Saturday, January 17, 2015

BATTLE MODE: Evolution versus Religion


TheRationalizer - I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.  This way if our strongest argument is debunked then there is no point in bringing up another argument on account that it would be weaker.

So, I shall start.

1: Evolution is an observed fact - google it.
2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.

The evidence I feel is strongest for evolution through natural selection (hereinafter written as "evolution+ns") is that of endogenous retroviruses.

A retro virus invades a cell.  It then snips the DNA within the cell and inserts a copy of its own DNA.  When the cell is replicated its DNA is processed in order to create the relevant proteins, during this process the RV's DNA is processed and a copy of the RV made which then goes off and invades another cell.  This means that the DNA copy within that cell is permanently altered.  Each cell of our bodies contains a copy of our entire DNA.  The DNA within the single cell is altered, not our entire DNA.

If the invaded cell is either an egg or a sperm then the life which results from a fertilisation of that egg or sperm will have their entire DNA based on the DNA with the RV DNA insertion.  Once the RV is passed on via DNA it becomes an endogenous retro virus (ERV.)  An RV inserts itself at a random place within the genome.  The human genome is approximately 3.4 billion in length.  Seeing two people with the same virus injected into the same part of their DNA shows that they inherited that DNA mutation from a common ancestor.

When we examine the human genome and the genome of chimps (which have a DNA length of approx 3 billion base pairs) we see that there are 7 instances of ERVs in common with humans.  Not only are these the same virus in each case but they are also in exactly the same location within the genome.  The chances of two independent creatures (with a shortest genome of 3 billion base pairs) getting the same infection at the same place 7 times is 1 in (3 billion to the power of 7.)

Then you have to factor in how many different RVs could have infected this location and account for the fact that in each of these 7 instances it is the same RV.

Also, based on the length of a DNA and the average number of mutations observed per generation + the average life expectancy of the species it is possible to count the number of mutations within the virus DNA and get an approximate period of time at which the infection took place.  In each of the 7 instances the number of mutations corroborated that the infection took place at the same time in both chimps and humans.

So, the probability of 2 different species getting infected in the same place is
1 in 0.2187E+67 (2187 with 63 zeros after it)

Which alone is a fantastically small probability.  Then factor in it being the same virus AND going endogenous AND happening at the same time and you end up with a number so unbelievably small that it just isn't going to happen.

But that's not all!

Not only are there 7 in common with chimps there are a number of ERVs which (chimps + humans) share with Apes.  Showing that a common ancestor with an ERV DNA mutation split into two species, which would later become Apes and the ancestor of Humans/Chimps.  In fact if we look at the genomes of the various species on Earth today we observe this ERV phenomenon all over the place.

ERV in mammals also seen in
Apes, which have additional ERVs also seen in
Chimps, which have additional ERVs also seen in
Humans

It's the same for species of birds and reptiles too, with some ERVs being present in all reptiles for example, and then additional ones existing only in more closely related species of reptile.  The same in other mammals too, where cats will share the same ERVs as other mammals but not the same ones as Apes, but more amongst the various cat species.

In short, the ERV observations corroborate the evolutionary tree of life (humans + chimps from a common ancestor, that ancestor from a common ancestor with apes.........from a common ancestor of mammals.)

As you can see the evidence from ERVs in humans/chimps alone is incredible.  Then add in all the other species and it is fantastically incredible.  Also take into account that this is not DNA that was "put in from the start as part of some clever design" these are viral infections which mutated the species' DNA at various points after life had started.

How do we know these are retroviruses?

DNA is made of the nucleotides A,T,G, and C.  The other side of the helix is predictable because they always pair up like so

A to T
G to C
(and complimentary to above)
T to A 
C to G

So let's take some imaginary DNA

ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

One side of the helix is at the top, the other complimentary side is beneath it.  I have separated them into 3's to make it easier to read.

When an RV cuts the host DNA is does not cut a straight line, what it does is to cut one side of the helix at position X, and the opposite side at X+Y.  So in a case where Y=3 what you'd get after a cut is this

ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA  ATG CAT GCA TGC
TAC GTA CGT ACG  TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

And then with the RV's DNA inserted...

ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA --- --- --- --- --- ??? ATG CAT GCA TGC
TAC GTA CGT ACG ???  --- --- --- --- --- TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

The "???" denotes a gap in one side of the helix due to the cut  and "---" the virus DNA.  The virus then inserts its own DNA at the staggered cut position.  Now when the body processes this DNA to duplicate the cell look what happens.  The ??? gaps in the DNA are filled in by the body with their complimentary nucleotide

In the top cut position the TTT below is complimented by AAA at the top.
In the bottom cut position the AAA above is complimented by TTT at the bottom.

(Note that I only used AAA TTT to make it easier to spot, the RV injects its DNA at a random place and could therefore work on any combination of ATGC.)

So you see we end up with a duplicate sequence of 3 nucleotides.  If I exclude the virus DNA from the pattern you will see this

Before
ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

After
ATG CAT GCA TGC AAA AAA ATG CAT GCA TGC
TAC GTA CGT ACG TTT  TTT TAC GTA CGT ACG

Note the duplicate AAA and complementary TTT.

So to identify an ERV we first look for duplicate base pairs and then compare the DNA between them with the DNA of known retroviruses.

So we know 
1: The mutation is due to an RV infection.
2: The mutation went endogenous.
3: Approximately when the RV went endogenous.
4: The mutation was passed onto descendants.
5: The descendants diverged into separate and distinct species.

So either all species evolved from other ancestor species (including humans) or a divine creator first created all life, reused DNA patterns (because they worked?), and then for some unknown reason came back multiple times over a span of millions of years and altered the DNA of groups of species with retro virus DNA at the same time in order to make it look as though they had all inherited an ERV DNA mutation from a common ancestor.

This is just ONE piece of evidence supporting evolution+ns.  I look forward to seeing your rebuttal of these independently observed facts (which ANYONE in the world can assess for themselves), and to see an argument for the origin of the Quran with equally compelling facts...

Muhammad Rasheed – 1.)  The Holy Qur'an 96:4-5
4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-   
5 Taught man that which he knew not. 

2.)  All human languages have a very strange and most unexpected secret in common.  It is called Zipf’s Law, after the linguist George Zipf, who discovered it in 1939.  He studied texts in many different languages and ranked the words in order of frequency.  What he found, which has since proved true whether the language is English or Inuit, Japanese or Xhosa, Arabic or Urdu, is that a direct, exact, unvarying and utterly counter-intuitive mathematical relationship exists between the rank of a word and the actual frequency of occurrence of that word.  No matter which text he selected, when Zipf created a histogram that plotted word frequency against word rank, the surprising result was a straight line “with a slope of -1 for every human language.”

In order to grasp the general principle here, imagine a book of any given number of words, 60,000, or 114,000, or any number, it doesn’t matter.  If the most common word in the book – i.e. the word with the rank of one – appears 10,000 times, then you can be certain that the tenth most common word (i.e. ranked ten) will appear 1,000 times and the one hundredth most common word will appear just 100 times.  The numbers will vary, obviously, from text to text dependent on overall length, but the exact mathematical proportions between rank and frequency will always turn out to be the same in any human language at any time.  This, in a nutshell, is Zipf’s Law.

Now here is the even stranger thing.  In the mid-1990s, researchers from Boston University and Harvard Medical School examined 37 DNA sequences containing at least 50,000 base pairs each, as well as two shorter sequences and one with 2.2 million base pairs.  Where possible, they evaluated both coding and non-coding regions.  They noticed that distinct patterns of three, four, five, six, seven, and eight base pairs – comparable to individual “words” – existed in all the sequences.  This led them to apply two standard linguistic tests to the material.  One of these was Zipf’s test, and following Zipf’s own method, the DNA “words’ were ranked in order of frequency, and a histogram plotting the rank of each word against the actual number of times that it appeared in each “text” was drawn up.

In every case where coding regions were evaluated, they turned out not to obey Zipf’s law.  This is precisely as one would expect, since the coding regions are just codes, not languages – and are better thought of as templates for the construction of particular proteins.  “The coding part has no grammar,” explains lead researcher Eugene Stanley.  “Each triplet [of bases] corresponds to an amino acid [in a protein].  There’s no higher structure to it.” 

So far so predictable, and so reassuring.  Of course our DNA doesn’t contain intelligent messages and isn’t trying to communicate them to us in a language!  If it did, all the basic principles of modern evolutionary science would be turned head over heels!  Still, what happened next was most unexpected – “really remarkable,” in Eugene Stanley’s appraisal: “There’s no rhyme or reason why that should be true.”  This really remarkable and totally unexpected discovery was that in every case where non-coding regions of DNA had been evaluated, they turned out to demonstrate a perfect Zipf Law linear plot.  If these DNA sequences had been books filled with pages of indecipherable printed letters, then this result would oblige us to conclude that the letters were not random alphabet soup but words in an organized language.  Stanley didn’t shy away from the implications of this.  In his opinion, the non-coding DNA sequences do contain “a structured language fundamentally unlike the coding in genes.”  Even though it doesn’t code for proteins, we therefore need to consider the possibility that “the ‘junk’ DNA may carry some kind of message.”

Such a daring proposition receives further support from the second linguistic test that the team also applied to the DNA sequences.  Developed in the 1950s by information theorist Claude Shannon, this test distinguishes texts written in true languages from texts written in alphabet soup by quantifying the “redundancy” of any string of characters.  The test works, and is universal, because “languages are redundant sequences… You can fill in a typographical error by noting nearby characters.  A random sequence, in contrast, has no redundancy.”

