discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[the.crooked]

Dawood. I have been on vacation so my responses will be slow.

 

"No, All of the prophets in the bible like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah were all prophets of Islam, (which means submission to Almighty God) All of the nations of believers were muslims from the beginning of time until now. They didn't neecessarily call themselves "muslims" but the beleif was the same with all of the prophets. The same message "worship God without worshipping others along with him. Single all worship out for the creator and do not make idols and worship them, etc etc. All of the prophets were on this religion of pure monotheism."

 

I am speaking pre-monotheism. What of native americans, those that had no actual exposure to monotheistic religion until european influence? I was not reffering to the prohets associated with the three major monotheisms, eg Islam, Christianity, Judaism. You have to conceed that there were people before Islam was around, and of those people, they did not believe in Islam. Nor practice it. So what of those people, and their souls.

 

"I think athiests can practice morality , for sure. I know some athiests/agnostics that are more moral than some muslims that I know but originally , these morals and manners that we learn come to us by way of the knowledge the prophets gave to us and were passed down through tradition. I was raised far from muslim, but when I became muslim I realized how mush impact the prophet Muhammad had on daily practices people do , but they never realize where it came from."

 

 

Again I think you are missing somethin here in terms of morality. I can't remember what thread it was in, but I am fairly certain, you, I, Mar and several others discussed the beginnings of morality. Have you read anything beyond religious texts in terms of consideration of morality? I would suggest it. It is interesting and provides some perspectives one may not have when subjectively viewing the world from a religous perspective. Also, I disagree with the intent point. I had this conversation with a friend a couple weeks ago. He helped a lady across the street, and afterwards he said he felt a feeling of pride, or something to that nature. But he was unsure whether or not that feeling was justified in the action. I think it elucidates this discussion pretty well. That he helped the person across is what mattered. That he felt pride or otherwise is nothing. He also did it without the existential encouragement of a God. I think it is the action itself that holds the merit. You give a bum a ten dollar bill, regardless of if your doing it to prove how much disposable money you have to a friend vs doing it out of shere moral aptitude, it still happened. You still did something to help a person out in their life. Basically I fail to believe that my actions are unjustified or lack validity because I have not God to reward me for them. Fuck that, anything anyone person can do to help someone else is just that, a good deed. Regardless of intention.

 

 

"I only understand God as much as my limited mind is capable. Not to mention that God only revealed in the quran about himself as it relates to our benefit. Let me re-word that.

I don't know, for example, what God looks like or how big God is, or his exact location because these things aren't beneficial for us in terms of getting to know him because they are irrelevent and for example if god were let's say "black" then black people would feel superior over other people, so these things arent relevant and we don't beleive that God is anything like his creation anyway, so...all I know is he is literally "above the seven heavens ina manner that befits his majesty" (as it says in the quran).

 

I'm actually not that studious as far as muslim students go. Look at me I hang around graffiti boards everyday. Real muslim students are not like me. May Allah make me better.

I'm not sure what you mean by "working understanding of God" We'll have to discuss that in more detail.

 

are you writing an essay? jk, I don't understand english very well. so speak slowly to me, thanks. he he

 

the quran is actually only considered the quran when it is in it's original arabic.

English, spanish, french translations are considered interpretations of the meanings

the best english interpretation is the noble quran by Taqi ad deen al hilali and Mubakpuri.

but If you google The noble quran it will come up. http://www.thenoblequran.com or you can buy it at http://darussalam.com/ There are a few authentic interpretations of the quran by early scholars like ibn Kathir http://www.tafsir.com that are agreed upon by the scholars and the rest of the muslims. There are many contemporary interpretations that are rejected simply because they are at odds with the early interpretations by the companions of the prophet Muhammad.

 

definately Ibn Kathir or Qurtabi , there are others but those two are very popular and breifly, because they were the early scholars who held to the original priciples of explaining the quran and stuck to the undertanding of the prophet Muhammad's companions (you are asking very good questions btw.)

