardness that existed 1400 years back, opposed to our modern times, Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ) and his companions  still believed in everything what was there in Qur'an and Islam, and they were the best community ever raised in the history of mankind. Peace   Bismillah, Brother, in reading your post I see that you think it's worth your time to allow atheists and Islaam bashers to come to this site making anti-Islaamic declarations for the purpose of your providing refutation of their grossly mistaken ideas. I suggest that you form another posting section specifically for this activity.  Possibly:  Atheists and Anti-Muslims section. Salaamu Alaykum

Walaikum Salam Sister herjihad,

I hope that IC mod/admin team will look into your concerns.

Jazak Allah Khair.

Peace

"E tu Bruto" It, in fact, means: "You too my son"?

I can't say that to you peacemaker you are far ahead of me in spiritual knowledge and in matters of the Deen.

My friend, responding to anything that happened merely as a FogTrick is a bit sad. You know what fog means, but if you are not aware of what trick stands for then, please, PM me and I will tell you in confidence. 

Why not keep him engaged lest he boils and eats a few of his neighbours, the great scientist!

Cyril wrote: Peacemaker Your quote: "..." Nice contradiction: the Quran is not a book of science but it is supposed to have a lot of science in it. Some of the "scientific" facts in the Quran are not supported by modern science but rather by mythological thinking. For example man created from clay, or the fact that heaven and earth can talk.

Please Peacemaker, don't confuse the one who is already confused!  The quran is a book of science, it is a book of Law, it is a book of everything.  Everything big and small is mentioned in it.

Cyril- you say that there's no evidence in science that man was made from clay??  hmmm i think you need to put your nose back in your evolutionary science book and read the chapter about the History of Life. look up what scientists found to be an integral ingrediant of the �Prebiotic Soup� the earth was composed of billions of years ago that brought forth living biological organisms onto earth.   IT WAS CLAY. 

Scientists including Charles Darwin create a lasting image of life arising in an aqueous environment with in high concentrations of biological building blocks�the famous �prebiotic soup�. (before biological organisms)   It includes a mixture of many inorganic substances with two of the most important ingredients: water and clay mineral.

In the lab, scientists (James Ferris and his colleagues) prepared a simple replication of the prebiotic soup and found that a common clay mineral acts as a catalyst to build up of nucleotides to form chains of polynucleotides, which is the foundation of biological organisms.  This is called, Assembly of Biological Polymers.  And it began with a mix of inorganic substances one of which is minerals in clay and water.  From this mix, life arose through stages.

(source of info: Evolutionary Analysis 2^nd ED ch.4)

"...and We (God) made, from water, every living thing" (21:30)

"We (God) have created man from a Clay" (23:12)

"And He (God) created you in stages (or phases) "(71:14)

and there's your proof!  so don't think you're all smart and say something totally ignorant about science!!  But hey, you still deny? You don�t want to take these signs of the veracity of the Quran in?  then whatever proof we give you, you will still not see.

Say, "Look at all the signs in the heavens and the earth." All the proofs and all the warnings can never help people who decided to disbelieve (10:101).

Sorry, peacemaker yaar why should you bother if he insists that he was born of the monkies?

He does seem to behave like his ancestors.

Whisper wrote: "E tu Bruto" It, in fact, means: "You too my son"? I can't say that to you peacemaker you are far ahead of me in spiritual knowledge and in matters of the Deen. My friend, responding to anything that happened merely as a FogTrick is a bit sad. You know what fog means, but if you are not aware of what trick stands for then, please, PM me and I will tell you in confidence.

what the heck is a fogtrick?

amalhayati2 wrote: Whisper wrote: "E tu Bruto" It, in fact, means: "You too my son"? I can't say that to you peacemaker you are far ahead of me in spiritual knowledge and in matters of the Deen. My friend, responding to anything that happened merely as a FogTrick is a bit sad. You know what fog means, but if you are not aware of what trick stands for then, please, PM me and I will tell you in confidence.  what the heck is a fogtrick?

didn't read the words to PM whisper, if ya wanted to know in bold brown letters  

Angel wrote: amalhayati2 wrote: Whisper wrote: "E tu Bruto" It, in fact, means: "You too my son"? I can't say that to you peacemaker you are far ahead of me in spiritual knowledge and in matters of the Deen. My friend, responding to anything that happened merely as a FogTrick is a bit sad. You know what fog means, but if you are not aware of what trick stands for then, please, PM me and I will tell you in confidence.  what the heck is a fogtrick?   didn't read the words to PM whisper, if ya wanted to know in bold brown letters

is it that much of a secret?  what could it possibly imply that we haven't already openly implied about the ludicrousness in this dude's accusations? 

I think this is a great spot to show y'all this one poem I wrote a while back in high school... 

we had to replicate a famous poem while useing our own words.  like produceing a parody.

the structure of the following poem I wrote was taken from "Lines Written in Early Spring" by William Wordsworth.

I heard a thousand theory notes

While in a forest I sat reclined.

In that ruminating mood

Where pleasant thoughts

Bring sad thoughts to the mind

To his fair creation did the Al-Mighty link

The human brain to think wisely instead of funky

And much it grieved my heart to think

What man has made of monkey

�We�ve evolved from arboreal germination!�

Through testing and comparing they conceive.

Though �tis my faith that we are all God�s creation

And the first persons on earth were Adam and Eve.

The birds around me sing and chirp

The apes swing high and low.

And then those men claim by usurp

That from these creatures we did grow.

If this belief from heaven be sent

If logic is the key

Have I not reason to lament

What man has made of monkey?

I like the idea that muslims interprute the Qur'an with an open scientific mind. So evoution works with the scriptures? 

Its really good that you can accept that reality that life on earth 600 million years ago was limited to only 4 phyla, then 543 million years ago the eye evolved, and an explosion of evolution produced the 38 phyla that we see today.

I've watched the Islam channel, a show called "Allah's Artistry". It shows footage of organisms from the plant and animal world. The show calls it the work of Allah, when its actually the results of co-evolution. Maybe you can see it in the light that Allah wanted the world to work together?

Humans and modern primates have a common ansector about 30 million years ago, Mitochondrial DNA mutations and pseudogenes prove this. Life didn't need Allah to exist because animo acids exist in space and might possibly be a strange attractor in chaos theory. I'll spare you on the finer points of how Chaos Theory fits into the emergant of life.

If you can interprute the Qur'an to justify that evolution happened with the help of Allah then this is more realistic of reality. (but I hate intelligent design, a designer is not needed). I'm happy with that.

Unlike in the States where fundamental Christians are taking the Bibile word for word. Its only a book, just as the Qur'an is only a book.  

I'm a true none believer and always will be, however I recently find myself reading more of the Qur'an and trying to understand the average Muslim.

I don't like how the Qur'an and islamic faith separates none believers from yourselves. Why separate Islam from the rest of the world? the world needs to work together!

Jesus seems to have interesting ideas on slavery. 

From the Bible:

*Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.* - The Bible - Isaiah 13:16

From the Qur'an:

*The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.* - The Qur'an 5:33

These are the 2 very popular ones. In both books there is so much "sickness", "sexuality" and "violence" in it, cannot be the word of God. God wouldn't want you to kill me for posting discussion, or try to get you to believe in a different god, which is probably the same thing anyway! You god, theird god, its all the same to me.

Help me out here?

I am not Muslim, but I believe you have as much right as anyone else to have your ideas heard....to state your opinions, for chance of rebuttal if nothing else.

Peace Always. 

Jesus seems to have interesting ideas on slavery.  From the Bible: *Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.* - The Bible - Isaiah 13:16

Hmmmm, Jesus came waaaaaaaay after Isaiah.  I take it you never went to Sunday School as a child???

As for Creation vs Evolution.  I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.  We know not how or in what manner God created us.  The Holy Books all say we were created from Dust/Clay.  Given the theories of the Earths origins and the cosmic forces that shaped the Planet and the waters and eventually us, we literally came from Cosmic Dust.  Thus, the books are correct, even if you break it down to a Big Bang.

fogtrik wrote:   Around the sun orbits a giant tea pot, we can't see it, so we can't prove or disprove it exists (R. Dawkins, 2006). The same goes for the idea of god in any faith.

Neither can Richard Dawkins prove anything conclusive about his "giant tea pot" the elusive replicator. He, and his followers, replace facts with conjecture, and then pat each other on the shoulders for some grand discovery. All in all, Richard Dawkins, nor his contemporaries, have produced one single, re-producable experiment, or document one single observation, that actually proves their main theories. Evolution is a faith.

(do not give me the list of "spciation accounts" where hairs on one group of flies that differ from hairs on another group of flies somehow proves speciation which somehow proves the faith based belief that a replicator formed out of nowhere, given the amount of tweaking from biologists with the term "speciation" so that they can fit the evidence to their absurd assertions! it is a tautological gimmick! your tea pot orbiting the sun!)

fog wrote: What we can prove is evolution by the fossil record, molecular anthropology, mitochonrial DNA decant, chromosome territory preseraation across primates (we are primates!), etc.

This is simply a false statement. The fossil record does not prove the "theory of evolution", and in fact, the fossil record produces more problems for Darwin and the proponents of his failed dream, more than it supports it.

fog wrote: Allah never created earth and homo sapiens, both evolved by national processes.

An assertion, not a fact.

fog wrote:  If Muhammed really talked to god, as proof, god would have told him, Energy equals Mass times Energy Squared as evidence. This never happened, Mudammed made it up and islam is like no other created faaith based religion.

Your assumption is false and unargued given that you must show that a religous book must show

1) a scientific theory

2) and you must decide from which discipline it will come from

3) that Gd must give a scientific theory in order for the faith to be valid

The Quran as a revelation would not provide anything of interest to people living in the 7th century with some differential equation, or quaturnian formulation of "vector forces", or how to adjust an electron gun.

The Quran does contain facts that have been revealed by science as true. The Quran is not defined by science, given that science rarely remains stagnant (new informtaiton foces our understanding to change). The Quran gives what science cannot: A path to walk closer to Gd.

fog wrote: Show me in the quran where E=MC2? F

complex question. (invalid)

--"The quran is a book of science, it is a book of Law, it is a book of everything.  Everything big and small is mentioned in it."--

Historians know that religions borrow from each other. Man made from clay is a famous myth you can find in Babylonian and Greek mythology for example. It was borrowed by the Bible, then by the Quran. You learn that at school when you study Middle-Eastern civilizations.

I mentioned the verse where heaven and earth can talk. I did not hear a scientific explanation about that.

Angela wrote: Jesus seems to have interesting ideas on slavery.  From the Bible: *Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.* - The Bible - Isaiah 13:16 Hmmmm, Jesus came waaaaaaaay after Isaiah.  I take it you never went to Sunday School as a child??? As for Creation vs Evolution.  I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.  We know not how or in what manner God created us.  The Holy Books all say we were created from Dust/Clay.  Given the theories of the Earths origins and the cosmic forces that shaped the Planet and the waters and eventually us, we literally came from Cosmic Dust.  Thus, the books are correct, even if you break it down to a Big Bang.

It's a trick Angela.

The theory of Evolution has at its bases an underlying metaphyscial belief. If you believe in the Gd of of the bible, then you cannot believe in the theory of Evolution, as pushed by the these people. The fact is, when they hear a Christian or Muslim or Jew try and identify with the theory, they keep their mouths shut with great control because they know this is not possible, but they figure that once you are in the doorway to their ideas, it will not take much to get you in all the way. Evolution's presumptuous ideology is that there is no need for Gd, and everything kind of just happened, through.....well....the only explanation they have is...it all just happened through evolution!