Again, when the test was applied to coding regions of the DNA, these were shown not to have the properties of a human language – as we would predict.  The genetic code is not, and cannot be, a redundant sequence in which errors can be corrected with reference to the general context; on the contrary, geneticists are well aware that even a single mistake involving a single base pair on a single gene can scramble the code and produce catastrophic abnormalities.  By contrast, the researchers found that the non-coding sections of DNA “revealed a surprising amount of redundancy – another sign that something was written in these mysterious stretches.”

In short, these completely unexpected discoveries allow us to contemplate something astonishing.  The chemical “writing” on so-called junk DNA may not only possess “all the features of a language,” but in fact may be a language like any human language; “some kind of message” might be written on these ultra-conserved sequences of code that occupy up to 97 per cent of our DNA but have no known function.  When contacted in June 2005 to ask if he still stood by his electrifying 1994 findings, or if they had subsequently been refuted, Professor Eugene Stanley at Boston University said, “You bet I stand by them!  Nothing has been refuted.”   It is difficult to see how the accidental processes of chemistry alone could have produced the intense language-like organization embedded in the so-called junk sequences.  But if it really is some kind of message, rather than a freak of chance and nature that just looks like a message, then who, or what, might have written it?

Science, vol. 266, November 25, 1994, p. 1320

“’Junk’ throws up precious secret,” BBC News Online Science Staff, May 12, 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/science/nature/3703935.stm

TheRationalizer - I originally had a long post about coding/non protein coding DNA here but on the way to dropping my son off at school I thought of a far more simple argument.

Considering evolution is based on information duplication why would you expect to NOT find patterns?  And my second question, if this pattern were a secret message from God as the original post implies then why not put the message only in humans, why put it in all other life (such as cabbages) and make it look as though it is simply a naturally occurring process of information duplication?

If you wish to disprove evolution go and dig up the fossil of a human in the pre-Cambrian era.  Or a bunny, or some other mammal - that would disprove evolution outright.  Funny how there are so many well funded creationists in the world and yet so few (if any) are digging for pre-Cambrian bunny rabbits isn't it?  Do you not wonder why they are not looking for such fossils?  It's because they know it is a waste of time, rabbits had not yet evolved!

As for language it is possible to trace languages just like it is DNA.  I don't recall the name of the study but I read about it in a book called "The Language of the Genes".  It was possible to identify derivatives of languages such as accents, an extension of that being some regions using different/new words, all the way up to completely different languages.  The study examined languages for similarities and by analysing the closest related and mapping them to geographic locations guess what it showed?  It showed a pattern of human movement throughout the world over time, as if we had spread out to populate the planet, so it proves neither evolution or the Quran which both suggest human migration.  What it does show however is that it is not the case that some God one day at the tower of Babel suddenly made us all speak different languages (or whatever it is you are suggesting - you didn't actually make a point.)

These languages influenced each other over time (such as in English speaking countries where they use the odd French word such as "Restaurant").  So overall one would expect languages to have similarities in them and also most common words such as

One, Happy, Sad, Sun, etc.

So, now that I have dispelled the "Too coincidental to be true" approach of your copy/paste reply how about you word a reply of your own and address the point I actually raised about endogenous retro viruses?

How is it that we observe so many retro virus DNA mutations in our DNA which share the same locus (gene location) and the same viral infection as chimps.  How come there is a subset which we both share with apes?

I look forward to your reply.

Muhammad Rasheed - TheRationalizer wrote: “I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.  This way if our strongest argument is debunked...”

lol

I'll play but this feels very subjective.

TheRationalizer wrote: “...then there is no point in bringing up another argument on account that it would be weaker.”

We can never talk about anything ever again?  Or just in THIS thread?

TheRationalizer wrote: “1: Evolution is an observed fact - google it.”

Well, it's certainly an observed argument about the facts.

TheRationalizer wrote: “2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.”

You are arguing for "natural selection as an aspect of Evolution" and not for Evolution itself?  So the strength of your argument is that, because children (of whatever species) inherent certain traits from their parents, and their environment may favor those particular traits, that proves that Evolution is what it claims to be?

TheRationalizer wrote: “The evidence I feel is strongest for evolution through natural selection (hereinafter written as "evolution+ns") is that of endogenous retroviruses.

Wikipedia - "ERVs are activated and produced in high quantities during the implantation of the embryo. They are currently known to possess immunosuppressive properties, suggesting a role in gestational immune tolerance, protecting the embryo from its mother's immune system."

Because of this concept I'm inclined to think that the presence of the retroviruses has little to do with the Evolutionary origins of life on earth, and is more of simply an aspect of Life as we know it... still mysterious as scientists attempt to crack the code using their horse blinders/one-trick-pony method of believing evolution is true and therefore refusing to look in any other direction for the origins of life.  I've been disinclined to take it seriously once I discovered that Darwin's grandfather first cobbled together the theory from Masonic mysticsm that the scientific community latched onto, apparently because most of them were Freemasons.   Natural selection results in things like diiferent breeds of cat, or even the psychic trait that enabled the line of prophets to communicate with God,  but it seems a ridiculous leap to think it means that it resulted in the darwinian concept of evolution of life.

Muhammad Rasheed - TheRationalizer wrote: “Considering evolution is based on information duplication why would you expect to NOT find patterns?”

It's not me, dude.  It's the scientists of a major university.  And it is very specific type of patterns that is what is causing the amazement.

TheRationalizer wrote: “And my second question, if this pattern were a secret message from God as the original post implies then why not put the message only in humans, why put it in all other life (such as cabbages) and make it look as though it is simply a naturally occurring process of information duplication?”

Aren't you jumping the gun with this question?  Let's wait to see what it says first.

TheRationalizer wrote: “If you wish to disprove evolution go and dig up the fossil of a human in the pre-Cambrian era.  Or a bunny, or some other mammal - that would disprove evolution outright.  Funny how there are so many well funded creationists in the world and yet so few (if any) are digging for pre-Cambrian bunny rabbits isn't it?  Do you not wonder why they are not looking for such fossils?  It's because they know it is a waste of time, rabbits had not yet evolved!”

The book Forbidden Archeology is full of EXACTLY those kinds of anomalies that mainstream, pro-Evolution scientists hate to think about.  But, of course, instead of forcing themselves to confront the anomalies, they instead attack the author.

TheRationalizer wrote: “(or whatever it is you are suggesting - you didn't actually make a point.)”

Oh, sorry.  My point is that 1.) God said He taught us the use of the pen and 2.) there is a "language" hidden in our cells.  

It's possible that this is the means that God communicates "inspiration" to us.

TheRationalizer wrote: “These languages influenced each other over time (such as in English speaking countries where they use the odd French word such as "Restaurant").  So overall one would expect languages to have similarities in them and also most common words such as One, Happy, Sad, Sun, etc.  So, now that I have dispelled the "Too coincidental to be true" approach of your copy/paste reply...”

Wait.  That's not what the article was about.  It didn't mean that we should be amazed at what patterns are in our languages, but that we should be amazed that the so-called junk DNA is actually a hidden message coded into our cells.  THAT'S the awesome part.  That kicks Carl Sagan's fictional "message hidden in pi" concept in the @ss as far as scientific proof from God.

TheRationalizer wrote: “How is it that we observe so many retro virus DNA mutations in our DNA which share the same locus (gene location) and the same viral infection as chimps.  How come there is a subset which we both share with apes?”

That means very little considering the is also a limited pallet of minerals and elements that make up all life (and non-life) in the universe too.  It points only to the the Supreme Creator using His prefered materials in making His creation.

TheRationalizer - MRasheed wrote: “lol  I'll play but this feels very subjective.”

The purpose of this constraint is to avoid an argument like this

You: This is my argument, how could Muhammad have known xyz.
Me: This is how....
You: (Completely ignore that I disproved your point) So how did we all get here then?

That kind of discussion would just be annoying.

MRasheed wrote: “We can never talk about anything ever again?  Or just in THIS thread?”

We should at least agree to change before changing.

MRasheed wrote: “Well, it's certainly an observed argument about the facts.”

Evolution itself is an observed phenomenon.  Animals developing a new section in their digestive system when introduced to a new island with less meat and more vegetation.  Nylonase developing the ability to consume Nylon, and many observed instances of speciation too.   Not only do we observe it, but in an e-coli experiment scientists observed not only e-coli evolving a new ability to consume citrus but it was a multi-step evolutionary process; and because the scientists froze all of their samples each day we can revive older generations and repeatedly observe this mutation occur.

So not only is it observed, it is reproducible.  Evolution is a fact.

MRasheed wrote: “You are arguing for "natural selection as an aspect of Evolution" and not for Evolution itself?”

I am arguing that humans share a common ancestor with chimps, bonobos, and apes; something most Muslims won't accept because it is contrary to the Quran.  It's funny how it's only people who believe in divine creation that struggle to accept the facts of evolution, people of religions without a story about a god that created humans in their current form don't seem to share the same inability en masse.

MRasheed wrote: “So the strength of your argument is that, because children (of whatever species) inherent certain traits from their parents, and their environment may favor those particular traits, that proves that Evolution is what it claims to be?”

No, I thought I made the strength of my argument clear.  Maybe you need to re-read it to refresh your memory?  Specific ERVs in the genomes of humans/chimps etc in the same position show that we inherited them from common ancestors.  I am not trying to explain to you how evolution works, I am showing you the proof that it has already worked and that humans and chimps are the result of a divergence of two species from a single common ancestor species.