 

ha, here's your whammy,

well, Like I said up top. God only revealed to us things that would be beneficial to us in terms of our lives in this world and in the hereafter so I don't accept the idea that God is incomprehensible to the human condition because his TRUE nature is incomprehensible in the sense that I spoke of earlier, like God's actual physical form, we don't know anything abot God's physical form simply because we don't need to know that in order to serve him. It's suffiecient that we know he created us and bestows everything upon us from his great bounties and that we should be grateful for that."

 

 

As much as I appreciate the answers, I think my questions were more rhetorical devices for an argument rather than questions seeking an answer. I think you missed what I meant when I was speaking of seperate interpretations. I was talking about personal interpretation, not actual physical differences in literal translations of the Quran or other important texts. I meant what it means to you. In terms of your level of study, I know what you mean about your own level of studiousness, but for sake of the discussion it doesn't matter. You feel comfortable enough with Islam to speak of it and for its positions, so I was merely trying to create a controll through which to discuss the possible situations. Anywho, failed example on my part. But yeah, I'll try and write it out better soon.

 

To clarify, I was trying to suggest that your interpretation of what the quran or anyones for that matter has any level of merit as to being correct. Let alone of anybody's belief about what the actual truth (be it metaphysical, theological, etc...) is.

 

"man, read the quran and you'll understand...did you read it? I bet not."

 

See thats not fair. I have read parts, a long time ago when I wanted to understand what my grandfather believes in. However, I do a good amount of reading on philosophy and theology in general. To appeal to a specific minority of concepts limits my ability to speak of anything about this. I don't attack your knowledge on a subject when we are talkin somethin other than Islam.

 

Anywho, peace be with ya all. I'm out for another week of sunburns and weed.

 

 

I chunk up tha duece for tha south and tha north.

 

 

edit for formatting and also to say I love the quick response option.

[MAR]

from Jesus and Muhammad. Not to mention Moses. (peace be upon them)

 

So, if there's no eternal Damnation in Judaism, What happens to non-Jews according to Judaism?

 

btw, welcome back, Mar, long time no see.

 

 

I got lost and stumbled in here by accident.

 

Moshe never talks about eternal damnation. Non-jews can get into heaven easier than jews they just have to follow the 7 laws of Noah, If they dont their soul gets recycled, or in some really rare cases removed forever. Jews have to follow the 613 commandments of G-d as taught by Moshe. If they dont they soul may be cleansed for a period of 12 months maximum after which it goes to the world to come. In some rare cases a jewish soul may also be destroyed. There is a concept of gilgullaim or reincarnation in judaism but its kinda weird and I dont understand it 100% so I'm not going to try to explain it.

 

Edit: A jew that does not know his faith, ie: not raised observent, or something similar, is not responcible for their actions and can get into the world to come easier. Although, thier portion may not be as large as a person who lived thier life as an observent jew.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Da Wood, now let me put it to you this way.

 

Imagine, each religion was fabricated, to help keep people under control, now imagine, knowing that atleast a small percentage of the masses would question it, wouldn't it be a good idea to go ahead and think of what questions the masses may have, and then prepare those answers before hand, and then put them into the quran to make it seem more all knowing?

 

Also, hasn't thousands of years gone by since the quran was supposedly written? How long do you think people have had to edit and change what was written inside to correct errors in the first draft and who on earth is around to protect that from happening, and if there is such a person, how is anyone supposed to trust this individual.

 

I know I'll find out for sure what will happen after I see my grave, but as passionate you are about defending and clarifying your religion to all of us, I am equally passionate about what I believe.

 

So my friends, here we are at a stalemate, that will most likely never end.

 

EDIT

_______________________________

 

Now as far as 5 million people worshipping this religion, I respect that, and it truely is remarkable. I also think that religion does hold a good moral code that all men should live by but as far as heaven, hell, the afterlife and God there is where things get a little skeptical in my book.

[Dawood]

Dawood. I have been on vacation so my responses will be slow.

 

I'm always on a semi-vacation...I understand, man.

 

 

I am speaking pre-monotheism. What of native americans, those that had no actual exposure to monotheistic religion until european influence? I was not reffering to the prohets associated with the three major monotheisms, eg Islam, Christianity, Judaism. You have to conceed that there were people before Islam was around, and of those people, they did not believe in Islam. Nor practice it. So what of those people, and their souls.