I think the well known physicist Robert Laughlin said it best:

�Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!�

�Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2005), pp. 168-169.

Keep in mind what the theory is, and its underlying "ideology", which is anti-thetical to your Christian beliefs. You cannot seperate the ideology from the theory. They are intertwined and inseperable.

assalam alikum,

The Quran said to be kind with anybody and there is no compulsion in Religions. Mohammad (saw) was dealing with Jews and Christians, he never attack them or kill them. He said to respect peoples whatever they believe and do not attack them or treat them bad. The only time Muslims can do war is for defending them shelf from the attacker, but there still strict rules in war. They can�t kill women, children, old peoples, or infirm peoples. Also they only can do the same things as the attackers do to them, nothing more. When the attackers want to stop fighting (war), Muslims have to stop fighting and be peaceful. Allah also said in the Quran �Saving one person live is like saving all humanity, kill one person life is like killing all humanity,Allah dont like aggressor�

There is one time, Mohammad (saw) was in the Masjid with his companions, there were an unbeliever who came in and did his nature call in a corner of the Masjid. The companions were furious and wanted to beat him up but Mohammad (saw) refuse it. He said to let him finish and let him go. When he finish, he order his companions to get a bucket of water and clean it. He said that Muslims should make it easy for other not complicated it.

There was a time that Mohammad (saw) neighbor was a Jew men, he always trying to make Mohammad (saw) angry by putting many garbage, stuff on his lawn EVERYDAY. Also he treats Mohammad (saw) bad and annoys him. Mohammad (saw) never said anything about it. One day Mohammad (saw) got home and except his lawn to be dirty again, but it wasn�t. For three days it was like that. He asks someone about what happen to his neighbor and he learn that the Jew men was really sick. He went to visit him and tell him he missed him. The Jew men ask him why he being so nice, Mohammad (saw) answer that Allah said to be always helpful and nice to his neighbors. At that moment the Jew men said La Elah Ella Allah.

There one time Mohammad went to Taif, the Audia Arab town. He was preaching about Islam and the non muslims trow him stones and beat him so much that he was bleeding everywhere! The Angel Gabriel even come to see him and ask him if he want Allah kill all the peoples of Taif. Mohammad (saw) mercy just simply refuse it and pray to Allah to forgive them and have mercy on them.   

Also there many time that the non muslims beat, trew stones at Mohammad (saw), also kill and hurt his family members and the muslims. When they were kick out far from Mecca, years after they win and was abale to rule the land. THe peoples who hurt them was so sure that Mohammad(saw) and the Muslims will do vengance agaisnt them for what they did to them (Muslims) in the past. At their suprise Mohammad (saw) and the muslim never did vendenge or hurt them in any way. They let them live their beliefs peacefuly.

hope that answer to you some of the answers

wa alikum assalam

Darwinism is full of problems.  But, you have to look past Darwin and look towards certain realities.  Where did oil come from?  Dinosaurs and plant life in ancient swamps.  Why are there a dozen different species of Large cats?  Adaptation (or evolution). 

Adaptation is the essense of this planet's variety.  Plants, animals, fish.  All species can be traced through the adaptation of the species.

Evolutions basic flaw is that is claims that all of this can be done without God.  Athiests claim cosmic accident caused us to develop on this Earth.

However, Creationism itself does not stand up to scrutiny.  If you literally translate the origins per the Quran, Bible and Torah, you come up with a world only 6-8,000 years old.  Even if you take the 6 days of Creation as 1000 years a piece as I have seen by creationists, that makes the world 12-20,000 years old.  Still not nearly the 4 billion years its been since God created this rock. 

God's wisdom is far greater than our own.  Why would he take 3.5 billion years to create something he could do overnight?  I'm sure he had his reasons.  He is a God of order and law.  If he says that the tides are ruled by the gravitational pull of the Moon, then who are we to argue his law. 

We are intelligent people, we can see the evidences of this Earth's geological and biological history.  There is no direct link from the other Homid species to Humanity.  Who says they could not have existed? Nothing is known about them.  There is even debate if the Neaderthals were a separate species or just a sub species.  But, facts remain that between 300,000 and 40,000 years ago, another group of sturdy people lived in Europe. 

I can believe in God and believe in Evolution (or Adaptation).  I can believe in Creation and Evolution. 

God guides the past, present and future of his planet.  Muslims are fond in saying nothing is done but by his will.  So, perhaps the reasons for the slow adaptation of this planet to its current form was to give us the blessings of this world. 

Angela wrote: Darwinism is full of problems.  But, you have to look past Darwin and look towards certain realities.  Where did oil come from?  Dinosaurs and plant life in ancient swamps.  Why are there a dozen different species of Large cats?  Adaptation (or evolution).

You are looking at the idea of adaptations, and small differences in one species. This is not the theory of evolution. This is part of the evidence they use to make their theory.

What you are speaking of does not prove that something came from nothing. It does not begin to even touch the theory.

angela wrote: Adaptation is the essense of this planet's variety.  Plants, animals, fish.  All species can be traced through the adaptation of the species. Evolutions basic flaw is that is claims that all of this can be done without God.  Athiests claim cosmic accident caused us to develop on this Earth.

Yes, it is called the theory of evolution, which they try and use inductive reasoning from the ideas you mentioned above to prove their ideology and assumed metaphysical principles. You cannot say you find the theory to be even complimentary to your beliefs as a Christian without also accepting the underlying premise that is at the bases of the theory. You cannot seperate the two. You can take the observations you have mentioned above, and put them into another belief, but it is not the theory of evolution. Those observations are not the "sole property" of the theory of evolution. Though they would like everyone to think so.

angela wrote:   However, Creationism itself does not stand up to scrutiny.  If you literally translate the origins per the Quran, Bible and Torah, you come up with a world only 6-8,000 years old.  Even if you take the 6 days of Creation as 1000 years a piece as I have seen by creationists, that makes the world 12-20,000 years old.  Still not nearly the 4 billion years its been since God created this rock.

The Quran does not give a date to creation. The 6-800 years old birthdate is Jewish and Christian. Muslims cannot say one way or the other just what the date was when Gd created it. Gd leaves that up to us to figure our or speculate about.

angela wrote: God's wisdom is far greater than our own.  Why would he take 3.5 billion years to create something he could do overnight?  I'm sure he had his reasons.  He is a God of order and law.  If he says that the tides are ruled by the gravitational pull of the Moon, then who are we to argue his law.

true

angela wrote:   We are intelligent people, we can see the evidences of this Earth's geological and biological history.  There is no direct link from the other Homid species to Humanity.  Who says they could not have existed? Nothing is known about them.  There is even debate if the Neaderthals were a separate species or just a sub species.  But, facts remain that between 300,000 and 40,000 years ago, another group of sturdy people lived in Europe.

Which means only that. To try and imply that humans devleoped from that is conjecture. The Quran does not mention anything about other species. And again, the Quran does not give a birthdate for the earth. That they existed does not cause any problems with the Quran.

angela wrote:   I can believe in God and believe in Evolution (or Adaptation).  I can believe in Creation and Evolution.

COntradictory. The theory of evolution is not adaptation. Adaptation is an observation used by theorists to prove the theory of evolution. Adaption is not the theory of evolution, which presupposes the idea of natural selection and a universe that has no purpose or intelligent creator. It is opposed to a teleological universe. Hence, you cannot believe in both. You can believe in adaptation, and your bible, but not evolution and your bible, or else you have to make some huge adjustments to it.

angela wrote: God guides the past, present and future of his planet.  Muslims are fond in saying nothing is done but by his will.  So, perhaps the reasons for the slow adaptation of this planet to its current form was to give us the blessings of this world.

You are mingeling the two ideas, evolution, and adaptation together. They are not equivalent. Gd's will does not mean evolution. Having a creator implies a teleological universe. Blessings stem from such a universe. The theory of evolution is anti-thetical.  

peace

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/6072/1einstein.html - http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/6072/1einstein.html

amalhayati2 wrote: Angel wrote: amalhayati2 wrote: Whisper wrote: "E tu Bruto" It, in fact, means: "You too my son"? I can't say that to you peacemaker you are far ahead of me in spiritual knowledge and in matters of the Deen. My friend, responding to anything that happened merely as a FogTrick is a bit sad. You know what fog means, but if you are not aware of what trick stands for then, please, PM me and I will tell you in confidence.  what the heck is a fogtrick?   didn't read the words to PM whisper, if ya wanted to know in bold brown letters   .  is it that much of a secret?  what could it possibly imply that we haven't already openly implied about the ludicrousness in this dude's accusations?

i don't know

Cyril wrote: Amalhayati --"The quran is a book of science, it is a book of Law, it is a book of everything.  Everything big and small is mentioned in it."-- By the size of the collections of hadiths I doubt that Muslims find everything in the Quran. -- "you say that there's no evidence in science that man was made from clay?? -- Historians know that religions borrow from each other. Man made from clay is a famous myth you can find in Babylonian and Greek mythology for example. It was borrowed by the Bible, then by the Quran. You learn that at school when you study Middle-Eastern civilizations. I mentioned the verse where heaven and earth can talk. I did not hear a scientific explanation about that.

Well, i guess this 'famous myth' was justified to be famous since now even science has confirmed this phenomenon to be accurate!  

Heaven and earth can talk just as much as any other living creation can talk but in different communications that we are incognigent of.  since they don't speak your human language doesn't mean cats don't talk, birds don't talk, or elephants don't talk.   they're all types of communication. 

have you heard an elephant talk?  studies show that elephants communicate to eachother in such high pitch sounds that are inaudable to human ears.  if you didn't hear them, does that mean they don't talk?  if you don't understand their language, is that cause for neglegence?   not at all.

besides, the only 'talk' the heavans and the earth do that we are incapable of hearing is rememberance of Allah; ie. 'Glory be to Allah.'  this is information that Allah has given us for our references- no more no less.  

you and i are finite individuals that cannot compete with the infinite knowledge of the universe.  the more one knows, the more they learn there's so much out there that they don't know.

so don't give me that silly tea pot in space scenario... that's pathetic and only the ignorant would come up with such a thing.

Darwinism is full of problems. 

An unknown biology student was sponsored by the slave traders of the day, just to establish that they were not capturing and selling off human beings - but something in the "in between" stage of evolution.

We must all thank FogTrick for standing up as a living sample of growing out of monkeys, no problem, nothing is evr perfect, at times, we do get left a bit half-baked in any process.

Have patience, my friends, I promise, he will grow almost human, in around 684,735 years. 

Patience is the answer.

Whisper wrote: My friend, responding to anything that happened merely as a FogTrick is a bit sad. You know what fog means,

I love to read this kind of discussion even when either side miss the mark. So please avoid making the poster identity as the topic.

fogtrik wrote: Humans and modern primates have a common ansector about 30 million years ago, Mitochondrial DNA mutations and pseudogenes prove this.

The online dating began around twenty years ago and this article has conform your proof as far as the eye can see. We are only 20 years apart.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2317714 - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2317714

Andalus,

Perhaps we are working from different definitions and views of the word evolution. 

Evolution to me is the process of something adapting over time until it no longer is the thing it started out to be. 

Example the Hyracotherium, a small dog like creature that stood only two feet tall.  This creature over time adapted to changes in the environment, ecosystem and climate to become our modern horses. 

Now, many of the varieties of Horses are from selective breeding done by humans, but we are only capitalizing on an ability already found in nature.