MRasheed wrote: “Wikipedia – ‘ERVs are activated and produced in high quantities during the implantation of the embryo. They are currently known to possess immunosuppressive properties, suggesting a role in gestational immune tolerance, protecting the embryo from its mother's immune system.’"

You didn't read the whole page.  This is for Viviparous mammals only (mammals that have their young develop inside their body).  Reptiles and birds lay eggs and are neither viviparous or mammals.  These too show the same trait of commonly held ERVs which corroborate the evolutionary tree of life.

You are also only quoting the observed behaviour of SOME ERVs and ignoring the opening sentence on the page

"Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome."

The origin of the ERV is unquestionable, they originated as an infection in our ancestors.  I'm afraid you have simply quote mined that page and taken something out of its intended context - it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

MRasheed wrote: “Because of this concept I'm inclined to think that the presence of the retroviruses has little to do with the Evolutionary origins of life on earth, and is more of simply an aspect of Life as we know it... still mysterious as scientists attempt to crack the code using their horse blinders/one-trick-pony method of believing evolution is true and therefore refusing to look in any other direction for the origins of life.”

Here is some news for you.  There is no worldwide conspiracy amongst scientists to pretend god does not exist!

These are all individual people, all with the ability to independently verify the findings and conclusions of others.  Any scientist who presented proof that evolution was untrue would win the Nobel prize and go down in history as the first person to disprove the world's most solid scientific theory ever that no scientist before them was able to disprove.  Does that sound like a conspiracy to you?

MRasheed wrote: “I've been disinclined to take it seriously once I discovered that Darwin's grandfather first cobbled together the theory from Masonic mysticsm”

Even if that is true it has nothing to do with it.  The *scientific* theory is based on observed facts.  Whether Darwin's father was a Mason or a Satanist it would make no difference to the observed facts, his personal traits cannot affect reality.  Darwin was merely the first person to publish the idea.  The scientific theory of evolution through natural selection is FAR more than Darwin's initial findings, Darwin couldn't have dreamt of the evidence we now have!  So personal attacks on Darwin are futile, let's have some objective evidence instead please!

MRasheed wrote: “Natural selection results in things like diiferent breeds of cat”

Yes, it results in cats which look different or might not even be able to breed.  Did you know that a lion and a tiger can produce fertile offspring even though they are found on different continents?

Humans have bred pedigrees dog into all the different breeds you now see.  This period of time is NOTHING compared to how long life has existed on this planet. The variation that you see in dogs from over only the past 200 years fits into 3,600,000,000 years over 18 million times.  That's a LOT more evolution.

Importantly though it not only makes the animals look different, they look different because their DNA has diverged.  Once two groups of the same species have their DNA diverge too much they can no longer mate with each other
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensatina

Once they cannot mate then they are on different evolutionary paths, because their individual mutations are not fed into each other's DNA pools.  They mutate separately, and become different things.  Over time they look different.

MRasheed wrote: “or even the psychic trait that enabled the line of prophets to communicate with God,

I don't think you really thought through the implications of your statement.  You are saying that these people could communicate with god because they had evolved brains, rather than because god spoke to them.  You are implying that god needed man to reach god, rather than god having the ability to reach anyone.

You think that a human can evolve the ability to talk to god telepathically but a chimp can't grow a bigger brain and lose its hair?  Strange how you accept the more complicated case of evolution for which there is zero evidence whilst at the same time rejecting the more simple cases of evolution for which there is mountains of evidence.

Don't you think you started to look at the evidence without caring what it points to, rather than being selective in what you look at because it contradicts something you WANT to be true?

So, next steps:

1: You still need to explain why humans + chimps have the same *inherited* ERV infections in our DNA.
2: You are yet to present your best objective argument for why Islam is correct.

TheRationalizer - MRasheed wrote: “It's not me, dude.  It's the scientists of a major university.  And it is very specific type of patterns that is what is causing the amazement.”

I didn't say you were making the claim.  I asked why you would expect to NOT see patterns in a system based on duplication and variation?  Please don't present someone else's argument if you don't understand it, because if you do when I tell you why it is a false claim the best you can do is an appeal to authority "It's not me..it's scientists at a major university".

So if you respect the opinions of scientists at major universities how about you write to the biology department at every major university and ask a simple question "Do humans and chimps share a common ancestor?"

The important thing is not who's opinion it is (Einstein didn't accept plate tectonics), the important thing is....What do the facts suggest is more probable?


MRasheed wrote: “The book Forbidden Archeology is full of EXACTLY those kinds of anomalies that mainstream, pro-Evolution scientists hate to think about.  But, of course, instead of forcing themselves to confront the anomalies, they instead attack the author.”

They have fossil evidence of mammals in the pre-cambrian era?  I'll bet they don't!

Scientists attack authors when they do not show due diligence, or when they are deliberately dishonest.  Show me this fossil evidence....Oh, and PLEASE don't tell me it's on HarunYahya.com 


MRasheed wrote: “Oh, sorry.  My point is that 1.) God said He taught us the use of the pen and 2.) there is a "language" hidden in our cells.”  

So your claim is "there is a language hidden in our cells, but nobody actually knows what it is, so I can't demonstrate that it is a language".  DNA is a naturally occurring pattern, the pattern comes from duplication.  Evolution is based on duplication, you will see duplicates, you will see patterns.  That's the whole point!


MRasheed wrote: “Wait.  That's not what the article was about.  It didn't mean that we should be amazed at what patterns are in our languages, but that we should be amazed that the so-called junk DNA is actually a hidden message coded into our cells.  THAT'S the awesome part.  That kicks Carl Sagan's fictional "message hidden in pi" concept in the @ss as far as scientific proof from God.”

The article was about how all languages are too similar for it to be a coincidence, which is not a surprise considering they all have a root.  It was also about how patterns in DNA occur so often that it looks like it was put there; it was, but by a natural phenomenon called duplication (as I keep harping on about.)

There might be a microscopic giraffe in my bed.

There might be a lot of things, but without proof that they are real, or at least sufficient evidence to make them very probable there is no basis to claim they are there, and certainly no reason to live your life as if they were proven facts.

MRasheed wrote: “That means very little considering the is also a limited pallet of minerals and elements that make up all life (and non-life) in the universe too.  It points only to the the Supreme Creator using His prefered materials in making His creation.” 

No, please re-read my initial post.  These are infections.  They arrived in the genome of a shared ancestor at some point in the past.  For your argument to be true god would have either have had to

1: Create all life, let it exist for a long time, and then go back and insert a retrovirus DNA into the same position of different species' genomes; making it look like we had inherited it from a common ancestor...or
2: Create all life from the beginning where different species have the same chunk of DNA in the same position, and then from that subset of DNA made viruses which infect people and may become endogenous; again making it look as though we inherited it.

The facts are
1: This DNA is from a retro virus infection.
2: It is prevalent due to inheritance from ancestors.

So now you have to ask which is most likely?
A: It is there because what we observe in nature today has been going on for a very long time.
B: Some supernatural being created us all and fabricated all this evidence to make it look like option "A" is true.

What do you think?

TheRationalizer - I suspect this rather one sided discussion has come to an end  :)

Muhammad Rasheed - Did you debunk my strongest argument?  God said He taught man the use of the pen + DNA having a language coded within it?

Did you debunk that or talk around it?

Muhammad Rasheed - TheRationalizer wrote: “I'd like to suggest that we both present what we feel is the strongest argument.”

Obviously my argument still stands, while your strongest argument consisted of "Google it."  

I win.

Muhammad Rasheed - TheRationalizer wrote: “2: Evolution through natural selection is the scientific theory that says how natural selection guides the fact of evolution to create different (but similar) species.”

Let the record show that at no point ever has a new species been observed to form from the concept of natural selection.  After millions of fruit fruit breeding, after thousands of years of barnyard artificial selection, a brand new species has never been produced from an previous species.  The whole idea is upheld solely by blind faith in the hopes that one day a fact might emerge to support it in some way.   Your strongest argument is composed of blind faith.

My argument (since this thread was created I actually have an even stronger argument, but we can ride this one out) in which God said He was the one that taught man that which he knew not, and we find that the so-called "junk DNA" has some kind of actual message hidden within it, is a potent one that you can only talk around, but are unable to actually shoot down or prove wrong.

captndisguise - Some people can't think outside of the box. They will never understand that the "pattern/information" they see in nature is a characteristic of their mind or their perception of nature rather than nature itself.

Qtian - MRasheed wrote: “My argument (since this thread was created I actually have an even stronger argument, but we can ride this one out) in which God said He was the one that taught man that which he knew not, and we find that the so-called "junk DNA" has some kind of actual message hidden within it, is a potent one that you can only talk around, but are unable to actually shoot down or prove wrong.”

Can you reference your claim please?

I mean, it's not the maturest thing when you assert that we will only be able to "talk around" your argument, but you don't actually provide us with a source for your claim(s)?

David - MRasheed wrote: “Let the record show that at no point ever has a new species been observed to form from the concept of natural selection.  a brand new species has never been produced from an previous species.”  

There's quite a lot of debate among taxonomists as to what actually constitutes a species, as opposed to a sub-species or a variant. 

But do you really believe that all species are of equal age? Cycads are little changed since the Jurassic era; most other plants have evolved considerably and given birth to new species (plus sub-species and variants). Do you deny the fossil record?