 

there is no pre-monotheism. We beleive that the first man created (Adam) was a monotheist and was a muslim who called to worshipping God alone without associating partners with him and that a messenger was sent to every nation. As for special cases where the message of Islam didn't reach certain people well, their case is with God to judge and beleive me they are few and far in between that never heard of monotheism.

 

Again I think you are missing somethin here in terms of morality. I can't remember what thread it was in, but I am fairly certain, you, I, Mar and several others discussed the beginnings of morality. Have you read anything beyond religious texts in terms of consideration of morality? I would suggest it. It is interesting and provides some perspectives one may not have when subjectively viewing the world from a religous perspective. Also, I disagree with the intent point. I had this conversation with a friend a couple weeks ago. He helped a lady across the street, and afterwards he said he felt a feeling of pride, or something to that nature. But he was unsure whether or not that feeling was justified in the action. I think it elucidates this discussion pretty well. That he helped the person across is what mattered. That he felt pride or otherwise is nothing. He also did it without the existential encouragement of a God. I think it is the action itself that holds the merit. You give a bum a ten dollar bill, regardless of if your doing it to prove how much disposable money you have to a friend vs doing it out of shere moral aptitude, it still happened. You still did something to help a person out in their life. Basically I fail to believe that my actions are unjustified or lack validity because I have not God to reward me for them. Fuck that, anything anyone person can do to help someone else is just that, a good deed. Regardless of intention.

 

I can't disagree with you more here. By saying that intention doesnt matter what you are saying is that it's ok to be a dishonest liar as long as you are telling people nice lies.

The intention originates from the hearts desire to do good and if you intend to do good to satisfy yourself, then your action was really self centered and had nothing to do with anything outside of you. I hope you see what I mean.

 

 

As much as I appreciate the answers, I think my questions were more rhetorical devices for an argument rather than questions seeking an answer. I think you missed what I meant when I was speaking of seperate interpretations. I was talking about personal interpretation, not actual physical differences in literal translations of the Quran or other important texts. I meant what it means to you. In terms of your level of study, I know what you mean about your own level of studiousness, but for sake of the discussion it doesn't matter. You feel comfortable enough with Islam to speak of it and for its positions, so I was merely trying to create a controll through which to discuss the possible situations. Anywho, failed example on my part. But yeah, I'll try and write it out better soon.

 

To clarify, I was trying to suggest that your interpretation of what the quran or anyones for that matter has any level of merit as to being correct. Let alone of anybody's belief about what the actual truth (be it metaphysical, theological, etc...) is.

 

well, also, to clarify. The quran is not open to peoples interpretations, so if people are interpreting it to fit what they like, then they are dead wrong.

 

See thats not fair. I have read parts, a long time ago when I wanted to understand what my grandfather believes in. However, I do a good amount of reading on philosophy and theology in general. To appeal to a specific minority of concepts limits my ability to speak of anything about this. I don't attack your knowledge on a subject when we are talkin somethin other than Islam.

 

I didn't intend to attack your knowledge, just trying to encourage you to expand it with the quran, that's all.

 

Anywho, peace be with ya all. I'm out for another week of sunburns and weed.

 

 

I chunk up tha duece for tha south and tha north.

 

 

edit for formatting and also to say I love the quick response option.

 

 

ok, I'm writing here, so my message won't be less than 4 characters...ha

[eeeeee]

I started reading the first page and it just felt like Dawoo was trying to indoctrinate every one whilst throwing off all the good arguments and opinions.

 

I was having a discussion with my dad about this not long ago. He put it like this:

 

"Think of those slugs by the bin down there. Everyday they pray to you son and ask for better life and guidence. Then you come along and poor salt on them"

 

Or something to that effect.

 

Who wants to let some unseen, unknown force - with an agenda that we know nothing about - boss us about and control our every movement? Weak people who can't think for themselves is who. God is used by people who seek power as a tool to control others.

 

The reason why Gods and spirits exist is because people don't understand the world around them and so they have to simplify it. There's all this complicated, mind boggling shit going on like the sting theory and dimensions beyond our senses and we're just trying to live and comprehend through it all.

 

Saying this I must admit that I've had Godly and spiritual experiences. I believe that there is some sort of interdimensional being that's kind ennough to look down on us in the way we might look at a beetle stuck on it's back and lend it a helping hand.