Does this mean that the Hyracotherium was a cosmic accident or part of God's greater plan?  An Athiest would say that the Hyracotherium was just an accident of pure Evolution from no divine origin.

I argue that the Hyracotherium was part of God's plans to bring forth the Horse which has been a blessing to mankind.  God/Allah is a creator.  Do we believe his creation of this world ended?  No of course not. 

So perhaps its that we are on different pages when it comes to the term Evolution. 

The black man developed darker skin to adapt to the intense sunlight and protect from skin cancer.  The Scandinavian peoples are fair because they had less sunlight and colder temperatures so they had to be able to absorb more from the sun. 

For me Adaptation and Evolution are the same.  The Theory of Evolution as presented by Darwin is false in its basic need that there was no creative force controlling things.

I can believe in dinosaurs and evolution and still believe in creation.  I just don't believe in the literalist view of creation that many religious people do. 

You guys are a good bunch, but "Amalhayati", It was Richard Dawkins, who made up the idea about the tea pot, not me. Dawkins in regardless to DNA is brilliant. His ideas on Religion are also ahead of their time. The belief in a god or the orbiting tea pot is the same thing, its just a belief with no proof either way.

In his recent BBC show called, 'the root of all evil' Dawkins pointed out that religion is a virus spread by minds and the world would be a much better place without it. People world wide should stop teaching their kids religion so the next generation could grow up peacful. Take Jerusalem for example and the three faiths, Jewish, Islam and Christainity. It only separates kids and leads to problems! He's got a good point. You can base your idenity and culture on who you are, not the creator you believe in.

I've posted alot on American Fundamental Christian and they just don't want to know. Folks on http://www.evolutionisdead.com - www.evolutionisdead.com take the bible word for word. Basically God made man and man didn't evolve from primates, of story! People there are so stupid!

You all seem more open minded. I get the impression you accept the reality of evolution and that Allah may have helped it? Good discussion so far, but some of you know very little about structural biology, evolution etc, however alot of you know alot about science.

The Universe is most likely full of life, the evolution of matter, be it stars or molecules is a natural process and it doesn't need a creator.

Peace

Fogtrik

The issue of creation and evoluton to me is matter of which side of view when we view it.
A multi storey building that was built for 3 years is an eternity when it view by a fly which only live for 3 weeks just for example.

As a religious person who view this matter as the way God sees I see all of this as a creation. When I see this from human point of view it is painfully long. That is why the believe in decree in Islam is compulsory, because if we see all of this from God's point of view than they have happened. But for the astronomers themselves they seem always seeing the universe in compressed picture too except that they have a blank picture for the future - still.

When it come to human creation - to me from ape to human does not fit to the picture. The existance of apes along side us today is an indication of a third party interference in bringing some apes into human otherwise the evolution should work in universal way.

I am sure you have considered this.

Angela wrote: Andalus, Perhaps we are working from different definitions and views of the word evolution.  Evolution to me is the process of something adapting over time until it no longer is the thing it started out to be.  Example the Hyracotherium, a small dog like creature that stood only two feet tall.  This creature over time adapted to changes in the environment, ecosystem and climate to become our modern horses.  Now, many of the varieties of Horses are from selective breeding done by humans, but we are only capitalizing on an ability already found in nature. Does this mean that the Hyracotherium was a cosmic accident or part of God's greater plan?  An Athiest would say that the Hyracotherium was just an accident of pure Evolution from no divine origin.

I say that the "chart" does not offer any evidence that one fossil is linked, or must necessarily be linked to the other by way of "evolution", and the evidence that suggest that it is is nothing more than circumstantial. Darwin's disciples are simply assuming "natural selection" which is a tenent of the faith, and are not pointing out anything that must necessarily be so.

But I do understand your point.

angela wrote: I argue that the Hyracotherium was part of God's plans to bring forth the Horse which has been a blessing to mankind.  God/Allah is a creator.  Do we believe his creation of this world ended?  No of course not.

I argue that the conlcusions about the "hyracotherium" evolution chart are not based on the evidence, and that the disciples of Darwin are trying to stretch the evidence to fit their assumption.

angela wrote: So perhaps its that we are on different pages when it comes to the term Evolution.  The black man developed darker skin to adapt to the intense sunlight and protect from skin cancer.  The Scandinavian peoples are fair because they had less sunlight and colder temperatures so they had to be able to absorb more from the sun.  For me Adaptation and Evolution are the same.  The Theory of Evolution as presented by Darwin is false in its basic need that there was no creative force controlling things. I can believe in dinosaurs and evolution and still believe in creation.  I just don't believe in the literalist view of creation that many religious people do.

I understand! Thanks for your explanation.  

ANGELA Wrote:

The black man developed darker skin to adapt to the intense sunlight and protect from skin cancer.  The Scandinavian peoples are fair because they had less sunlight and colder temperatures so they had to be able to absorb more from the sun.

***

This is correct to some extent, caucasions in the north also need sun light on their skin to make vitamin D. The Inuit in the artic however get Vitamin D from their diet.

With Evolution you need to all so consider Epigenetics. Basically the gene's expression can change (on of off : the chromatin open of closed) from factors such as nutrition, stress, environmental factos.

Think of all the races of people. Then take the spanish for example, who live a spanish lifestyle, over 1,000's of years their culture has to a small degree shaped how they look.  The same for Muslims and Asians, and who ever.

fogtrik wrote : creation never happened !

fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist?

Allah is The Creator !

Allah The Creator

It is only logical to believe that before anything was created there had to be a Creator. It is, also, only logical to believe that this Creator had to be an eternal being without beginning or end and that nothing could be like this Creator. It is this Unique Being Whom the Qur'an calls Allah the Lord, the Only Supreme Being worthy of worship.

When Allah the Most High decided to create the earth, sun, planets, stars, and the galaxies - those that are known and those that are unkown to us - He commanded them: 'Be!' and they were. Almighty Allah said: Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, 'Be!' - and it is!   Surah 36:82

As for the method of creation, it is unknown to us except what Allah revealed, which is that He created the heavens and the earth and the spaces in between in six days.

Allah the Exalted declared: Allah it is He Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them in six days.   Surah 32:4

These six days are calculated as Allah the Almighty's days. This means they are not like our days on earth, as we count the day according to the earth's rotation once around its axis and the year according to its orbit around the sun. Perhaps these six days are thousands of years, or even millions of centuries, by our calculation nowadays, or perhaps they are more or less than that. They might be something totally different by Allah's reckoning.

Allah told us that He created the heavens, the earth, and everything that is between them in six days, then established Himself on the throne of the universe. Everything submitted to His will; everything was indebted to Him; everything prostrated and showed reverence to Almighty Allah. He controlled the working of everything and everything needed Him. He is the One Who needs nothing and no one, but everything and everyone needs Him. All was complete. Allah the Almighty's will had been accomplished. The universe was created and had prostrated to Him as a symbol of its need and its desire for sustenance and in submission to His will.

Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist?

what has that got to do everything ?

You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that?

Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God?

Muhammad77 wrote: Allah The Creator It is only logical to believe that before anything was created there had to be a Creator.

perhaps.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist? what has that got to do everything ? You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that? Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God?

This means your faith in God is not too strong.

We Muslims have very strong faith in Allah ! Masha'Allah !

Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist? what has that got to do everything ? You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that? Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God? This means your faith in God is not too strong. We Muslims have very strong faith in Allah ! Masha'Allah !

AND what do you know about my faith in God ??

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist? what has that got to do everything ? You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that? Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God? This means your faith in God is not too strong. We Muslims have very strong faith in Allah ! Masha'Allah !   AND what do you know about my faith in God ??

You are laughing ?! It also indicates a lot about your faith in God.

Hi folks, This is one of the threads to which I have enjoyed very much understanding other people's faith.

Fogtrik

Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist? what has that got to do everything ? You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that? Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God? This means your faith in God is not too strong. We Muslims have very strong faith in Allah ! Masha'Allah !   AND what do you know about my faith in God ?? You are laughing ?! It also indicates a lot about your faith in God.

yes I am laughing, your statement is nonsense and is presumption about something/someone that you do not know.

Your statement that muslims have strong faith in Allah while others do not is egotistic. What if I said that to you, that I have more of a strong faith in God and you or muslims don't, what would you say to that? Wouldn't you think it was egotistic of me?

Cyril wrote: Amalhayati You are right we are "finite individuals that cannot compete with the infinite knowledge of the universe". But God has given us the gift of reading and a book to read from, the Quran. He could have written it in the language of the angels and have it deal with angelic matters. But he did not and wrote it in Arabic for us to understand it. So when he writes that heaven and earth can talk, it is in a way of talking which is not alien to us.

The language of the Quran doesn't relate to what we are discussing. we are discussing whether it's viable to believe that the heavens and earth speak. Muslim's reference for that is in the Quran (written in arabic, yes) for which we follow submissively.

please give me a verse from the quran that tells me of what they say. 

(I want to make a point. ;)

fogtrik wrote:   You guys are a good bunch, but "Amalhayati", It was Richard Dawkins, who made up the idea about the tea pot, not me. Dawkins in regardless to DNA is brilliant. His ideas on Religion are also ahead of their time. The belief in a god or the orbiting tea pot is the same thing, its just a belief with no proof either way.

Richard Dawkins is not knew, he is somewhat of a materialist (he does have a "religous" bases, or metaphysical), and a religion basher, which would not designate him ahead of his time.

Since he has not actually provided one single, empirical, verifiable experiment that proves the basic tenents of his faith, I will pass on your love for him.

fog wrote:   In his recent BBC show called, 'the root of all evil' Dawkins pointed out that religion is a virus spread by minds and the world would be a much better place without it.

Actually, that is funny, given his disdain for anyone who wishes to challenge his ideas or his faith and readily gives in to forcing "censorship", and his priestlike status in darwin orthodoxy, he likes to control the information about the subject and appeals to character assasination for those who dissent. He also likes to spread the theories of evolution as fact (they are not facts and not experimentally proven, not like the real sciences). The theory of evolution has never predicted anything, but agrees with everything. A tautalogical mess in the facade of real science.

fog wrote:  People world wide should stop teaching their kids religion so the next generation could grow up peacful.

Communism is an athiestic institution. They also killed milions. The typical athiest argument that religion is the cause of wars is simply false, and most wars in history have been due to squabble over lands, increasing an economy, etc, etc. (all explainable through evolution and so evolution is the real cause of violence, we juts cannot help it!) Parents should not teach the faith of evolution, so that their children will not grow up ignorant. I say ignorant and not items such as peaceful, or moral, or righteous, etc, etc, etc. Simply because Gd loves all, including those who give their faith to an ideology like darwinisms/neo darwinism, and they too may prosepr, and find wealth, and food, and peace, and morality.

fog wrote: Take Jerusalem for example and the three faiths, Jewish, Islam and Christainity. It only separates kids and leads to problems! He's got a good point. You can base your idenity and culture on who you are, not the creator you believe in.

And evolution teaches your kinds that you come from nothing, that you are nothing, and that you will go to nothing. It teaches there is no prupose, they serve no purpose, and that nothingness somehow puts together the wonders of the world. It belittles creation, and does so without any real, solid proof. It teaches that our break in morality is ok due to our adabtive behavior from our evolutionary past, and darwinsim inspired "eugenics". Communism believed as you did. If communists had taught their children religion, along with the other parts of knowledged, millions would not have died. When we devalue our existence to some accidental coming together of compounds, then it can open the door to treating life as cheap. 