Rob - Answer me a question because I'm interested in what you're saying. If speciation is observed (ie someone manages to breed animals until they have an undisputed new species), will your belief in god then end? Or will you move on to another argument?

bogart - Speciation has been observed, Dogs are the best example. Speciation without human interference. It happened with flowers in Washington, called goatsbeard. It happening with Rhagoletis pomonella which started 150 years ago.

Forbidden Archeology is not peer-reviewed nor did the writers submit any of the research. Beside the authors are not even archaeologist. One is a mathematician and the other is a nobody writer. Thus the books is not evidence of anything but wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

The point about DNA has no merit since you are fitting a vast amount of science into a tiny verse. Post hoc rationalization only works for the believer and one lacking an education in biology.

In reality MRasheed produced no arguments nor credible rebuttals.

captndisguise - I think when MrRasheed says, "a new species", he is thinking about getting a cat out of a dog or something similar. People who don't believe speciation happens usually have a different (read unrealistic/magical) understanding of what speciation is supposed to mean.

Rob - I'm still interested in the argument that goes "I can prove God exists because of X". It amuses me that, once "X" is shown to be false they not only persist with their belief, they move on to a different version of "X". How often can a person do that before doubt in their faith sets in? Surely it must?

bogart - captndisguise wrote: “I think when MrRasheed says, "a new species", he is thinking about getting a cat out of a dog or something similar. People who don't believe speciation happens usually have a different (read unrealistic/magical) understanding of what speciation is supposed to mean.”

This is due to not paying attention to grade school biology. I do agree that people that are usually against evolution do not understand it to begin with. This misconception fuels their views which end up being non-starters due to the misconception.

Lilyesque - I shall respond to the speciation thing later on.

Rob - captndisguise wrote: “I think when MrRasheed says, "a new species", he is thinking about getting a cat out of a dog or something similar. People who don't believe speciation happens usually have a different (read unrealistic/magical) understanding of what speciation is supposed to mean.”

Possibly so but he wrote...
"Let the record show that at no point ever has a new species been observed to form from the concept of natural selection.  After millions of fruit fruit breeding, after thousands of years of barnyard artificial selection, a brand new species has never been produced from an previous species.  The whole idea is upheld solely by blind faith in the hopes that one day a fact might emerge to support it in some way.   Your strongest argument is composed of blind faith."
... which indicates to me that he does have a reasonable concept of what it means.
So, if a new species were to be created by say, breeding mice in a laboratory until we had a new species that was no longer a mouse and was able to reproduce, but not with mice. If that happened, would he lose his faith?

bogart - Dogs refuted his views of barnyard artificial selection. Most of his arguments are just ignorance, inability to research beyond confirmation bias and lack of an education in the topic at hand.

Muhammad Rasheed - captndisguise wrote: “Some people can't think outside of the box. They will never understand that the "pattern/information" they see in nature is a characteristic of their mind or their perception of nature rather than nature itself.”

That's one way of putting it.  Another way is to recognize that researchers from Boston University and Harvard Medical School are the ones who did the tests as I pointed out, and the patterns are actually documented according to Zipf's Law.  Naturally I can only conclude that it was your own rather telling inability to see outside of your little box that prevented you from reading/acknowledging/understanding that. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Qtian wrote: “Can you reference your claim please?”

The first part is referenced in Sura 96, while the other part is referenced in Science, vol. 266, November 25, 1994, p. 1320, “’Junk’ throws up precious secret,” BBC News Online Science Staff, May 12, 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/science/nature/3703935.stm

The reference is clearly listed at the bottom of my argument.  Curious that you didn't notice it.  I guess that represents the level of scholarship I can expect from you as I catch up on these new posts then?  

Muhammad Rasheed - David wrote: “ There's quite a lot of debate among taxonomists as to what actually constitutes a species, as opposed to a sub-species or a variant.”

So if the experts can't come to a fundamental agreement on what even a standard metric is to judge by, then what is this contest about?  Or is that just something you're throwing out there to cover your butt to explain away a potential loss...?

David wrote: “But do you really believe that all species are of equal age?”

Is that my argument?  I don't ever remember saying that.  That smells suspiciously like a strawman.  The data record demonstrates that major transitions in the biological development of species show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.  There is actually zero evidence that species slowly evolve into different species... the very concept that evolutionary theory needs to demonstrate in order to be true.  Without the necessary facts to support it, evolutionism is just a faith-based system supported by hopes, dreams & wishing.

David wrote: “Cycads are little changed since the Jurassic era"

That's not helping your case.  Biological changes are supposed to be automatic from continuous molecular-level mutations according to the theory.

David wrote: “...most other plants have evolved considerably and given birth to new species (plus sub-species and variants).”

According to what?  I thought you said there is no agreement as to what a separate species even is?  According to you any change that might be demonstrated is just in your mind.

David wrote: “Do you deny the fossil record?”

Do I deny the fossil record doing what?

Muhammad Rasheed -  Rob wrote: “Answer me a question because I'm interested in what you're saying. If speciation is observed (ie someone manages to breed animals until they have an undisputed new species), will your belief in god then end? Or will you move on to another argument?”

I don't understand why my belief in God would end.  Why would that be?  It is the atheist community that is desperately looking for something to replace God with by, oddly, digging around in His creation.  lol  

It was TheRationalizer who challenged me to come to this thread, remember?  That foolishness doesn't belong to me.  Finding an item that may support your pet theory wouldn't disprove the existence of God would it? 

Muhammad Rasheed - bogart wrote: “Speciation has been observed, Dogs are the best example.”

The best example of what now?  Dogs are one species.  A 'breed' is not a separate species.  All the dog breeds are capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring.  Your claim that "speciation has been observed" is not a scientific fact, but a demonstration of a true believer bearing witness based on his blind faith.

 bogart wrote: “Speciation without human interference. It happened with flowers in Washington, called goatsbeard. It happening with Rhagoletis pomonella which started 150 years ago.”

lol Sure.

 bogart wrote: “Forbidden Archeology is not peer-reviewed nor did the writers submit any of the research. Beside the authors are not even archaeologist. One is a mathematician and the other is a nobody writer. Thus the books is not evidence of anything but wishful thinking and confirmation bias.”

The book is no less than a compilation of numerous scientific anomalies found in nature that do not fit the evolutionary theory model.  The authors did not create them, as seems to be your odd belief, but only compiled into a single published source items that were already observed and documented by scientists in the field, only to be put away with disturbed confusion by those same scientists.

 bogart wrote: “The point about DNA has no merit since you are fitting a vast amount of science into a tiny verse. Post hoc rationalization only works for the believer and one lacking an education in biology.”

1.) God said it was He who taught mankind that which he knew not.
2.) Researchers from respected institutions (Boston University and Harvard Medical School no less) have found evidence for there being an actual language structure within our basic building block cells.  Your inability to think outside of your narrow-minded atheist box prevents you from seeing the significance of these two points.

Muhammad Rasheed -  captndisguise wrote: “I think when MrRasheed says, "a new species", he is thinking about getting a cat out of a dog or something similar. People who don't believe speciation happens usually have a different (read unrealistic/magical) understanding of what speciation is supposed to mean.”

And here I thought I meant that a completely new animal was gradually evolved from a series of different animals over time, where a clear trail of the different transforming species would be left in the fossil record.  

In reality, people who believe speciation actually happens think like witch doctor pagans, and have a magical view of science at odds with the actual data available.

Rob - I don't want to ruin the original debate completely so I won't contribute after this.
The reason for the question was that you wanted to show me a reason why I should believe in a god. I was wondering whether, if the reason was shown to be false, the result would affect your position. Since it will not, I don't really see the point in the debate.
I know its a completely pointless exercise but allow me to state my own position on atheism: I don't believe in god.

Muhammad Rasheed -  Rob wrote: “I'm still interested in the argument that goes "I can prove God exists because of X". It amuses me that, once "X" is shown to be false they not only persist with their belief, they move on to a different version of "X". How often can a person do that before doubt in their faith sets in? Surely it must?”

1.) I never said, "I can prove God exists because of X," as the challenge from TheRationalizer to me was for each of us to demonstrate our "strongest argument."  I picked an argument that personally has me excited about the implications involved, but i understand that the stubborn narrow-mind tends to lack that kind of mental flexibility, such as that which you demonstrate.  

2.)  I look forward to you showing "X" to be false.  I'm riveted.

David -  MRasheed wrote: “to cover your butt to explain away a potential loss...?”

Some of us are not interested in winning the internet.

I'm a gardener by trade, but don't know enough about plant evolution to argue with with a slippery smartarse who always knows best. Can't be bothered, sorry.

Muhammad Rasheed -  bogart wrote: “Dogs refuted his views of barnyard artificial selection.”

By doing what exactly?  No longer being dogs?  Because that would be exactly what evolutionary theory needs to support itself.  The absence of such shunts it to the realm of nonsense pagan religion, sucking funds from the world's governments to support its foolishness. 

 bogart wrote: “Most of his arguments are just ignorance...”

Oh?  And do you still believe breeding dogs into yet more dogs demonstrates speciation in action?  Because if so, I would be careful of leveling the charge of 'ignorance' at other people.   Your own paganism version of willful ignorance in the face of clear facts is on a level all of its own.

 bogart wrote: “...inability to research beyond confirmation bias and lack of an education in the topic at hand.”