 

Humans aren't Numero Uno like we think we are. There's powerful shit going on that we don't understand. I could go deeper into my thoughts on this but I'm not going to because this post will just get obese.

 

Did anyone know that scientists recently discovered that those great, big, bastard whales have their own language? Not one in the same sense as our own but the sounds that they make have a heirachical structure (not just a random glarble) like our own.

 

Also has any one heard of (and I can't remember what they're called) that form of thought, an idea which is passed down through generations regardless of how stupid? It's similar to how a baby mouse knows "oh shit" when they see the shadow of a big bird come by.

 

I think I've said enough. This post is big and bulky. There's things in here I think people should really think about and take into consideration though...and then there are things I don't like the stuff about the brain...

[eeeeee]

I think I've said enough. This post is big and bulky. There's things in here I think people should really think about and take into consideration though...and then there are things I don't like the stuff about the brain...

 

I edited that stuff out if you bothered to read and were confused.

[russell jones]

Also has any one heard of (and I can't remember what they're called) that form of thought, an idea which is passed down through generations regardless of how stupid?

 

I think the word may be meme. Richard Dawkins came up with the word to describe an idea that is passed on in a culture like a gene is passed on in DNA.

[tabloid-]

1. that picture is crazy.

 

2. religion was created to teach, but is far to easily corrupted by the power hungry.

 

3. too many people want to tell others how to live.

[eeeeee]

I think the word may be meme. Richard Dawkins came up with the word to describe an idea that is passed on in a culture like a gene is passed on in DNA.

 

That sounds about right, the description at least. I thought it began with T? But you're probably right.

 

This is what God is. Pretty much.

[El Mamerro]

there is no pre-monotheism. We beleive that the first man created (Adam) was a monotheist and was a muslim who called to worshipping God alone without associating partners with him and that a messenger was sent to every nation. As for special cases where the message of Islam didn't reach certain people well, their case is with God to judge and beleive me they are few and far in between that never heard of monotheism.

 

Would you consider yourself a creationist? You've often mentioned how the Quran complements science rather than refutes it. Since creationism is a major point of contention in the debate between science and other religions, I was wondering how Islam deals with this issue.

[fermentor666]

If he believes in Adam, he is a creationist. I think Dawood's made it clear. However, I do disagree with both creationism and the idea that there was no pre-monotheism. It is, however, impossible to believe in pre-monotheism if you believe in Adam and Eve, because they were directly spoken to by God, supposedly.

[russell jones]

That sounds about right, the description at least. I thought it began with T? But you're probably right.

 

This is what God is. Pretty much.

 

 

I agree, and I think Dawkins would agree as well.

[Dawood]

I started reading the first page and it just felt like Dawoo was trying to indoctrinate every one whilst throwing off all the good arguments and opinions.

 

I was having a discussion with my dad about this not long ago. He put it like this:

 

"Think of those slugs by the bin down there. Everyday they pray to you son and ask for better life and guidence. Then you come along and poor salt on them"

 

Or something to that effect.

 

Who wants to let some unseen, unknown force - with an agenda that we know nothing about - boss us about and control our every movement? Weak people who can't think for themselves is who. God is used by people who seek power as a tool to control others.

 

The reason why Gods and spirits exist is because people don't understand the world around them and so they have to simplify it. There's all this complicated, mind boggling shit going on like the sting theory and dimensions beyond our senses and we're just trying to live and comprehend through it all.

 

Saying this I must admit that I've had Godly and spiritual experiences. I believe that there is some sort of interdimensional being that's kind ennough to look down on us in the way we might look at a beetle stuck on it's back and lend it a helping hand.

 

Humans aren't Numero Uno like we think we are. There's powerful shit going on that we don't understand. I could go deeper into my thoughts on this but I'm not going to because this post will just get obese.

 

Did anyone know that scientists recently discovered that those great, big, bastard whales have their own language? Not one in the same sense as our own but the sounds that they make have a heirachical structure (not just a random glarble) like our own.

 

Also has any one heard of (and I can't remember what they're called) that form of thought, an idea which is passed down through generations regardless of how stupid? It's similar to how a baby mouse knows "oh shit" when they see the shadow of a big bird come by.