The case against religion by way of argument from violence is tired.  

fog wrote: I've posted alot on American Fundamental Christian and they just don't want to know. Folks on http://www.evolutionisdead.com - www.evolutionisdead.com take the bible word for word. Basically God made man and man didn't evolve from primates, of story! People there are so stupid! You all seem more open minded. I get the impression you accept the reality of evolution and that Allah may have helped it? Good discussion so far, but some of you know very little about structural biology, evolution etc, however alot of you know alot about science. The Universe is most likely full of life, the evolution of matter, be it stars or molecules is a natural process and it doesn't need a creator. Peace Fogtrik

I believe that the Universe changes, but I am careful not to call it"evolution" given what that nomenclature represents, and its assumed "metaphysical" assumptions.

You are more than welcome to post here.

Fogtrik, you certainly know you can't prove your "disbelief" anymore than I, as a Catholic, can prove my belief.  It comes down to a matter of faith for people who adhere to a chosen religion. 

You and many others in science have thousands of "theories", but they are just that -- theories which cannot be proven.  I have my faith, which you cannot disprove.  It sustains me through the darkest of times, as I suppose your many theories do for you.  So an atheist is usually a very intelligent person with lots of theories as to how this planet came about, but is also one who is, for whatever reason, without faith.  Many scientists DO have faith and believe in God in some form.  They have found many scientific reason TO BELIEVE in God and creation.  I have known many of them, and they are just as certain of their belief(s) as you are of yours.....so I suppose it's rather a moot topic.  (You must be from Missouri, the "Show Me" state!  All good and peacefulness to you!

Fogtrik, all I can tell you is that - 

Islam is the true religion.

Whom Allah guides to the straight path none can lead him astray, and whom Allah leads astray none can guide him to the straight path.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist? what has that got to do everything ? You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that? Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God? This means your faith in God is not too strong. We Muslims have very strong faith in Allah ! Masha'Allah !   AND what do you know about my faith in God ?? You are laughing ?! It also indicates a lot about your faith in God. yes I am laughing, your statement is nonsense and is presumption about something/someone that you do not know. Your statement that muslims have strong faith in Allah while others do not is egotistic. What if I said that to you, that I have more of a strong faith in God and you or muslims don't, what would you say to that? Wouldn't you think it was egotistic of me?

Then you should believe in creationism.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: fogtrik wrote : creation never happened ! fogtrik, I want to ask you this question. The question is - Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist? what has that got to do everything ? You are saying that to believe in God you must believe in creationism. If you don't then you are an atheist otherwise. where is the logic in that? Please, I believe in God for which I am theistic and believe in the big bang and evolution but don't necessarily believe in creationism! Does that make me an atheistic does it, even though i believe in (a) God?

Muahmmad's question was very apporpriate.  when one projects that creation never happened, it is common sence question their beliefe in God. 

The 11th name of Allah is The Creator.   you cannot separate Creator and God.  so his question was very reasonable.

your belief in the big bang does not defy belief in Allah.  the big bang did happen and in the quran there is proof for that.

"The heavens and earth were joined together (as one unit of creation) that we exploded into existence" Quran 21:30

Also beliefe in evolution does not necessarily defy the belif in Allah either. Much of evolution is just pure natural animal/plant behaviors of adaptation, growth, habitat distruction/revival etc. Since Allah created nature and all the laws/processes that build it, we believe in that scientific knowledge. 

the only two aspects in evolution that we muslims refute is the evolutionary theory of total metamorphosis from one organism to another and the speculation that all processes of nature need not Divine intervention and so therefor God does not exist.

those are the main points that we are against in evolution.  but whatever science is out there we know that the laws and processes that have formed nature is too perfect without Divine intervention. 

May I remend you the 12th name of Allah is The Evolver.

so you can believe in Allah and at the same time believe in the big bang and the scientific data in evolution.

fogtrik wrote: You guys are a good bunch, but "Amalhayati", It was Richard Dawkins, who made up the idea about the tea pot, not me. Dawkins in regardless to DNA is brilliant. His ideas on Religion are also ahead of their time. The belief in a god or the orbiting tea pot is the same thing, its just a belief with no proof either way.

So richard dawkins said it then...

it is not the same thing bcz one can never rely on the sense of sight to prove the existance of God. I already mentiond why in a previous post.  All it needs is the sence of reason, the sence of wisdom. That's what the Quran says. consider these verses:

�You do not see any imperfection in the creation by the Most Gracious.  Keep looking; do you see any flaw?  Look again and again; your eyes will come back stumped and conquered.  (Quran 67:3-4).

�In the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and day, ... and the water which Allah sends down from the sky � by which He brings the Earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creature of every kind-- And varying directions of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth, there are signs for people who use there intellect�.  (2:164)

the perfecion of the universe are signs for pple who think not who use thier eyes.  And a very wise and merciful decision is that Allah hadn't shown us the innitial development of the universe. It would be too much for our limited sences to grasp.

�I did not make them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the creation of their own selves�  Quran 18:51

It is in the form of a great mercy from the Al-Mighty that we weren't there to witness the begining of creation. our minisucle minds wouldn�t be able to handle such infinite complications.  Even in the Evolutionary Analysis book, in the chapter titled "History of Life", it confesses that in the process of figuring out how things came to be turned the "molecular biologist�s dream" into the "prebiotic chemist�s nightmare"!  

fogtrik wrote: You all seem more open minded. I get the impression you accept the reality of evolution and that Allah may have helped it?

omg, that looks awful!  sense* sense* sense*  sory for my typos 

fogtrik wrote: I have some blurred faith in something science based, however I believe that Chaos Theory is more important in evolution that a creator. I hate the American movement of Intelligent Design, its really stupid to teach kids creation non-sense. I like the 'flying spegitti monster'. google it.

the Flying Spegitti Monster philosophy is invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design. 

 well they haven't read excerpts from the Quran and listened to Islamic scholars on the topic of creation have they??  all their attacks are directed at christian philosophy (the bible has been altered hundreds of times by human intervention and therefore could not be used as strong source)

hmmm...so you believe the Chaios Theory is more appropriate than the Intelligent Design theory?  Let's look at some examples of 'chaioss' then: This is an excerpt taken from an essay i wrote 5 years ago for an evolutionary biology class in my college:

The structure of the universe is very sensitive and delicate.  Paul Davis, a professor of theoretical physics said, �Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever- a little slower and the cosmos would collapse -a little faster, and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed.  The Big Bang was not evidently any old Bang but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.� (movie: The Creation of the Universe)  Believe it or not the Quran confirmed this precision and accuracy more than 1400 years ago.

�You do not see any imperfection in the creation by the Most Gracious.  Keep looking; do you see any flaw?  Look again and again; your eyes will come back stumped and conquered.  (Quran 67:3-4).

  When we talk about explosions, we relate to them as being catastrophic, causing chaos and corruption.  This particular explosion (the Big Bang) on the other hand brought into being a perfect order and balance that is amazingly sophisticated enough to develop a planet that is actually habitable.  �It is because the universe started off with its material distributed almost uniformly, a fact we are still far from explaining adequately, that we enjoy today the low entropy which makes the world interesting, and life possible.� ( http://www.c-parr.freeserve.co.uk/ - www.c-parr.freeserve.co.uk )

And we made the earth habitable; a perfect design.  Quran 51:48

Another extreme delicacy about the universe is its rate of expansion.  If the rate of expansion just one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by only �one part in 100,000 million millions�, the universe would have collapsed way before it reached it�s present size.   No 'blind, random, fluky process' evolutionists claim evolution is could have braught about the existence of such a ballanced and perfectly delacate universe. This existance therefore must be the very performance of a Supreme and All-Able Creator. 

 2001

Tell me folks, Homo Sapiens do no exist in the fossil record prior to 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. This is fact! Did Allah just drop him on earth then so his fossils could turn up then?

Earth's crust cooled 4.5 billion years ago (fact), life appears 3.5 billion years ago as cyanobactria when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere (fact), life was simple 600 million years ago, only 4 animal groups called phyla existed (fact). 543 million years ago the appearance of the compound eye in the fossil record caused an explosion of evolution and new eye forms then allowed the 38 phyla we see today to evolve (fact).

Millions of scientific papers written by 100,000's of people prove all of this. You'll never see a paper supporting the Quran's science ideas in 'Nature', or 'Cell' or any other significant journal? Not in 1 million years. None of the Quran can be proven, its just a book! Yet a best selling one :)

Why do you all turn your back on millions and millions of pages of science evidence because of one book written by one person. I've got a good argument that religion makes you ignorant?  

Call it what you want, atoms formed animo acids, cells evolved, and simple animals turned into complex animals (Fact). Allah did none of this (your only proof is a book). What you all miss in science is that 'simple rules can make complex behaviour'. Evolution is both theory and fact, its finer points are still to be determined.

If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?   

Cyril,

That's kind playing with semantics.  Even with your translation, I could still see allegory for the Big Bang. 

The thing I've found reading scriptures from different religions is that they are written with imagery that would be comfortable for the people the revelation is being brought to. 

In the early 600s, an explosion would not be as easy for someone to envision than an unbinding or unstitching.  Like the stitching on your knapsack giving way.

I came in very late so my response will be brief.

The problem with answering these questions is that it consequentially involves the discussion of religion/science. One side believes that science should exist without the use of religious interpretation. The other side believes that science and religion goes hand in hand, but whatever you believe is what you believe. As for creation I for one believe that God created the universe however I cannot physically prove it, and to prove that if you were to ask me to physically prove how God created the universe I couldn't. Scientist that I know say that science is exclusive to God in the sense of physical study since scientific research involves empiricism.

But just because we cannot physically see God's involvement in the universe doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Aforetime we didn't know that oxygen and hydrogen were gases that were involved in the sustaining of Earth's life forms. We can now see them. So imagine being in the time before sciencentific advancement ask yourself the question: Would you believe me if I told you God gave you life and being would you believe me? Of course! with time our minds change and develope especially with new discoveries so don't allow your doubts to consume you just because you cannot physically see God's involvement. Can you prove that God mathematically doesn't exist?

fogtrik wrote: Tell me folks, Homo Sapiens do no exist in the fossil record prior to 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. This is fact! Did Allah just drop him on earth then so his fossils could turn up then? Earth's crust cooled 4.5 billion years ago (fact), life appears 3.5 billion years ago as cyanobactria when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere (fact), life was simple 600 million years ago, only 4 animal groups called phyla existed (fact). 543 million years ago the appearance of the compound eye in the fossil record caused an explosion of evolution and new eye forms then allowed the 38 phyla we see today to evolve (fact). Millions of scientific papers written by 100,000's of people prove all of this. You'll never see a paper supporting the Quran's science ideas in 'Nature', or 'Cell' or any other significant journal? Not in 1 million years. None of the Quran can be proven, its just a book! Yet a best selling one :)

Fogtrick, get you're sources strait- there are HUNDREDS of MUSLIM scientists out there that have contributed enormously to the field of science. their work is among those 100,000's of scientific articles you talk about.  look up muhammad, ahmed, Ismail, Ibrahim or other muslim names in the 'author' textbox in EbscoHost and you'll find hundreds of studies composed on various scientific topics.

Rule of thumb: Islam DOESN'T DEFY ALL SCIENCE NOR ALL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.  what you said about fossil records is learned by muslims and non muslims alike.  Muslims never debated against that. Christians manly do.  once someone says 'God doesn't exist' that's when we muslims put our foot down. GET THAT STRAIGHT. 