To the contrary, my research has revealed to me exactly what evolution scientist proponents actually hold within their cards, and I now have significantly less respect for the field than I had before.  The stench of hypocrisy is cloying.  You probably shouldn't go around making fun of others for their blind faith when it is precisely what you yourselves operate out of.  At least Al-Islam is SUPPOSED to work on faith, right?  Tsk.

Muhammad Rasheed -  David wrote: “Some of us are not interested in winning the internet.  I'm a gardener by trade, but don't know enough about plant evolution to argue with with a slippery smartarse who always knows best. Can't be bothered, sorry."

Bow down to your Guardian Lord who created you, repent of your rejection of Him, and do as He commands so that you may instead win in both this life and in the next.

Muhammad Rasheed -  Rob wrote: “The reason for the question was that you wanted to show me a reason why I should believe in a god. I was wondering whether, if the reason was shown to be false, the result would affect your position. Since it will not, I don't really see the point in the debate.”

I was challenged to the debate by one of your members, and called myself being a sport by contributing.  It's really no more complex than that, Rob.

 Rob wrote: “I know its a completely pointless exercise but allow me to state my own position on atheism: I don't believe in god.”

That is kind of the whole point of "atheism."  Thanks, I guess.   lol

lua - Mrasheed, this might've been covered in your intro thread, but I can't read that thing. That sucker is like 70 pages long if I'm remembering correctly. But I've seen you discussing biology every time I happened across your posts on this forum, so I wondered if you had any scientific background. Did you take any university-level biology classes? Are you in the field? Or is this just something you're interested in?

Muhammad Rasheed - My background is in cartooning, illustration, publishing, animation.  Science and comparative religion are among my personal interests and hobbies.

ateapotist - What is your opinion on cartoons of Muhammad? Do you think they should be banned?

Muhammad Rasheed - I think, because of mankind's penchant for devolving into paganism and worshiping such things eventually, that we probably shouldn't create images of the prophets.  Personally I don't care for disbelievers creating offensive images of figures from my sacred belief system.

I don't think they should be banned though.

lua -  MRasheed wrote: “My background is in cartooning, illustration, publishing, animation.  Science and comparative religion are among my personal interests and hobbies.”

Thanks. May I ask where you get your information in regards to biology? Do you use google? Do you have any commentators on the field whose works you prefer? Do you read any textbooks?

Muhammad Rasheed – All of the above.

lua - And, again, my apologies, because I'm not about to go through your 70-something page thread in its entirety, so I undoubtedly missed this, but is it your position that evolution is not true? And if so, you've found nothing in your sources to indicate that it would be?

Muhammad Rasheed - I believe in a smaller scale form of evolution... behavioral evolution, emotional evolution, an evolution in maturity development from child to adult.  Societal.  Technological even. But there's no evidence for Evolutionary Theory as being the catalyst for the origin of species as those proponents claim.  In fact, their literature is peppered with blind faith statements of what they someday hope to find, completely at odds with the "overwhelming evidence" laymen true believers like Dawkins like to falsely proclaim.   

dr_sloth - Debating evolution is so 2010. 
Most apologists learned to avoid the subject altogether, only reluctantly wheeling out a rehearsed response about 'the limitations of science' when pushed.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's actually one of the truths about the field that my own research has found.  

A curious factoid considering scientists in every other field have zero problem debating their findings.  Evolutionary theorists hide in the closet, allowing the ignorant lay folk to proselytize for them based on the “overwhelming evidence” they BELIEVE is available.  smh

There's another component to the evolution scientists' behavior that's even worst, and even more telling:  they cheat.

Kodanshi -  MRasheed wrote: “I believe in a smaller scale form of evolution... behavioral evolution, emotional evolution, an evolution in maturity development from child to adult.  Societal.  Technological even. But there's no evidence for Evolutionary Theory as being the catalyst for the origin of species as those proponents claim”

Ah, so you believe in stairs but not a staircase. I see.

lua - Interesting. And it's also interesting, to be honest, that you call hypotheses based off of a model blind faith. Using a best-fit model to make assumptions of what we expect to one day find is what drives scientific discovery and is crucial to the scientific method. I would even suggest that the occasional biologist who speaks out against evolution is attempting to employ some form of the scientific method, or else I'm certain you wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.

I do sometimes regret that we're so hasty to "prove" evolution as an unshakable fact rather than to discuss what it is and what function it serves as a theory, as a template and as a model to our understanding of life sciences, and I think it forces proponents, particularly in religious debates, to defend any ostensible outliers or gaps in our knowledge of evolution and for creationists to scramble to find these gaps and outliers. 

The reason we use evolution, particularly in cell biology as of late, or at least keep it in the back of our minds, is because the model tends to fit and it tends help us form hypotheses that eventually can become demonstrably true. I wonder if you and perhaps even those who support it are dwelling too much on whether or not evolution is an actual fact of the world that can never be modified or replaced, and less about what it is that makes it a theory rather than a law: that it is currently the best fit model when we take to experimentation or when we analyze genomes and other such problems that we currently have no better answer to.

You don't quite dethrone evolution by pointing out that there's still refinements to be made in the system or that there are unanswered questions or what appears to be problems in anecdotal cases. You do it by, if not modifying the idea of evolution to satisfy those issues and then proceeding to test it further, replacing it with something better that we can design experiments off of.

If it's your belief that you do have a better working model to understand biology on a macro and micro scale,  I and many others would like to hear it, and, more importantly, there are many significant monetary rewards being offered for someone who can demonstrate this, both by scientists and by creationists. Unfortunately, they haven't been claimed yet. But maybe someday.

lua -  MRasheed wrote: “Lua, at this point, I don't even remember what was in that old intro thread.”

I actually tried to read it once, because it was the longest one I'd seen on here, and I think I got to page 10 or something and had to stop. It got crazy fast.

dr_sloth -  MRasheed wrote: “That's actually one of the truths about the field that my own research has found.”  

A curious factoid considering scientists in every other field have zero problem debating their findings.  

the debate is over. you guys lost. You gotta learn to move on. To continue the debate would just be rubbing it in.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who are "you guys?"

dr_sloth - whoever thinks there is some kind of scientific conspiracy against creationism.

Asbie -  lua wrote: “And, again, my apologies, because I'm not about to go through your 70-something page thread in its entirety”

Shame, because its comedy gold.

Muhammad Rasheed -  dr_sloth wrote: “whoever thinks there is some kind of scientific conspiracy against creationism.”

I wouldn't consider it a scientific conspiracy against creationism, but a scientific conspiracy to uphold evolutionism.

captndisguise - Oh yeah. That makes it better!

Muhammad Rasheed -  lua wrote: “Interesting. And it's also interesting, to be honest, that you call hypotheses based off of a model blind faith.”

In having numerous discussions with atheists over the years, one of their primary contentions is their disdain over religion's “lack of facts” and its proponents’ penchant for “blind faith.”  They also tend to uphold evolution as their god of life on earth.  To discover that they don’t have any facts that they need to pull their own system out of the blind faith section is interesting to me also.

lua wrote: “Using a best-fit model to make assumptions of what we expect to one day find is what drives scientific discovery and is crucial to the scientific method.”

That’s where the “cheating” I mentioned comes in at.  It isn’t a best fit model, Lua, it’s only what they want to be true.  And now they have a billion dollar industry built up around the concept, so now they NEED it to be true.  There’s no actual science here, there’s only deception in the guise of science.

lua wrote: “I would even suggest that the occasional biologist who speaks out against evolution is attempting to employ some form of the scientific method, or else I'm certain you wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.”

They actually aren’t “speaking out against it,” really.  They are just casually mentioning what’s actually available to their peers who are in the know.  For someone like myself, who is often attacked for his belief in a “faith-based system with no facts to support it,” admissions like that tend to stand out like a blaring noise when coming from scientist proponents of a system that is supposed to replace God and His sacred scripture.

lua wrote: “I do sometimes regret that we're so hasty to "prove" evolution as an unshakable fact rather than to discuss what it is and what function it serves as a theory, as a template and as a model to our understanding of life sciences, and I think it forces proponents, particularly in religious debates, to defend any ostensible outliers or gaps in our knowledge of evolution and for creationists to scramble to find these gaps and outliers.”

At this point, I think it’s just in the way.  It’s distracting the scientific community from getting to the true heart of the origin of species in the record, because they are more concerned over protecting the integrity of the theory than they are finding out the truth in nature.  Again that’s NOT science. 

lua wrote: “The reason we use evolution, particularly in cell biology as of late, or at least keep it in the back of our minds, is because the model tends to fit…”

A lack of facts to support the theory proves that not to be true.  You know what you sound like?  Like a Christian attempting to clumsily explain how the trinity doctrine is actually monotheism.

lua wrote: “…and it tends help us form hypotheses that eventually can become demonstrably true.”

lol Lua, please.   You’re only confirming my point that this is more religion than science, from the same vein that atheists deride in theists.  They are forming false hypotheses, based on a false theory unsupported by any facts, in the hopes that maybe kinda perhaps a fact might emerge someday if they pray really, Really, REALLY hard, or at least often enough that Darwin himself might grant their wish.  Maybe.  

lua wrote: “I wonder if you and perhaps even those who support it are dwelling too much on whether or not evolution is an actual fact of the world that can never be modified or replaced, and less about what it is that makes it a theory rather than a law:”

I would imagine that at least a single supporting fact would be needed to upgrade it from blind faith paganism to just the basic hypothesis level.  I’m sure they will let us know should such a thing decide to manifest based on the power of pagan prayer (I wouldn’t hold my breath though).   

lua wrote: “…that it is currently the best fit model when we take to experimentation or when we analyze genomes and other such problems that we currently have no better answer to.”

lol No.   That’s what both wishing and wasting money sound like in turns.

lua wrote: “You don't quite dethrone evolution…”

Evolution sits on no thrones.  It is a fiction.  

lua wrote: “…by pointing out that there's still refinements to be made in the system…”

A single fact that would support any aspect of it wouldn’t be a “refinement,” Lua, it would be a major validation for all of the funding, grants, etc.

lua wrote: “…or that there are unanswered questions or what appears to be problems in anecdotal cases.”