 

I think I've said enough. This post is big and bulky. There's things in here I think people should really think about and take into consideration though...and then there are things I don't like the stuff about the brain...

 

 

first you say that Gods exist because they are make beleive and people think them up to bring order into their lives, then you go on to explain "your God" to us with you beetle example.

Oh, yeah, you referred to the majority of the world as "weak minded" , then you inplied that

"big bastard" whales are numero uno.

 

thanks for sharing, I'll take all that into consideration.

 

Oh, and next time you breathe , think about the interdimensional being that was kind enough to create your lungs and provide air for you and allow you to inhale and exhale it,

that would be a start.

[Dawood]

Would you consider yourself a creationist? You've often mentioned how the Quran complements science rather than refutes it. Since creationism is a major point of contention in the debate between science and other religions, I was wondering how Islam deals with this issue.

 

I beleive that the universe was created. I don't see that the issue of creationism vs. non creationism is even an issue. There is no scientific FACT that can prove that God does not exist and therefore did not create everything, nor do scientists have the ability to look that far into the past. Most of what scientists agree upon, Islam agrees with it. The origin of the universe is something people cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. Scientists who use hypothesis' will make educated guesses based on evidence and will be correct some of the time and wrong some of the time, that's what it is to be human. A person who has faith in a religion (I don't like to speak for other peoples religions so I'm only referring to Islam)

can beleive in sceince just the same unless that scientific theory tries to say for example that humans came from primates which has time and time again proven to be a simple theory and not a fact. So, to answer your question, would be too long, because science is a vast field and Islam would agree with a great deal of it and disagree with some of it. If you would like to ask more specific questions I can give more specific answers.

[El Mamerro]

Fair enough. I don't wanna get into the issue of what the term "theory" means in science (it certainly doesn't mean the same as the common usage of the word), but I think we can safely say that science agrees that man came from primates (based on pretty solid evidence, not random speculation). In this particular topic, it seems to me Islam is at odds with science.

 

I'm just bringing this up cause I seem to remember you stating that a key difference between Islam and other religions was that Islam did not contradict science. Seems to me like in this particular sense, that of mankind's origin, Islam is on the same level of "contradiction", so to speak, as other major religions.

[Dawood]

we can discuss whether scientists agree that man came from primates but I'm sure you'll find sources to back up what you like and I'll find sources to back up what I beleive so..

 

If you like we can go for it, it doesn't matter to me, because I don't have any monkey uncles.

[Dawood]

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/2.htm

 

this is a quick read...not very long winded.

[Dawood]

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/3.htm

 

 

Everyone knows for sure that stones and rocks in the natural environment would not spontaneously turn into frogs or fish. Ridiculous as it may seem, this is very reminiscent of the basic claim of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution holds that given enough time (about a couple of billion years), the stones and rubbles of rock in nature would evolve into frogs, fish, and even humans. This assertion is not based on any evidence. It is a scenario produced by evolutionists in their imagination. Let alone being formed spontaneously in natural conditions, life cannot even be generated in the modern laboratories of today. What life is and how it emerged is a mystery. Scientists have failed in puzzling out how certain molecules like proteins, lipids and glucose came together to form "life". In biology, there is a rule called "biogenesis"–that is, "life comes only from life". It is impossible for nonliving matter to form life. This refutes the theory of evolution from the outset, which proposes that life emerged from inanimate matter by chance.

[fermentor666]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eeeeee

Also has any one heard of (and I can't remember what they're called) that form of thought, an idea which is passed down through generations regardless of how stupid?

 

 

I think the word may be meme. Richard Dawkins came up with the word to describe an idea that is passed on in a culture like a gene is passed on in DNA.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it a meme, I'd call it instinct. Fear is instinctive. A baby mouse running from a shadow would potentially run because it is something it has never seen before and it is larger than the mouse. The mouse could learn or be trained/taught to not fear the shadow if there was a natural conditioning where it would often see the shadow and then the bird were to appear and not harm it or if a person showed it the shadow and then rewarded it with food every time.