And the Quran never stopped at 'Allah created the man and animals you see existing tody and today only'.  that's phony.  The Quran commands for everyone to read and obtain vast knowledge because there are a lot of things we do not know and Allah knows all.

"Read: and your Lord is Most Generous, Who taught knowledge by the pen, taught man what he did not know."  96:3-5

you must overcome the commonly fed idea that to believe in science means you cannot simultaneously believe in theology.  That's what they teach in school- they teach that science is separated from belief in God.  THAT'S NOT TRUE according to Muslims.  God Created. That doesn't exclude creating nature and it's laws.

Many of today's discoveries were mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago. This 'book' that you are minisculizing it's value proves much of what you and I learned in science. I wouldn't minisculize if i were you.  if you had a clear concept of this book after reading it thorouly, you'll find it to be a treasure of information that you'll never find it's equivalent on the face of the earth- not in the gospel, tora or any other 'book of revelation'.

the mere evidence in the Quran of accurate hints on scientific knowledge of today's time is enough to surpass the accusation you put on it that it's 'merely a book'

if anything i'd be more considerate of these accurate sources given to you in previous posts and look into how the Quran is 180 degrees different than all other 'books of revelations' that you think are just books with no 'proof of their words'.

Cyril wrote: Amalhayati Your quote: "The heavens and earth were joined together (as one unit of creation) that we exploded into existence" Quran 21:30 The Quran actually says:  "Haven't those who do not believe seen that heavens and earth were sewn together then we tore them apart (or unstitched them)." The verbs "rataqa" and "fataqa" refer to stitching and unstitching. One can also translate as "heavens and earth were joined together then we separated them"

This is the verse that provides evidence of The Big Bang.  however it is translated, it's overall meaning is that everything was once one unit that Allah has 'clove assunder'.  that's another translation for 'fataqnahuma'

fogtrik wrote:   Hi folks, This is one of the threads to which I have enjoyed very much understanding other people's faith. I'm a true non-believer and I never went to church, my wife is the same way. I do however have two science degrees and a very good knowledge base across many fields of Physics, Biology, and Pure Maths, etc. Lately I'm interested in the role of mirotubules roll in consciousness and quantum events in biochemestry. Reading a wide variety of literature across many fields of science really opens your eyes to the interconnection of dynamic systems. I have some blurred faith in something science based, however I believe that Chaos Theory is more important in evolution that a creator. I hate the American movement of Intelligent Design, its really stupid to teach kids creation non-sense. I like the 'flying spegitti monster'. google it. I'm still picking at the Quran and will read more, the english translation is written very well, and it has some interesting things that can be interpreted about modern science. However I think the majority of these points has more to do with how interprute it, and its not proof that Muhammad actually talked to a god which might or might not exist? I will post some of these sections later. FAITH IN SCIENCE : I think all the black holes in our universe connect to one Singularity which will one day make another big bang beyond the event horizon (but we'll never know). I think that DNA uses its nucleotide hydro bonds to do quantum computation because chromation functions as a computer and that quantum events have shaped evolution from day one.

1) quantum computation has nothing to do with driving events. Quantum computation is an act where information is derived through the use of a "qunatum state", and then made useful through an algorithm. This would imply an intelligent designer.

2) a nucleotide cannot do "computation". If it drives computation, then there is an operator behind it to make the "observation" and interpret the information. It does not happen on its own.

3) Quantum events are not purely random.

fog wrote: Proteins like actin and tubulin also make basic computations, how else do spindles target and grab chromosome, and how does a single cell move with intent.

amazing. Since there are only two known algorithms that would work in a theoretical QC machine, I would say we have watsed our time and should have just checked with neo darwinists about it!

fog wrote:     I'm finding plenty of negative or violent things in the Quran, that Allah would have never said, for example, If there is a god, he would never want you to cut someone's hands off for trying to convert them to another religion (from the Quran, I posted this above).

The problem is that you have no idea what a Gd would say or do. In other words, what bases do you use to tell you what a gd should be like? Kind of like gd shopping? Is it possible that Gd would not agree with you? And should Gd neccesarily agree with you?

fog wrote: This to me is proof that the Quran was written by a mortal man who had some interesting ideas which were important in early civilisation at that time. Jesus never broke the laws of physics, he never turned water in to wine, and no one talked to god!

How do you know?

But that is not too far fetched from believing that life happened by accident?

fog wrote: Its really convenient that the creators of these religions existed when there was no reports who wrote down accurate events, no cameras, no film, etc. Otherwise religions like these would not exist. People are smarter this day in age, there's no longer a need for creation based faiths.

then you can discount all of history that was recorded before modern technology. You cannot say that something is wrong because it did not happen after technology provided other means of recording. Even if it did, you still would not believe. That is the real truth.

fog wrote: This forum is very good because for the most part we respect each others Opinions? Fogtrik

you bet!

fogtrik wrote:   Tell me folks, Homo Sapiens do no exist in the fossil record prior to 150,000 - 200,000 years ago. This is fact! Did Allah just drop him on earth then so his fossils could turn up then?

Strawman. The Quran does not make a claim as to what time period humans were created (as opposed to being dropped down). It simply tells us that Allah Created Man.

fog wrote: Earth's crust cooled 4.5 billion years ago (fact), life appears 3.5 billion years ago as cyanobactria when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere (fact), life was simple 600 million years ago, only 4 animal groups called phyla existed (fact). 543 million years ago the appearance of the compound eye in the fossil record caused an explosion of evolution and new eye forms then allowed the 38 phyla we see today to evolve (fact).

This does not reflect any mistake on part of the Quran.

Now, facts may suggest when an eye was discovered in the fossil record, but there is nothing in the fossil record to show the gradual mutations that suggest the eye cam into being by way of "natural selection", that mysterious force attributed by evolutionists for mechanisms and deatlis they are unable to prove otherwise.

fog wrote: Millions of scientific papers written by 100,000's of people prove all of this. You'll never see a paper supporting the Quran's science ideas in 'Nature', or 'Cell' or any other significant journal? Not in 1 million years. None of the Quran can be proven, its just a book! Yet a best selling one :)

Peer reviewed papers are about research. The Quran is not an observed phenomena that fits into any of the areas of science.

I am not sure abotu any further points you are making with this?

fog wrote: Why do you all turn your back on millions and millions of pages of science evidence because of one book written by one person. I've got a good argument that religion makes you ignorant?

Because the millions of pages do not prove the underlying belief that evolution theory is founded on. I have a good argument that evolution makes you weak minded, as it is a faith in faithlessness.

fog wrote:   Call it what you want, atoms formed animo acids, cells evolved, and simple animals turned into complex animals (Fact). Allah did none of this (your only proof is a book). What you all miss in science is that 'simple rules can make complex behaviour'. Evolution is both theory and fact, its finer points are still to be determined.

More preaching and assertions. I assert it is not a fact.

fog wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?

He was Created.

News recently:

Until about 500 million years ago, early animals had 13 such Hox genes. Then each gene split into four, making 52 genes.

Over the course of evolution, further mutations occurred, and some genes became redundant and disappeared, leading to today's tally in mammals of 39 Hox genes.

The Utah team looked at two of these genes; Hoxa1, which controls embryonic brain development, and Hoxb1, which plays a key role in the development of nerve cells that control facial expressions in animals.

Hybrid gene

The Utah pair combined critical sections of each gene, reconstructing a gene similar to its equivalent some 530 million years ago.

The hybrid gene is not completely identical to the ancient one, but the scientists say it performs essentially the same functions.

"What we have done is essentially go back in time to when Hox1 did what Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 do today," said Mario Capecchi, professor of human genetics at the University of Utah School of Medicine.

"It gives a real example of how evolution works because we can reverse it."

fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?

Aliens brought him

but then the argument is if God created all in the universe, then he also created the aliens

Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created.

But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.  

Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.

Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God.

Muhammed77, you wrote: 'Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God.' But what does this matter. For good research you just need the scientific method and good evidence which is based in the real world?

Plus....

You wrote: More preaching and assertions. I assert it is not a fact.

Andalus, Amino acids are found in meteoroids, and in space. They form spontaneously, however on earth all 20 animo acids making up life are of left hand symmetry. Its is also a fact that, 'simple rules can make complex behaviour'. Organisms find simple patterns that work, then natural selection promotes this process.

On mollusc shells one can find famous patterns. Some of them show a great resemblance to patterns in one-dimensional systems. Other mollusc patterns look like Sierpinsky triangles or exhibit very irregular patterns. It has been shown that those patterns can be well described by reaction�diffusion systems. However, such a description neglects the discrete character of the cell system at the growth front of the mollusc shell. It is true that mullusc patterns look identical to some cellular automata patterns, this idea hints at how some genes may interact.

http://www.alesdar.org/oldSite/IS/chap3-5.html - http://www.alesdar.org/oldSite/IS/chap3-5.html

You wrote:

1) quantum computation has nothing to do with driving events. Quantum computation is an act where information is derived through the use of a "qunatum state", and then made useful through an algorithm. This would imply an intelligent designer.

(QUANTUM EVENTS HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH LIFE AND EVOLUTION).

2) a nucleotide cannot do "computation". If it drives computation, then there is an operator behind it to make the "observation" and interpret the information. It does not happen on its own.

(IT IS VERY MUCH SUSPECTED THAT DNA AS A WHOLE MIGHT MAKE COMPUTATIONS, COMPUTATIONS OCCUR IN MANY OTHER PROTEINS WITHING A CELL, WHY NOT DNA.) The computation capacity of DNA might relate to chromosome territory conservation.

3) Quantum events are not purely random.

(EXPLAIN?)

The stuff on microtubules and protein computation is not my faith, it is currently a focus of research. I�ve taken the time to explain both to biology.

***

Microtubules are hollow tubes, around 25nm in diameter, which help form the http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cytoskeleton/page1.html - cytoskeleton . Microtubules (MY) are a polymer of proteins called tubulin. There are two dimmers which differ in shape slightly by one electron. The alpha dimmer can switch to a beta form by the jump of an electron. They are connected head to tail to form assemble side by side, and roll into a cylinder of 13 layers.

Adaptive behaviors (cells moving, sperm tails flicking, spindles tracking chromosomes, etc) and dynamic activities within living cells are organized by the cytoskeleton. The cytoskeleton is an intracellular networks of interconnected microtubules that include the tubulin ones above, but also actin, intermediate filaments, microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) and other protein structures.

Cooperative interactions among cytoskeletal protein subunit conformational states have been used to model signal transmission and information processing. Basically wave shapes based on alph and beta orientations can propagate along the microtubule. Some scientists suspect  molecular computing takes place in the parallel networks of individual MTs interconnected by MAPs. Conformational signals propagate on MTs as in data buses and in the model MAPs are considered as logic operators.

Three logic protein- MT arrangement have been defined as ('NOT-MAP,  'AND-MAP', 'XOR-MAP') and used to demonstrate addition, subtraction and other arithmetic operations. Computers use the same type logic code. This suggests that MT-MAP networks can perform computation in living cells.

How else does a single cell like a Paramesium track prey and avoid predators, sure a spermatozoid gets chemical messages but then need an algorithm to process this information, this occurs in the MT�s of its tail. Its protein computation.

In DNA electrons can tunnel up to 20 base pairs along the molecule. Chromosome condense to almost identical structures (Chromosome Territories) across 9 different primate species. It is no surprise that the nuclear membrane also has a fibrous protein called Lamin which is capable of  dimmer shifts. Proteins bind the chromatin to the nuclear membrane. It might be the computational ability of the nuclear membrane which uses the hydrogen bonds of DNA for quantum computation? Protein networks also store information; this is how immune cells remember pathogens. The cell is basically a computer and life is machinery driven by proteins networks.   