ALL of evolutionary theory’s questions are unanswered.   All.

lua wrote: “You do it by, if not modifying the idea of evolution to satisfy those issues and then proceeding to test it further, replacing it with something better that we can design experiments off of.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Throw evolutionary theory in the garbage, never to mention it again except in shame, and develop a whole new model based on the actual data in the record.  No more hiding, cheating, and supporting foolishness.  Uncover the facts within the natural world and build hypotheses that conform around those facts, altering and adjusting as new facts come to light.  

lua wrote: “If it's your belief that you do have a better working model to understand biology on a macro and micro scale,  I and many others would like to hear it…”

I would start with bearing witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.  That would cut down significantly on embarrassing foolishness such as what the science world is currently dealing with.

lua wrote: “and, more importantly, there are many significant monetary rewards being offered for someone who can demonstrate this, both by scientists and by creationists. Unfortunately, they haven't been claimed yet. But maybe someday.”

As long as all funds and resources are being directed into the evolutionary black hole of nonsense, this will probably never happen.  All legitimate efforts to produce new, far more worthy theories around the facts are immediately ostracized by this billion dollar paganism bureaucratic institution.

Muhammad Rasheed -  captndisguise wrote: “Oh yeah. That makes it better!”

Evolutionism is the one that needs all the artificial help.

bogart -  MRasheed wrote: “The best example of what now?  Dogs are one species.  A 'breed' is not a separate species.  All the dog breeds are capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring.  Your claim that "speciation has been observed" is not a scientific fact, but a demonstration of a true believer bearing witness based on his blind faith.”

Nope it has been observed into two species in a short amount of time and in dog over a long period.


MRasheed wrote: “The Book is no less than a compilation of numerous scientific anomalies found in nature that do not fit the evolutionary theory model.  The authors did not create them, as seems to be your odd belief, but only compiled into a single published source items that were already observed and documented by scientists in the field, only to be put away with disturbed confusion by those same scientists.”

Which used data from the 19th centuries. The authors are not aware of dating contamination. This happens in burials with fire and water which erode markers in the bodies replacing these marks with the ground material. Hence why the dating is so far off, he is dating the ground ignorant of the contamination. This happens when one is not qualified in the field they write about. Heck we have dated modern can to thousands to millions of years old due to contamination. The book was never peer-reviewed so never confirmed. Given how poorly research it is I am not surprised. Also the fact that 19th and 20th centuries were comprised of rich amateurs rather than trained profession these mistakes are common.  Much of this early work has been refuted and corrected by modern professionals. Although well written it is not well researched.

Quote
1.) God said it was He who taught mankind that which he knew not.
2.) Researchers from respected institutions (Boston University and Harvard Medical School no less) have found evidence for there being an actual language structure within our basic building block cells.  Your inability to think outside of your narrow-minded atheist box prevents you from seeing the significance of these two points.

Post hoc rationalization. There is a lot man kind did not know. We did not know about flight, we did not know about other solar systems. You take a vague verse and retrofit in to match your faith, nothing more. The fact that you rely on insults is sad. I am not obligated to accept people's wishful thinking just because one is enamoured with their own confirmation bias. Link the study. Unsubstantiated opinion is meaningless.

Amusing  amount of non-arguments you have presented. The only thing you have been doing is useless banter as dodge

Muhammad Rasheed -  bogart wrote: “Nope it has been observed into two species in a short amount of time and in dog over a long period.”

Is a "short amount of time" now considered "evolution?"  Because that sounds suspiciously of the opposite of that.

 bogart wrote: “Which used data from the 19th centuries.”

So?  And what century was Darwin's nonsense published in?  

 bogart wrote: “The authors are not aware of dating contamination. This happens in burials with fire and water which erode markers in the bodies replacing these marks with the ground material. Hence why the dating is so far off, he is dating the ground ignorant of the contamination. This happens when one is not qualified in the field they write about.”

I thought you said there were no peer reviews?  So how do you know what their data was doing or not doing?  You are typing nonsense until you line-by-line review the material they presented as either supporting or not supporting evolutionary theory.  Outside of that your opinion is only meaningless babbling.

 bogart wrote: “Heck we have dated modern can to thousands to millions of years old due to contamination.”

Where?

 bogart wrote: “The book was never peer-reviewed so never confirmed.”

Then why are you pretending to know what's real in it?

 bogart wrote: “Given how poorly research it is I am not surprised.”

That's exactly how I feel about your precious evolution theory.  Forbidden Archaeology is merely a compilation of science anomalies found in nature by reputable science.  Your criticism doesn't even make sense outside of shining a spotlight on the butthurt you radiate. 

 bogart wrote: “Also the fact that 19th and 20th centuries were comprised of rich amateurs rather than trained profession these mistakes are common.”

Obviously you have decided to make fun of Darwin and his supporters.  My, how quickly they turn, eh?

 bogart wrote: “Much of this early work has been refuted and corrected by modern professionals.”

Where?

 bogart wrote: “Although well written it is not well researched.”

You seem to know an awful lot about the scientific conscientious around a book that was never peer reviewed.  Curious.  

 bogart wrote: “Post hoc rationalization.”

Whatever you wish to call it.  There's still an undeniable potency to the findings that conflict with a mundane/secular model of the universe.

 bogart wrote: “There is a lot man kind did not know. We did not know about flight, we did not know about other solar systems.”

Did you know that Francis Crick had a [spiritual] vision of the DNA double helix before it's discovery?  Fascinating, innit?  :)

 bogart wrote: “You take a vague verse and retrofit in to match your faith, nothing more.”

That's what the narrow-minded always say.  I expect no less than what they are capable.  That double helix comment means absolutely nothing to you in context of the Sura 96 verse, am I right?  

 bogart wrote: “The fact that you rely on insults is sad.”

So you don't consider any of those comments you made towards me to be insults on the other page, bogart?  I guess atheists don't believe in integrity either then.  Somehow I am not surprised.

 bogart wrote: “I am not obligated to accept people's wishful thinking just because one is enamoured with their own confirmation bias. Link the study. Unsubstantiated opinion is meaningless.”

Atheism and all that it upholds over the truth of the One God are meaningless.   Get yourself together while ye yet have life to do so. 

lua -  MRasheed wrote: “In having numerous discussions with atheists over the years, one of their primary contentions is their disdain over religion's “lack of facts” and its proponents’ penchant for “blind faith.”  They also tend to uphold evolution as their god of life on earth.  To discover that they don’t have any facts that they need to pull their own system out of the blind faith section is interesting to me also.”

I think the distinction that perhaps you're not appreciating here is that, when someone remarks on religion being a "blind faith" ordeal, it's actually just that, and theists are often very proud of it. Faith, after all, is virtuous in religions and is in fact kind of the cornerstone of at least Christianity and Islam--after all, how much more of the Quran would become problematic to explain if faith were not required? Then what's the point? Isn't this life a test full of deception and distractions to see if you come out holding firmly to faith regardless of what the natural world seems to suggest?

When we mean religion is faith, we really mean it, and religion doesn't aspire to be anything other than this. Of course, the reason you are here, and the reason why creationism vs. evolution is ever an issue to begin with, is because you're now in the position, as someone who very much wants to preserve a belief system dear to you, where you may feel compelled to fight against any evidence that your faith is at odds with the natural world. This is the only reason religion and science collides. No one is designing experiments to demonstrate the existence of Allah or Vishnu or the Holy Spirit. It's a game based on faith, and a lot of theists like it this way.

Try not to make the mistake, however, of equating scientific hypotheses with faith. They are guesses, yes, but not faith. They have no merit to the scientific community until they are demonstrated. Unlike in matters of religious faith, we endeavor to prove them, while religious claims are substantiated only by their own assertions, and, unfortunately, all of them claim to be correct, so what're you going to do?

 MRasheed wrote: “That’s where the 'cheating' I mentioned comes in at.  It isn’t a best fit model, Lua, it’s only what they want to be true.  And now they have a billion dollar industry built up around the concept, so now they NEED it to be true.  There’s no actual science here, there’s only deception in the guise of science.”

It has actually served me quite well in cell biology and microbiology. Do you have qualms with these, or are you more of a no macroevolution kind of guy?

I have to ask more details about this conspiracy. You mention a billion dollar industry. What is the product of this industry? Who are the consumers? Who is paying into it, and who is getting paid? How is evolution, and uniquely evolution, required for this industry to function? Before I agree that this devious conspiracy is taking place, I need to see some evidence. Give me some figures, names, details, anything. Explain how this works, and then we can discuss it. But this vague cloak-and-dagger stuff is difficult, you surely understand, to have a purposeful discussion about. So I eagerly await your clarification.