 

Consider religion as conditioning. Babies are often scared of anything larger than them and when we develop as children, our cognition of our first words is far smaller than the cognition of the words we use today, relatively and speculatively. Much like a mother fits the void of no food, religion fits the void of no answers. If we are to believe scriptures, then these prophets who heard the voice of God were conditioned by God to understand him in contextual and literal terms rather than figuratively. Then they are told to condition others so that they do not run in fear.

 

Alternatively, one could see religion as the work of a few geniouses who grasped at certain psychological and socialogical millenia before Freud or Marx or Paine and created these stories for whatever purpose, be it power or just an experiment.

 

Either way, the fact is that religion is used to justify certain things that a God would not ever allow if he could so interfere and it is also used to control large populations and has been for millenia. Genocides are extreme forms of this control, as are tithes like the one-tenth church tax of old or the fees that Scientology charges in order to obtain a higher level of understanding.

[eeeeee]

no think of instinct as instinct as a meme as a meme.

 

instinct is knowing something is going to kill you and a meme is what thingy said:

 

an idea passed down in the same way as genes are.

[fermentor666]

Not really, an idea such as "something larger than you can kill you easily" is not a meme, it's instinctual. The idea that the form of a shadow can be identified to an object upon merely the visual of the shadow would be a meme, such as "hey look, that shadow is a bird's shadow". Fear is not a meme as an instinct, although in a grander scheme of things you could say that the word human concept of fear is a meme. The word "fear" derives from latin, latin derives from heiroglyphics, heiroglyphics derive from Sumarians, etc etc with a few skipped. But, all animals have this fear at birth whether or not they are handed down this idea. Ideas can only be passed down through generations by communication, not genetics. That's why genes are used as a simile rather than a direct explanation. Unless you mean that the baby mouse is scared because the older mouse said to it "that shadow is a bird and the bird will eat you". That would be a meme, I guess, but more like advice.

 

Fear OF a particular is a meme. So what I'm saying is that we fear this great unknown from birth, and then we are taught what to think of this great unknown. Some aspects of religion teach acceptance, others teach obedience, others teach fear of repercussion and so on. Religion isn't the only thing that is used as an explanation, I think is the primary arguement for athiests.

[eeeeee]

What's your point?

[El Mamerro]

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/2.htm

 

this is a quick read...not very long winded.

 

 

I'm not even gonna get into how thoroughly misguided, scientifically ignorant, and downright false some of the statements made in that article are, because that's not the point I'm trying to make. I will however suggest you delete that link from your browser's history cause it's downright embarrasing.

 

 

What I am saying is that regardless of it being true or not, science overwhelmingly believes man came from primates. With this in mind, it would seem Islam does not agree with science in this particular instance, and therefore it is premature and incorrect at this time to assert that Islam and science always go hand-in-hand.

[eeeeee]

word that article is bull

 

people who deny evolution, and I don't want to offend anyone here, are blind and retarded

 

FACT

 

Okay so your religion states God made man

 

if this is the case God made man from monkeys

 

end of.

 

 

Did you know that there's scientific evidence that we were fucking chimpanzees long after we evolved from them and the species we previously thought was a step in our evolutionary chain turned out to be a chimp/human hybrid?

It's just a theory at the minute but with strong evidence pointing towards it.

 

Has any one here had experinces with getting chimps pregnant? Know of any recentish cases?

[fermentor666]

What's your point?

 

 

It's in there, you just have to figure it out. In fact, it directly relates to what you were saying.

[Dawood]

I'm not even gonna get into how thoroughly misguided, scientifically ignorant, and downright false some of the statements made in that article are, because that's not the point I'm trying to make. I will however suggest you delete that link from your browser's history cause it's downright embarrasing.

 

Why not get into it? Isn't that waht discussion is about? If you don't get into it then the conversation is over and nobody gains anything.

 

 

What I am saying is that regardless of it being true or not, science overwhelmingly believes man came from primates. With this in mind, it would seem Islam does not agree with science in this particular instance, and therefore it is premature and incorrect at this time to assert that Islam and science always go hand-in-hand.

 

 

I never said that Islam and science ALWAYS go hand in hand, to make that statement would be asanine given the fact that science is continually changing and evolving.