The brain�s neurons are also full of microtubules. Microtubules are very important to brain function. For example some aesthetic drugs induce unconsciousness by stopping the MAP from binding to the MT�s. It has long been suspected that quantum events in MT�s may relate to consciousness?

Protein computation and quantum events shine new light on evolution. You should read more biology, there�s a lot of beauty in it, and not because someone created it. It is true that some there is a tendency for order and fractal symmetry to emerge within complex systems.

The critical step in the evolutionary process  and the biggest problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved but one day science will explain it.

Evolving complexity shows that randomness means not mean disorder, but instead  order can emerge. It arises not from many random events of natural selection but from the "playing out" of chaotic systems which are best described mathematically. When we properly understand the complex interplay of chaos at all level (genes, proteins, enzymes, species and whole ecosystems) then we will understand Life.

If you guys knew more science, you�d understand there is no need for a creator?

PEace.

Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.   Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God.

so! and what's your point? and what has it got to do with my point above ?

are we suppose to give up on science because some scientists are atheist??

by the way there are many scientists WHO DO believe in God, and for some of them it strengthens their belief in God.  

fogtrik wrote: If you guys knew more science, you�d understand there is no need for a creator? PEace.

Or perhaps one

I believe there is a consenus from many scientists that perhaps there is one since so many things are so complex and unexplained, yes we don't know all yet and with advances and time things maybe explained  (or maybe not)

fogtrik wrote: Muhammed77, you wrote: 'Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God.' But what does this matter. For good research you just need the scientific method and good evidence which is based in the real world?

Is that all you need?

You also need an attitude, an unbiased attitude.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.   Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God. so! and what's your point? and what has it got to do with my point above ? are we suppose to give up on science because some scientists are atheist?? by the way there are many scientists WHO DO believe in God, and for some of them it strengthens their belief in God.

But those scientists who believe in God do not make their own fake theories.

Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.   Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God. so! and what's your point? and what has it got to do with my point above ? are we suppose to give up on science because some scientists are atheist?? by the way there are many scientists WHO DO believe in God, and for some of them it strengthens their belief in God.   But those scientists who believe in God do not make their own fake theories.

are you saying that those who believe in God put up all true possiblities while the atheist make up theirs?

If anyone puts up a fake theory it is going to be revealed by others, so I don't know why they would do that especially if they are TRUE scientists be it atheists or believers.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.   Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God. so! and what's your point? and what has it got to do with my point above ? are we suppose to give up on science because some scientists are atheist?? by the way there are many scientists WHO DO believe in God, and for some of them it strengthens their belief in God.   But those scientists who believe in God do not make their own fake theories. are you saying that those who believe in God put up all true possiblities while the atheist make up theirs? If anyone puts up a fake theory it is going to be revealed by others, so I don't know why they would do that especially if they are TRUE scientists be it atheists or believers.

Atheist's theory can NEVER be true. A scientist who believes in God, his theory MAY BE true.

I do not believe in any of them and it is not to be believed.

Masha'Allah I believe in what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an because it is THE TRUTH !

Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.

This is incoorect as it is based upon their definition of what is supposed to be allowed and what is not. IN other words, in the past, the idea of a Creator when looking at nature was not an oddity until now. This is yet another trick by these guys.

There is no solid evidence that shows man evolved. These people have taken observations, and then superimposed their idea of reality onto it. Their theory requires you to also assume their metaphysical assumptions.    

My saying tha ma was Created by Gd is as valid as anyone saying that we came from an animal by way of evolution. One must assume this tenent of faith to actually believe their views of the evidence.

Muhammad77 wrote: Atheist's theory can NEVER be true.

Why? because he/she doesn't believe in God? That is nonsense.

A scientist who believes in God, his theory MAY BE true.

While I say you have to be right with the above statement, and while no theory is fact.........

why is it different for atheists?

A theory is a theory it is not fact nor true and theories change when something new and advancement in the field comes along (this is why Darwin's theory on evolution is not perfect), be it coming from believers of God or atheists.

I do not believe in any of them and it is not to be believed. Masha'Allah I believe in what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an because it is THE TRUTH !

you can believe what you want to believe

Andalus wrote: Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.   This is incoorect as it is based upon their definition of what is supposed to be allowed and what is not. IN other words, in the past, the idea of a Creator when looking at nature was not an oddity until now. This is yet another trick by these guys. There is no solid evidence that shows man evolved. These people have taken observations, and then superimposed their idea of reality onto it. Their theory requires you to also assume their metaphysical assumptions.     My saying tha ma was Created by Gd is as valid as anyone saying that we came from an animal by way of evolution. One must assume this tenent of faith to actually believe their views of the evidence.

guess the points possibly right.

There is no solid evidence that shows man evolved. These people have taken observations, and then superimposed their idea of reality onto it. Their theory requires you to also assume their metaphysical assumptions.    

while that may true, the first sentence having no evidence, all i have to say is - Yet

I think the mistake people make (not talking about you but in general) is thinking that we should have all the evidence now. Just because there is no (solid) evidence of something "now" does not mean that there won't be in the future. But I guess you know that already

There is plenty of evidence that man evolved, you just can't understand and accept it?

The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna between 200,000 and 250,000 years ago, descending from Homo erectus, and colonized Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years ago, and finally colonized the Americas by 10,000 years ago.[17] They displaced Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis and other species descended from Homo erectus (which had colonized Eurasia as early as 2 million years ago) through more successful reproduction and competition for resources.

Anadalus,

What would you consider hard evidence?

There are thousands of fossils of Homo Erectus, Homo Neaderthalis, Homo Habilis, Austrolipithicus Africanis....each sharing very close ties with each other and yet each one closer and closer to the way we are? 

There is even a fossile of a possible Hybrid child showing both characteristics of Neaderthal and Homo Sapien traits.  Considering that these two groups lived on earth at the same time, that is a distinct possibility.

What says God didn't create us in a slow process?  By basic biology the pure Creationist view does not account for the biological diversity in Humans.  Adam and Eve (Hawa) spawned  us all????  Then why do I have medium skin, Brother Israfil has dark skin and Sister Herjihad have very pale skin???

Why do the Asians have almond eyes and Africans have tight curly hair?

The basic genetic rules are that we have 23 pairs of genes.  23 from Mom, 23 from Dad.  If we all come from Adam and Eve then the diversity in these 23 pairs would not account for the diversity in humans.

I'm just trying to get a view on what you call hard evidence. 

And before Muhammed77 continues about atheist scientists, the basics of genetics and such started with George Mendel, a Monk and man of God. 

A man's religion has no bearing on his intelligence and scientific integrity.  Eistein was Jewish. 

We all know about Genesis and the story there of Creation.  But I've always wondered about something.  That is one story.  Isn't it possible that God also created other human beings during a different timeframe?  He never mentioned that Adam and Eve were the ONLY people He created.  In fact, I've thought a lot about the words of Jesus when he said in John 10:15-16, The Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also,and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

I have felt many times that Jesus is referring to persons who were created long before Adam and Eve, and had died before their creation in the Garden of Eden.  There is nothing which contradicts the creation of other human beings.  Also, with the calendars all being different or based on a variety of events, who knows how long ago Adam and Eve were created?

Just some of my rambling thoughts.

Patty,

That is exactly my point.  Cain went to the land of Nod.  Well, where was that?  Who lived there?  Where did they come from?

Angela wrote: There is even a fossile of a possible Hybrid child showing both characteristics of Neaderthal and Homo Sapien traits.  Considering that these two groups lived on earth at the same time, that is a distinct possibility.

Yes, I watched an documentary once that had this in.

The data from the Human Genome Project and other genomic research provides strong evidence of human's  relationship to other life. Our DNA is 98% the same as that of a chimpanzee. As noted in an answer to an earlier question, "ancestor genes" of a large number of disease-causing genes in humans are found in the fruit fly.  Genes found in laboratory mice are found in humans. The evidence of the unity of life continues to increase and humans are within that unified realm

Well yes we do sare some similiariies and differences. All life is life.  Whereas there is more understanding of the variety of life on this planet. Nothing about these theories disproves that there is a "creator."  In fact its complexities and details are amazing. Stunning really.

Right Hayfa.

What I'm trying to say is the idea that life developed the way it did does not mean that there was not a creative, guiding, all knowing force behind each mutation, adaptation and evolutionary leap.

Athiests have it all wrong when they think that just because there is evolving species that this discounts an omnipotent being such as God.  Religionists have it all wrong when they think there is no evidence to support an everchanging and growing world.

I'm going to post some excerpts from Moses Chapter 1 in the Pearl of Great Price.

Moses 1:1-5 wrote:   1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,   2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.   3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?   4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.   5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

Moses 1:27-39 wrote: 27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.   28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.   29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.   30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?   31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.   32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.   33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.   34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.   35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.   36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.   37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.   38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.   39 For behold, this is my work and my glory�to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Atheist's theory can NEVER be true. Why? because he/she doesn't believe in God? That is nonsense.

For me, this is non-sense that an atheist can be true.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: A scientist who believes in God, his theory MAY BE true. While I say you have to be right with the above statement, and while no theory is fact......... why is it different for atheists? A theory is a theory it is not fact nor true and theories change when something new and advancement in the field comes along (this is why Darwin's theory on evolution is not perfect), be it coming from believers of God or atheists.

When you know so much about theories, that they made by man and are bound to change, then why do you follow these theories? You should ignore them because they are man-made.

Angel wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: I do not believe in any of them and it is not to be believed. Masha'Allah I believe in what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an because it is THE TRUTH ! you can believe what you want to believe

I do not believe in man-made articles.

I believe in the Holy Qur'an as it is NOT man made, but it is THE TRUE WORD OF ALLAH revealed to the final messenger Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ! 

Angela wrote: Patty, That is exactly my point.  Cain went to the land of Nod.  Well, where was that?  Who lived there?  Where did they come from?

Nod was a land to the east of Eden.  Cain went there after he murdered his brother, Abel, and "knew his wife and had a son, which they named Enoch.  He named the city Enoch after his own son.  It was the first known city mentioned in the Bible.  This is in Genesis 4:16-17.

God's Peace.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

But, cities are only built if there are people to live in them.  One family does not a city make.

Greetings.

First I would like to make a brief point, based upon an observation. Your missionary methodologies are identical to that of a Christian fundementalist. I do not say this as an insuilt, but only to bring home a point.

You first assert observations and statements from your holy scripture, peered review journals, or info from them.

You then assert that they prove your conclusion.

But you never actually demonstrate this.

You simply assert and regurgitate material, but you do not show how it proves your belief.

fogtrik wrote: News recently: Until about 500 million years ago, early animals had 13 such Hox genes. Then each gene split into four, making 52 genes. Over the course of evolution, further mutations occurred, and some genes became redundant and disappeared, leading to today's tally in mammals of 39 Hox genes. The Utah team looked at two of these genes; Hoxa1, which controls embryonic brain development, and Hoxb1, which plays a key role in the development of nerve cells that control facial expressions in animals. Hybrid gene The Utah pair combined critical sections of each gene, reconstructing a gene similar to its equivalent some 530 million years ago. The hybrid gene is not completely identical to the ancient one, but the scientists say it performs essentially the same functions. "What we have done is essentially go back in time to when Hox1 did what Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 do today," said Mario Capecchi, professor of human genetics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. "It gives a real example of how evolution works because we can reverse it."

Interesting piece. Lets examine the chicanery of evolutionists.