 MRasheed wrote: “They actually aren’t “speaking out against it,” really.  They are just casually mentioning what’s actually available to their peers who are in the know.  For someone like myself, who is often attacked for his belief in a “faith-based system with no facts to support it,” admissions like that tend to stand out like a blaring noise.”

I can sympathize with this, actually. When I was a Muslim, I felt like I was standing between the two worlds, and trying to justify scientific discoveries to Muslims, and trying to justify Islam and faith to my coworkers. I resented this way of attacking and dismissing religion when I was a part of it, and tried very hard to keep in mind that faith is a virtue and my religious beliefs could exist separately from the inner workings of the natural world, that the standard for religion and the standards for science are so completely different that they ought not to be compared. Indeed, they are impossible to compare. Grasping for ways to flip the accusations onto my accusers, however, not only reveal me as petty or insecure with my faith at best, but uneducated and ill-informed about my field at worst. 

 MRasheed wrote: “because they are more concerned over protecting the integrity of the theory than they are finding out the truth in nature.  Again that’s NOT science.”

Although I cannot agree with the conspiracy still as, like I said, I'm personally fond of applying it and have found no discrepancies during my work, and because I still need to hear more about this global conspiracy, I completely agree with the quoted part above. Our personal feelings of what we wish to be true and our biases absolutely get in the way of scientific discovery. It's been a huge problem. May god bless Galileo's poor dead heart. 

 MRasheed wrote: “A lack of facts to support the theory proves that not to be true.”

Sorry, but this is not correct. A lack of facts to support a theory does not prove that it is not true. If that were the case, a lack of facts to support Islam as the true religion would prove that Islam is not true. But, of course, you will not want to say that, and nor would I. 

It's difficult to prove a negative. It's usually impossible. Although I, again, disagree that there's no evidence to support evolution for now, even if we were to accept that there wasn't, it does not prove that it is not true. Substantial and significant experiments or evidence to the contrary would suggest it unlikely, as would our ability to replace it with a better model. 

 MRasheed wrote: “lol Lua, please.   You’re are only confirming my point that this is more religion than science, from the same vein that atheists deride in theists.  They are forming false hypotheses, based on a false theory unsupported by any facts, in the hopes that maybe kinda perhaps a fact might emerge someday if they pray really, Really, REALLY hard, or at least often enough that Darwin himself might grant their wish.  Maybe.”

Again, if you wish to make these claims, you'll have to provide me something to work with. I know many scientists. I'd like to consider myself one on a good day. I'm familiar with many studies and have conducted several, myself. I've seen no one praying to Darwin and only the occasional grad student who really didn't want to modify or scrap their prized research idea who was unable to accept that their results are not supported by their data. 

So for me to agree with you, you need to give me some examples, some evidence, something to show that what you're claiming is true. Asking for you to provide this is very scientific, wouldn't you agree?

 MRasheed wrote: “Evolution sits on no thrones.  It is a fiction.” 

I extend my congratulations for your clever but shallow response to the word I chose. It was good fun. But you know what I mean. Let's not get petty here, that wouldn't be enjoyable for either of us.

 MRasheed wrote: “A single fact that would support any aspect of it wouldn’t be a 'refinement,' Lua, it would be a major validation.”

Either you misunderstood what I wrote, or I need you to rephrase this. Sorry in either case.

 MRasheed wrote: “I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Throw evolutionary theory in the garbage, never to mention it again except in shame, and develop a whole new model based on the actual data in the record.  No more hiding, cheating, and supporting foolishness.  Uncover the facts within the natural world and build hypotheses that conform around those facts, altering and adjusting as new facts come to life.”

Well, no, you do have to replace it first. Whether we wish to disagree on evolution, I am certain you have faith in other scientific discoveries which you and I both happily benefit from on a regular basis. These were not achieved by burning every model and starting from scratch. 

Pardon my wording, but proper theories undergo a process of evolution, some more dramatic than others, and rarely in recent scientific history has an idea been completely scrapped and a new one formed. Sure, it happens sometimes, but if it happened every time it would be such an extraordinary waste, as the correct answer often emerges as a reincarnation of a prior one. More often, they are modified and reshaped, perhaps hundreds or thousands of times, in order to carve out the truth. Stripping down evolution and leaving us with no model at all isn't going to be very useful.

 MRasheed wrote: “I would start with bearing witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.  That would cut down significantly on embarrassing foolishness such as what the science world is currently dealing with.”

There are many creationists offering that prize money for the person who replaces the theory of evolution. I'm afraid if you wrote that on a scrap of paper and submitted it you'd be no wealthier for it, though.

 MRasheed wrote: “As long as all funds and resources are being directed into the evolutionary black hole of nonsense, this will probably never happen.  All legitimate efforts to produce new, far more worthy theories around the facts are immediately ostracized by this billion dollar paganism bureaucratic institution.” 

Again, I await a comprehensive explanation of this conspiracy.

Muhammad Rasheed -  lua wrote: “I think the distinction that perhaps you're not appreciating here is that…”

lua, I have no problem at all with ‘faith’ being the activating component of Al-Islam.  The issue isn’t with me, it is with the hypocrisy oft demonstrated in my ideological enemy.   With enthusiastic glee I mock and abuse him for it.  I’m currently waiting on an opponent less respectful than yourself to heap this upon, since you’ve really proven not to deserve the full force of it, though bogart seems to have deserted me.  A pity.  

 lua wrote: “Try not to make the mistake, however, of equating scientific hypotheses with faith. They are guesses, yes, but not faith. They have no merit to the scientific community until they are demonstrated.”

Scientists have faith that the facts to support their theories are out there to find.   In the case of evolutionary theory, with decades of research, billions in grants & funding, and yet not a single fact to support it, it has now quite obviously a doctrinal belief system and not of science at all.  This is what all of that research has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to all but the most earnest true believers.

 lua wrote: “Unlike in matters of religious faith, we endeavor to prove them, while religious claims are substantiated only by their own assertions, and, unfortunately, all of them claim to be correct, so what're you going to do?”

There are two aspects to religion:

1.)   Belief in the unseen
2.)   The scholarship around the actual scientifically measurable physical pages of text, the cultural knowledge of the events of history, and the relics of the belief system.

With the latter, there is actually quite a bit we can do, prove, and substantiate.  Let me assure you the Qur’an is exactly what it claims to be: revealed scripture sent down to you as a mercy and a guide from the Supreme Creator of reality.  

 lua wrote: “It has actually served me quite well in cell biology and microbiology. Do you have qualms with these, or are you more of a no macroevolution kind of guy?”

I would like to think that a major part of your work actually involves creating experiments, identifying and documenting new facts as they come to light, and not in trying to somehow create a new species, or disprove God.    The former would certainly be activities that would “serve you well,” while the latter would only be a colossal waste of time.

 lua wrote: “Grasping for ways to flip the accusations onto my accusers, however, not only reveal me as petty or insecure with my faith at best, but uneducated and ill-informed about my field at worst.”

lol No “grasping” is required since my opponents do an excellent job of proudly wearing their hypocrisies around their necks like bedazzled dog collars.  I merely have to push their nose into their filth then point & laugh.   I am quite secure in my faith and engage in public debate in my favorite topics as a pleasurable hobby only.  It’s more fun than chess, although similar in feel.      

 lua wrote: “Sorry, but this is not correct. A lack of facts to support a theory does not prove that it is not true.”

By definition this is true.  If there are no facts to support the theory as true, then the level-headed need to stop calling it a theory and start work on something else.

 lua wrote: “If that were the case, a lack of facts to support Islam as the true religion would prove that Islam is not true. But, of course, you will not want to say that, and nor would I.”

Well, I personally wouldn’t say it because I know that there are indeed facts to support Islam as being true.  Obviously your field of study is significantly more limited in scope.   

 lua wrote: “It's difficult to prove a negative. It's usually impossible. Although I, again, disagree that there's no evidence to support evolution for now…”

Really?  You recognize this as your blind faith at work, yes?

 lua wrote: “…even if we were to accept that there wasn't, it does not prove that it is not true. Substantial and significant experiments or evidence to the contrary would suggest it unlikely, as would our ability to replace it with a better model.”

Did you really type “substantial and significant” to describe decades of experiments that haven’t uncovered a single fact to support this theory?  Really?  Truly it’s comments just like that which add to the pot of the conspiracy you deny.  

Honestly, how do you justify using “substantial and significant” to experiments that have proven exactly nothing?  

 lua wrote: “I extend my congratulations for your clever but shallow response to the word I chose. It was good fun.”

Thanks, I have a bag full of them.

 lua wrote: “Well, no, you do have to replace it first.”

Do you hear yourself?  Are you suggesting that we uphold a LIE until the truth comes along?  I would much prefer to scrap the lie and actively search for the truth.  My time would be much more well spent.

 lua wrote: “Whether we wish to disagree on evolution, I am certain you have faith in other scientific discoveries which you and I both happily benefit from on a regular basis.”

The difference, which should be obvious, is that the scientific discoveries I benefit from are actually real and supported by facts, while evolution is a fiction that is supported by blind faith and wishes.  Please don’t force me to repeat that.  It’s starting to get embarrassing even to me.

 lua wrote: “These were not achieved by burning every model and starting from scratch.”

What do you mean?  Like flight?  Of course flight was achieved by discarding failed models that came before.  Are you kidding?  

 lua wrote: “Pardon my wording, but proper theories undergo a process of evolution, some more dramatic than others, and rarely in recent scientific history has an idea been completely scrapped and a new one formed. Sure, it happens sometimes, but if it happened every time it would be such an extraordinary waste, as the correct answer often emerges as a reincarnation of a prior one.”