Islam stays the same and remains fir mly rooted throughout centuries.

What I said was that science affirms the validity of Islam in many cases and that Islam and science are not in opposition to eachother. As for scientific theories that cannot be proven in a concrete manner (such as the ape theory) Well, then Islam opposes this beleif that people evolved from monkeys , right in the fundamentals of Islam.

We beleive in a creator who creates organization, not in a haphazard mix of elements that smashed together on accident and just happened to make an organized structure.

 

Life breeds life, something dead can never produce life, so there has to be a living being that all of this that we see originated from.

 

(referring to eeeee's statement)

To me and the majority of the world it seems that the ones who beleive that their ancestors are monkeys are blind and retarted but that's life huh?

[El Mamerro]

Duly noted. It just seems clear as day to me that at least in this case (and given the logic and form of reasoning behind it, I'm sure there's more), Islam is clearly in as much opposition to science as other major religions.

 

By the way, if you don't bother to find out why rocks skip on water, you're always gonna think it's magic. How order arises from randomness has been explained and proven, I just haven't been able to formulate a simple enough way to explain it. I could probably meet you halfway and at least entertain the possibility that God made randomness in such a way that it could eventually organize itself.

 

By the way dude, you never hooked me up with those links I PM'd you about. Did you get that message? The topic was closed when a couple of boneheads got downright racist, but it'll turn up again.

[Dawood]

Mams, My bad, man.

I just checked my PM's I had a bunch of em. I always forget about that.

Anyway, let me get back to you on that because I never saved them like

I should have and I was looking for some last night but it got late.

 

you can go to

 

http://fatwaonline.com/

 

there's a bunch in there.

[russell jones]

Evolution is considered to be a scientific fact in the scientific community. There have been no papers in decades that have been published or submitted for publication in any scientifc journal that doubt the fact of evolution. So from the point of view of the field and discipline of science, there is absolutely no controversy, disagreement or doubt about the fact of evolution. That's just the way it is. I am not saying anything about the relative truth of science vs. religion.

[Dawood]

sorry it took so long for me to reply to this russel, I look at it , then I sigh and say, I'll get back to that because it's such a redundant debate, but here goes, When we speak about evolution, we have to make it clear exactly what we are talking about. There is no doubt in my mond that a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly for example, or that a seed eventually evolves into a vegetable. But when we talk about human beings and the origins of mankind it becomes more tricky than just blanketing the whole conversation with "evolution is a fact and that's that". The scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact, yes, but to what extent? Nobody was there to witness the fabled evolutionary process from monkey to man, so It is , IN FACT a theory that some scientists have agreed upon based upon what evidence they've collected thus far. Many more scientists than a few beleive in creation, so to say that the scientific community is in agreement that people were once monkeys is as inaccurate and false as the pilt down man......

 

Article.

 

Not all scientists agree that no Creator exists and that we as human beings are the product of random chance. In 1972 the California State Board of Education asked NASA director Wernher von Braun, who has been called the father of the American space program, for his thoughts on the origin of the universe, life and the human race. Here's how he responded: "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .

 

"And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based . . .

 

"To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

 

"Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent.

 

They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

 

"What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?" (Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).

 

Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as humans is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.

 

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

 

Let's take it a step further. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

 

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

 

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

 

If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?

 

Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.

 

Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199, emphasis added).

 

Now, almost a century and a half after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, we can see where his thinking has led. In Europe in particular, belief in a personal God has plummeted. In the United States, court decisions have interpreted constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion as freedom from religion—effectively banning public expression of religious beliefs and denying the country's rich religious heritage.

 

Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering resulting from rejecting absolute moral standards. With no absolute standards, we have no reason to care what happens to our fellowman. We should seek only our personal gain regardless of the cost to others—acting exactly as evolutionary theory says we should.

 

Could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance of evolution shows that we have done just that. The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.

 

If God created man we have no right to ignore Him. If man created God we can easily ignore Him. What man has made he can do away with. Thus we are free to act as though God doesn't exist, free to dismiss the Bible, free to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong and how we will choose to live.

 

Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).

 

Professor Bounoure, though right about evolution, was wrong about one thing. Rather than being useless, evolution is quite useful if one wants to reject the idea of God.