The piece states, "The hybrid gene is not completely identical to the ancient one, but the scientists say it performs essentially the same functions.".  

That alone speaks volumes. This shows how desperate evolutionists are to proving their faith. When they use "not completely identical" and ignore the differences, and when the result is not when they actually want, and when "not completely identical" is "good enough", then you know their faith is on feet of clay. 

Keep in mind, that my mother's sister is my aunt. Her ovaries are an analogue to testicles of a male. They serve similar functions.

Therefore, my aunt is essentially my uncle.

Take care!

Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: Angel wrote: Andalus wrote: fogtrik wrote: If man never got here by common desendants, then tell me how he did?    He was Created. But the argument is that religion, is on the side that human beings were created as we are today but in science/evolution there is indiction that we evolved & adapted to our evironment.   This is incoorect as it is based upon their definition of what is supposed to be allowed and what is not. IN other words, in the past, the idea of a Creator when looking at nature was not an oddity until now. This is yet another trick by these guys. There is no solid evidence that shows man evolved. These people have taken observations, and then superimposed their idea of reality onto it. Their theory requires you to also assume their metaphysical assumptions.     My saying tha ma was Created by Gd is as valid as anyone saying that we came from an animal by way of evolution. One must assume this tenent of faith to actually believe their views of the evidence. guess the points possibly right. There is no solid evidence that shows man evolved. These people have taken observations, and then superimposed their idea of reality onto it. Their theory requires you to also assume their metaphysical assumptions.     while that may true, the first sentence having no evidence, all i have to say is - Yet

Well, you have more of an optimistic outlook than I.

They have not been able to prove the fundemental mechanics of their theory, nor have they been able to show in the fossil record the actual events. They assert it, and then insult you and plead that you just do not understand, but they simply cannot show it.

angela wrote: I think the mistake people make (not talking about you but in general) is thinking that we should have all the evidence now. Just because there is no (solid) evidence of something "now" does not mean that there won't be in the future. But I guess you know that already

Well, I can ssay the same about Gd, and that just because I cannot prove Gd now, does not mean you will no see for yourself in the future (judgement day).

Take care!

Muhammad77 wrote: Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God. But those scientists who believe in God do not make their own fake theories. Atheist's theory can NEVER be true. A scientist who believes in God, his theory MAY BE true. I do not believe in any of them and it is not to be believed. Masha'Allah I believe in what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an because it is THE TRUTH !

muhammad, dude, bro, calm down.  what the heck are you spreading that you have no clear understanding over? Have you EVER taken science classes and written and reviewed scientific articles?  If you haven't i suppose you take your seat and don't get out-a-line! 

Brother, it is in scientific articles (that you'll find various theories) where sceintists cunduct studies on finding cures for the most darkest deseases around the world. THE PROTOCOL FOR CUNDUCTING EXPERIMENTS IS INNITALLY TO HYPOTHISIZE OR THEORISE that something might happen if 'such and such occur'.  then the experiments are made to either justify or refute the scientist's hypothesis. 

 MOST SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS ARE DONE ON A PURELY NATURAL/MEDICINAL BASIS THAT DEAL WITH FINDING CURES FOR DISEASE OR RESEARCHING THE GROWTH OF A PLANT/ANIMAL/INSECT OR FINDING ALTERNATIVES TO TREAT AILMENTS.  muslim doctors, scientists, and researchers read and use these articles as credible resources for the benefit of their duities as doctor, teacher, etc.

I think what you have in mind about 'theories' are from the OTHER experiments out there that we muslims needn't bother with: the ones that MAKE ANTI THEIST ACCUSATIONS/DECLARATIONS

THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WE MUSLIMS LOOK PAST OR IGNOR IN TERMS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

BROTHER- IT'S STUPID TO GENERALIZE THAT ATHIESTS MAKE FALSE THEORIES.

athiests just don't believe in god. so what?  unless the athiest is cunducting an experiment to make a theory that God doesn't exist, that's when you could mention it's fake.

other than that you wouldn't know if he could be comming up with the most important theory that might find a cure for AIDS.   we wouldn't say that his theory is false then because he's athiest would we?   that has nothing to do with his theory in finding a cure for the disease.

so don't make general statements- especially when not all theories deal with the existance of the Divine.

Wassalamu Alaikum,

Good Evening, Andalus,

You posted the following:

"Greetings.

First I would like to make a brief point, based upon an observation. Your missionary methodologies are identical to that of a Christian fundementalist. I do not say this as an insuilt, but only to bring home a point.

You first assert observations and statements from your holy scripture, peered review journals, or info from them.

You then assert that they prove your conclusion.

But you never actually demonstrate this.

You simply assert and regurgitate material, but you do not show how it proves your belief."

I'm afraid you misunderstand me.  That's a fairly easy thing to do, as I don't always explain my thoughts as precisely as I should.  That being said, my ideas of the "possibility" of other humans being created before Adam and Eve, or in other locations than they, i.e., the Garden of Eden, is pure speculation.  It is just something I wonder about from time to time.  So please understand that I am not trying to prove this idea....take it for what it is, only an idea or a possibility.  Of course I have no proof this took place.  Apparently my comments were understood by you that I am certain this creation of humans in various other locations and at many different times throughout the history of the universe is absolute.  It is not.  This is only an idea which I "toy" with from time to time. 

I am certainly not intelligent or eloquent enough of a linguist to be anything of a "missionary".  And I don't expect anyone to join up with my chosen religion.  I'm just rambling here about some "possibilities". Nothing more, nothing less.  I hope you understand more now where I'm coming from.

Peace to you.

Hi Patty.

My reply was not to you. It was to fogtrik.

Take care!

Patty wrote: Good Evening, Andalus, You posted the following: "Greetings. First I would like to make a brief point, based upon an observation. Your missionary methodologies are identical to that of a Christian fundementalist. I do not say this as an insuilt, but only to bring home a point. You first assert observations and statements from your holy scripture, peered review journals, or info from them. You then assert that they prove your conclusion. But you never actually demonstrate this. You simply assert and regurgitate material, but you do not show how it proves your belief." I'm afraid you misunderstand me.  That's a fairly easy thing to do, as I don't always explain my thoughts as precisely as I should.  That being said, my ideas of the "possibility" of other humans being created before Adam and Eve, or in other locations than they, i.e., the Garden of Eden, is pure speculation.  It is just something I wonder about from time to time.  So please understand that I am not trying to prove this idea....take it for what it is, only an idea or a possibility.  Of course I have no proof this took place.  Apparently my comments were understood by you that I am certain this creation of humans in various other locations and at many different times throughout the history of the universe is absolute.  It is not.  This is only an idea which I "toy" with from time to time.  I am certainly not intelligent or eloquent enough of a linguist to be anything of a "missionary".  And I don't expect anyone to join up with my chosen religion.  I'm just rambling here about some "possibilities". Nothing more, nothing less.  I hope you understand more now where I'm coming from. Peace to you.

Andalus wrote: Hi Patty. My reply was not to you. It was to fogtrik. Take care! Patty wrote: Good Evening, Andalus, You posted the following: "Greetings. First I would like to make a brief point, based upon an observation. Your missionary methodologies are identical to that of a Christian fundementalist. I do not say this as an insuilt, but only to bring home a point. You first assert observations and statements from your holy scripture, peered review journals, or info from them. You then assert that they prove your conclusion. But you never actually demonstrate this. You simply assert and regurgitate material, but you do not show how it proves your belief." I'm afraid you misunderstand me.  That's a fairly easy thing to do, as I don't always explain my thoughts as precisely as I should.  That being said, my ideas of the "possibility" of other humans being created before Adam and Eve, or in other locations than they, i.e., the Garden of Eden, is pure speculation.  It is just something I wonder about from time to time.  So please understand that I am not trying to prove this idea....take it for what it is, only an idea or a possibility.  Of course I have no proof this took place.  Apparently my comments were understood by you that I am certain this creation of humans in various other locations and at many different times throughout the history of the universe is absolute.  It is not.  This is only an idea which I "toy" with from time to time.  I am certainly not intelligent or eloquent enough of a linguist to be anything of a "missionary".  And I don't expect anyone to join up with my chosen religion.  I'm just rambling here about some "possibilities". Nothing more, nothing less.  I hope you understand more now where I'm coming from. Peace to you.

Hummm, well now you have confirmed my belief that I am truly the village idiot! lol...

fogtrik wrote:   There is plenty of evidence that man evolved, you just can't understand and accept it?

Interesting. You are sounding more and more like a Christian evangelical! There is plenty of evidence that Jesus is your savior and that he fulfilled prophecies and that Jesus can be Gd and man and still be one but you cannot understand and accep it?

You are simply asserting your belief as fact. An assertion does not tell us anything important, only what you believe.

fog wrote: The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna between 200,000 and 250,000 years ago, descending from Homo erectus, and colonized Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 years ago, and finally colonized the Americas by 10,000 years ago.[17] They displaced Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis and other species descended from Homo erectus (which had colonized Eurasia as early as 2 million years ago) through more successful reproduction and competition for resources.

And how does this prove what you believe?

My response is simply: So what?

fog wrote: new DNA evidence suggests that (perhaps) Neanderthal Man died out and that Modern Man evolved from another branch of Early Man.

 

suggestions and persuation is not fact.

It is far from fact.

 

fog wrote: The data from the Human Genome Project and other genomic research provides strong evidence of human's  relationship to other life. Our DNA is 98% the same as that of a chimpanzee.

 

actually, the figure is 95%, and the onyl thing the test showed was how man bonds, or pair bonding would take place between chimps and humans when their DNA was mixed together. That 95% of the molecules found some place to crate a base pair does not tell us how close we are to chimps. Since the biological mechanisms that stem from the DNA base pairs become exceedingly complicated, what should be ficused on are the dissimilarites. You are suggesting that Milton and Shakespear share a great deal of similar vocabulary and phrases, therefore they are related. The rub is this: It is not a big deal, or major suprise that the two have works have vocabulary and phrases that may be similar, because the real differecne is in the way the words were used and how they made their points. It is the way language works at this level that seperates them, and no amount of pointing our similar vocabulary or short phrases makes them alike. The same works with the DNA human chimp comparison. So th real quesiton is? So what does the comparison mean and how does it make them similar?  

 

fog wrote: As noted in an answer to an earlier question, "ancestor genes" of a large number of disease-causing genes in humans are found in the fruit fly.  Genes found in laboratory mice are found in humans. The evidence of the unity of life continues to increase and humans are within that unified realm

 

:lol: So because cells are similar, this proves that life evoloved from one common ancestor? That is a HUGE leap to a conclusion. Stretching the evidence just a wee bit ay?

 

fog wrote: One line of evidence that suggests all life shares a common ancestor is DNA sequencing and common proteins. I am searching for a list of genes/proteins that humans share with other life forms. Where should I look? I've already searched the Net with little luck. (sjmyers, Anderson, Indiana)

The ability for human DNA molecules to form base paris with DNA molecules of another species does not present the entire picture, and is, on the surface, deceptive. According to nature magazine, "DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22," Nature 429 (27 May 2004), there were 69,000 places where sequences of chimps and humans were unable to line up due to the absolutel fact that the corresponding place was missing in one species or the other. This alone is remarkable and places light on the decpetive sophistry of those who say, "chimps and humans share 98% or 95% DNA similarities, when the fact is, this does not say anything until you tak into account the proccesses at the molecular level and how great mistakes diverge the further down the liene you get from the basic mechanics. IN other words, it only takes a very small mistake to produce HUGE catasrophic results that will place the species out of normal paramteres.

fog wrote: A. The March 23, 2000, issue of Science featured the genomic research regarding the D. melanogaster (fruitfly). Among the findings related to this question follows in outline form: Identified 289 genes that are mutated, altered, amplified or deleted in a diverse set of human diseases and searched for similar genes in D. melanogaster, C. elegans, and S. cerevisiae. 177 (61%) appear to have a homolog in Drosophila. Many of the genes that were missing reflect clear differences in the physiology of the organisms. Mutated hemoglobins present in human not present in the fly. Most human neurological disease genes surveyed were also found in C. elegans and some in the yeast. Robin, G., et.al., (2000). Comparative genomics of the Eukaryotes. Science 287(5461) 2204-2215. 3/23/00

The question now is: So what and how does this prove your belief?

fog wrote: Information regarding this question is also in the literature regarding the Human Genome Project. Follows are some notes from a presentation of F. Collins: More than 20 human genes are the result of horizontal transfer from bacteria. There are no homologs for these genes in the roundworms, fruit fly, etc. They have breached the boundaries somehow. Collins, F. National Center for Human Genome Research & National Institutes of Health. Consequences of the Human Genome Project for Medicine & Society. AAAS 2001 Annual Meeting. 2/17/2001, 2/17/01. Information regarding this question is also in the literature regarding the Human Genome Project. Follows are some notes from a presentation of F. Collins: More than 20 human genes are the result of horizontal transfer from bacteria. There are no homologs for these genes in the roundworms, fruit fly, etc. They have breached the boundaries somehow. Collins, F. National Center for Human Genome Research & National Institutes of Health. Consequences of the Human Genome Project for Medicine & Society. AAAS 2001 Annual Meeting. 2/17/2001, 2/17/01. Nuclear copies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have contaminated PCR-based mitochondrial studies of over 64 different animal species. Since the last review of these nuclear mitochondrial pseudogenes (Numts) in animals, Numts have been found in 53 of the species studied. The recent evidence suggests that Numts are not equally abundant in all species, for example they are more common in plants than in animals, and also more numerous in humans than in Drosophila. Methods for avoiding Numts have now been tested, and several recent studies demonstrate the potential utility of Numt DNA sequences in evolutionary studies. As relics of ancient mtDNA, these pseudogenes can be used to infer ancestral states or root mitochondrial phylogenies. Where they are numerous and selectively unconstrained, Numts are ideal for the study of spontaneous mutation in nuclear genomes.

Your copying and pasting is getting boring. What does this prove? Please deomstrate. I do not accept your "assumptions" as part of my belief system, so please divulge the details as to what this proves and why.

 

fog wrote: The largest family of gene is for the protein receptor in the cell membranes of the olfactory nerve. There are 1000 of them. We have 500 of these active, but have 300 pseudogenes that mice share. Obviously sense of smell is not as important for primates as it is for mice. These genes have become dormant and corrupted and not coded for anymore. �Discussion over evolution and Intelligent Design really has centered on whether pseudogenes, sometimes called �junk DNA,� have a function or not. The suggestion is that an Intelligent Designer would not make junk DNA, so if a pseudogene does have a function, this is claimed to support the idea of an Intelligent Designer,� Dr. Nicholls said.

 

Conjecture as to what Gd would or would not put into DNA.

No one has any definitive proof one way or the other as to its possible roles, roles, or not.

 

 

fog wrote:     �But there is no evidence that any of the 20,000 pseudogenes are functional. Our research proves this Makorin pseudogene does not have a function. It has continued to mutate over its short life of a few million years, a fact that supports evolution, and eventually will be discarded from the mouse genome.�

I love evolutionists! He states that there is no evidence that suggests pseudgenes are functional, therefore evolution is true

(there is no Gd, life started by accident, and somehow something formed a cell, and it became every speicies on the planet.

Talk abotu stretching the evidence to fit the conclusion! It is all faith based.

-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

If it makes you happy to know, I have my share of village idiotism in me. Maybe I will have enough to start my own village!

take care!

Patty wrote: Andalus wrote: Hi Patty. My reply was not to you. It was to fogtrik. Take care! Patty wrote: Good Evening, Andalus, You posted the following: "Greetings. First I would like to make a brief point, based upon an observation. Your missionary methodologies are identical to that of a Christian fundementalist. I do not say this as an insuilt, but only to bring home a point. You first assert observations and statements from your holy scripture, peered review journals, or info from them. You then assert that they prove your conclusion. But you never actually demonstrate this. You simply assert and regurgitate material, but you do not show how it proves your belief." I'm afraid you misunderstand me.  That's a fairly easy thing to do, as I don't always explain my thoughts as precisely as I should.  That being said, my ideas of the "possibility" of other humans being created before Adam and Eve, or in other locations than they, i.e., the Garden of Eden, is pure speculation.  It is just something I wonder about from time to time.  So please understand that I am not trying to prove this idea....take it for what it is, only an idea or a possibility.  Of course I have no proof this took place.  Apparently my comments were understood by you that I am certain this creation of humans in various other locations and at many different times throughout the history of the universe is absolute.  It is not.  This is only an idea which I "toy" with from time to time.  I am certainly not intelligent or eloquent enough of a linguist to be anything of a "missionary".  And I don't expect anyone to join up with my chosen religion.  I'm just rambling here about some "possibilities". Nothing more, nothing less.  I hope you understand more now where I'm coming from. Peace to you.   Hummm, well now you have confirmed my belief that I am truly the village idiot! lol...

amalhayati2 wrote: Muhammad77 wrote: Most of the scientists are atheists who DO NOT believe in God. But those scientists who believe in God do not make their own fake theories. Atheist's theory can NEVER be true. A scientist who believes in God, his theory MAY BE true. I do not believe in any of them and it is not to be believed. Masha'Allah I believe in what Allah has revealed in the Qur'an because it is THE TRUTH !   muhammad, dude, bro, calm down.  what the heck are you spreading that you have no clear understanding over? Have you EVER taken science classes and written and reviewed scientific articles?  If you haven't i suppose you take your seat and don't get out-a-line!  Brother, it is in scientific articles (that you'll find various theories) where sceintists cunduct studies on finding cures for the most darkest deseases around the world. THE PROTOCOL FOR CUNDUCTING EXPERIMENTS IS INNITALLY TO HYPOTHISIZE OR THEORISE that something might happen if 'such and such occur'.  then the experiments are made to either justify or refute the scientist's hypothesis.   MOST SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS ARE DONE ON A PURELY NATURAL/MEDICINAL BASIS THAT DEAL WITH FINDING CURES FOR DISEASE OR RESEARCHING THE GROWTH OF A PLANT/ANIMAL/INSECT OR FINDING ALTERNATIVES TO TREAT AILMENTS.  muslim doctors, scientists, and researchers read and use these articles as credible resources for the benefit of their duities as doctor, teacher, etc. I think what you have in mind about 'theories' are from the OTHER experiments out there that we muslims needn't bother with: the ones that MAKE ANTI THEIST ACCUSATIONS/DECLARATIONS THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WE MUSLIMS LOOK PAST OR IGNOR IN TERMS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.   BROTHER- IT'S STUPID TO GENERALIZE THAT ATHIESTS MAKE FALSE THEORIES. athiests just don't believe in god. so what?  unless the athiest is cunducting an experiment to make a theory that God doesn't exist, that's when you could mention it's fake. other than that you wouldn't know if he could be comming up with the most important theory that might find a cure for AIDS.   we wouldn't say that his theory is false then because he's athiest would we?   that has nothing to do with his theory in finding a cure for the disease. so don't make general statements- especially when not all theories deal with the existance of the Divine. Wassalamu Alaikum,

I was talking about the theories which deal with the existense of The Divine, that is, about the creation of universe. The rest all, I don't care what the scientists do and what they don't. But when it comes to the matter of creation of universe and about the Divine Being, I completely ignore science as they are man made theories and those theories are bound to change. Instead, as a Muslim, I believe in what Allah has revealed in The Holy Qur'an as it is NOT man made but it is THE TRUE WORD OF ALLAH revealed to the final messenger Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam !

[

Muhammad77 wrote: I was talking about the theories which deal with the existense of The Divine, that is, about the creation of universe. The rest all, I don't care what the scientists do and what they don't. But when it comes to the matter of creation of universe and about the Divine Being, I completely ignore science as they are man made theories and those theories are bound to change. Instead, as a Muslim, I believe in what Allah has revealed in The Holy Qur'an as it is NOT man made but it is THE TRUE WORD OF ALLAH revealed to the final messenger Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam !

well, thank you for clerifying. I think you should also clerify that to Angel so she doesn't assume it to be a general idea that Muslims dismiss all theories done by 'athiests'.

Brother, the wording of your arguments consern me a bit.  for instance, when you juxtapose 'believing in Allah and His Messenger' while 'not believing in what is man made' is not quite fathomable.  that is also a general term you used: 'man made' 

the most important duity for a muslim is to understand and follow Allah and His messenger, ofcourse. you say that quite well and powerfully.  remember though- Allah has commanded us to 'Read!' to gain knowledge 'of that which we knew not'.  you're next argument about 'not believing in what's man-made' kinda contradicts what Allah commanded us to do.  (we are man and we live among man so everything around us is essentially man-made.  Allah wouldn't send down a verse to mean read and learn about something superficial or unhuman would He?)

Brother muhammad, the foundation of Medicine and medicinal instruments were 'man made'. (made innitially by muslims by the way ;) yet these basic tools and methods used thousands of years ago taught doctors today how to save lives and extend the human life span to many years longer than what it was just a couple hundred years ago. 

I'm sure you know it was Al Jabr, the muslim scholar who produced Algebra that everyone learns in high school. 

 Allah created for us brains to use and improvise with.  We invent and we create.  transportation is man-made.  Ideas are man-made.  many are good and many are evil.  but it's all human intelect. One of the greatest blessings Allah has bestowed upon human kind.  the capacity to think, reason, create, distroy.

so to say not to believe in anything or any word 'man-made' is a bit impossible. 

 I dont' think you meant it that way nor want to imply that about your muslim bretheren (and sisteren ;) because actually it was our muslim ancestors that were the catalysts to the burst of vast knowledge in today's world.

I suggest discribing a little more specifically what we (muslims)  don't follow then readers will not get too bewildered by your accusations and you will 'score some points' (as superme calls it.  :)

honestly, if one reads your post i'm afraid they can immediatly assume a wrong idea about all muslims.   That's the scary part. 

Cyril wrote: Amalhayati Your quote:---"This is the verse that provides evidence of The Big Bang.  However it is translated, it's overall meaning is that everything was once one unit that Allah has 'clove asunder'.  that's another translation for 'fataqnahuma'"--- I agree with you if you say that "everything" was once one unit that eventually Allah "clove asunder". That could be a definition of the Big Bang. May I remind you that it is Allah himself who has written that verse. He did not write "everything" but "heavens and earth". That is scientifically incorrect as the "everything" had not yet given birth to heaven and earth. Earth for example has appeared billions of years later.

aauugghh!    you're badgering me cyril!!    ok, ok,  'heavens and earth'  'heavens and earth'    sheesh!  how perfect could one get in explaining verses?.. 

man, i greatly admire those true translators of Quran.  Allah must have entrusted them very much to have given them the honor of translating the Quran word for word. it's requires soooo much patience and perseverience.  cuz i'm sure there were (anoying) ppl  over them also when composing their translations

subhanallah, how could we ever compete at their magnanimous level!?