You know why?  Because there were actually some facts that supported the parts of the theory worth salvaging.  Need I say more?  I really don’t have a problem kicking evolution theory while it is down…

 lua wrote: “More often, they are modified and reshaped, perhaps hundreds or thousands of times, in order to carve out the truth. Stripping down evolution and leaving us with no model at all isn't going to be very useful.”

lol And where is the use in it NOW?  *kick!*

 lua wrote: “There are many creationists offering that prize money for the person who replaces the theory of evolution. I'm afraid if you wrote that on a scrap of paper and submitted it you'd be no wealthier for it, though.”

Thanks, but I will be quite satisfied with the reward offered by my Lord for speaking His truth.  

 lua wrote: “Again, I await a comprehensive explanation of this conspiracy.”

Well, for one, evolution is pushed in the mainstream as “not just a theory,” and any and everyone are publicly shamed if they speak against it as anything other than true.  In academia, people literally lose their jobs if they dare to question it.  Many scientific institutions refuse to conduct certain experiments if there is a real danger of word getting out that the theory isn’t what it is purported to be.  

For example, dinosaur bone fossils often have soft material within them… red blood cells, collagen, veins… yet carbon dating centers will REFUSE to date them because of a hard stance against carbon dating dinosaur fossils because they are “too old.”  Obviously this would conflict with common sense, and yet, they refuse to carbon date anything except the layers of sediment surrounding where the fossil once lay.  In cases where the origins of the samples were deliberately hidden so that that they would be dated anyway, once the dates are shown to reflect data at odds with the evolutionary model of life on earth, an immediate smear campaign with character defamation, etc., are used to squash the findings to prevent them from becoming well known.  NONE of this is ‘science,’ and pretending these people are genuine truth seekers is an insult to both science & truth.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jedi wrote: “If you've got the patiance then you do that. I wasn't restricting anyone from wasting their time on a nutjob that clearly isn't interested in changing his mind.”

Why would I change my mind about not wanting to go to hell? Curious creatures these jedi.

What did you provide that could possibly induce me to change my mind that would be more wonderful than the paradise my Lord offers?

Tell me.

Jedi - MRasheed wrote: “Why would I change my mind about not wanting to go to hell?”

You wanna know what Hell is?Book yourself a flight to Syria and have a debate with those ISIS people - they'll tell you all about Hell!

Muhammad Rasheed - Nothing on earth will compare to hell. Your mind is very narrow, son.

Didn't I tell you to get your Force game up? Well, chop! chop!

Abu Ali - MRasheed wrote: “Nothing on earth will compare to hell.”

M Rashid is absolutely correct, Jedi. No suffering or pain can ever compare to the agony the "Most Merciful of those who show Mercy" has prepared for the unbelievers!!

The suffering of this life is limited to 70 or 80 years. The torture "The Most Merciful" has devised will go on and on repeatedly, melting their faces, boiling their intestines and burning off their skin and replacing it - blessed is He Most High, Tall, Wide, Merciful, and really kind - is he.

Assad is a pathetic wimpy amateur compared to The Most Merciful.

"Boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; which will melt what's in their bellies, and skins. For them will be hooked rods of iron Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell, they shall be dragged back..." (22:19-23)

"A Fire which will encompass them like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: they will cry out for help but will be granted scorching water like melted brass, that will scald their faces" (18:28-30)

"Dragged through scalding fetid fluid and burnt in the Fire." (40: 70-72)

"As often as their skins are roasted We shall exchange them for fresh skins" (4:56)

"No food except pus" (69:36)

"The tree of Zaqqum Will be the food of the sinners. Like molten brass it will boil in their insides. Like the boiling of scalding water. (It will be said) "Seize him and drag him into the midst of the Blazing Fire! Then pour over his head the torment of Boiling Water" (44:43-48)

"They will be given boiling water to drink so that it tears their bowels to pieces" (47:15)

"Never will it be eased off them nor will they be reprieved" (3:88)

Never will they get out. (5:37)

Hell for all eternity (4:169)


Muhammad Rasheed - And just think, all they have to do is surrender their worthless pride, repent of their treacherous disbelief, do as Allah commands, and He will forgive them. Do this, and in His mercy, He will not hold their disbelief against them and the Wrath will be averted.

Abu Ali - MRasheed wrote: “And just think, all they have to do is surrender their worthless pride, repent of their treacherous disbelief, do as Allah commands, and He will forgive them. Do this, and in His mercy, He will not hold their disbelief against them and the Wrath will be averted.”

It's not as simple as that though, is it, my friend?

I am happy to surrender my 'worthless' pride. It's been through the mill over the last 55 years and so there's not much left of it. I can even obey the commands.

But to actually "believe" in a true and sincere sense... that is something I don't have direct control over.

There is simply too much that I find unbelievable.

One can't simply "choose" to believe something one finds unbelievable. One needs to be convinced of it's truth. (Can you believe Jesus is the son of God?)

I could "pretend" I believe, I suppose.

Would that be OK?

Muhammad Rasheed - Abu Ali wrote: “It's not as simple as that though, is it, my friend?”

It's exactly as simple as that.

Surrender. Do as He commands. If you do not have faith in your heart, then just surrender to Him, and let your record of deeds speak for you on the Last Day. Surrender means that you behave in life as if you believed, even if you don't feel it, you do it anyway, faithfully until you die.

If you do this, God says He will help you, and He very well may cultivate the surrender into true faith -- perhaps it will be His will to do so -- but first it requires that commitment from you.

Surrender. Surrender, and all will be well. This is part of the mercy from the Lord of all the worlds.

Abu Ali - MRasheed wrote: “It's exactly as simple as that. Surrender. Do as He commands. […] Surrender. Surrender, and all will be well. This is part of the mercy from the Lord of all the worlds.”

OK, thanks - so even if I don't believe in it I should just surrender and obey the commands and pray etc... Belief will come and then I will be saved from Hell by his Mercy.

Thanks.

Just one problem, though...

I've been told the exact same thing by Christians who say I should surrender to Jesus - pray to him and let him into my life etc... and belief will come by his Mercy and I shall be saved.

Why should I choose Islam over Christianity - or any other faith for that matter? Bearing in mind I don't believe in any of them.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abu Ali wrote: “I've been told the exact same thing by Christians who say I should surrender to Jesus - pray to him and let him into my life etc... and belief will come by his Mercy and I shall be saved. Why should I choose Islam over Christianity.”

The record of sacred texts reveal that the Pauline Christians (those who worship the Christ as a deity-son), were usurpers of the message of Jesus, which was preached by the messenger's hand-picked heir and younger brother James the Just, leader of the first church of Jerusalem. James was a major community leader of the time period, and was actually more famous than his brother, before the Roman Empire through its weight behind Paul's version of the message, that they felt was more friendly to their pagan-flavored populace. The message of Jesus as preached by James stressed a strict monotheistic belief in the One God of Abraham, stressed performing good deeds and avoiding bad deeds, and had a dietary law consisting of 1.) don't eat pork, 2.) don't eat blood 3.) don't eat carrion 4.) and don't eat the meat of an animal killed in the name of a pagan deity. All of these items combined should be very familiar to you as a former Muslim. Like all the previous Books in the message of Allah, the Qur'an also came to confirm & fulfill the messages before it, and to correct those areas the previous guardians allowed to go astray. The Qur'an also fulfilled the promise to free the Christ and his mom of the falsehoods spoken about them, and raised them up in the role they actually played in the saga. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary was no more than a messenger, and like the messengers before him he preached no less than Al-Islam. The documented record of the ancient texts demonstrate this as true, and since this is true you can rest assure that the rest of the Qur'an is true as well. You know Islam, and recognize it for what it is, and you should recall that for one such as you, Allah will not accept any other religion from you once you've recognized the truth. Hassan do not DARE stand before The Master of the Day of Judgment, manifest in His glory & power, with the sin of giving Him a partner/son upon your record. Things will not go well for you. Christianity is not for you. Pick up once again the mantle of Al-Islam, and hold onto it for dear life. Die not except in the state of bearing witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger that you may know Peace.

suki - I hope this thread doesn't get locked it is very entertaining lol, also hoping Quod comes back to answer Rasheed on the other thread too.

Anyway, if there was an afterlife, what on earth makes you so sure that you are going to Jannah, did you get a personal invite through the post or something lol..

Muhammad Rasheed - suki wrote: “also hoping Quod comes back to answer Rasheed on the other thread too.”

Me too. That's one of the things I've been waiting all day for. Hopefully he hasn't taken an extended hiatus. I can't stay here forever.

suki wrote: “Anyway, if there was an afterlife, what on earth makes you so sure that you are going to Jannah, did you get a personal invite through the post or something lol..”

My personal invite is the Qur'an itself. My Lord has told me that if I but believe in Him, do good deeds, reject evil, repent of my bad deeds when I mess up, and die only as a believer, I will indeed receive paradise. I will have no need to fear, nor shall I grieve. A promise from the Lord of all the worlds, and surely Allah speaketh the truth.

Ishtar90 - Ugh, I've been following the discussion the whole day from the side line, and holy shit you are arrogant and annoying.

Muhammad Rasheed - So? Join meeee and I will complete your training. With our combined strength we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.

Don't make me destroy you.

Ishtar90 - I have no interest in wasting my time arguing with you when it's very clear that you have no intention on letting anything get through that thick ignorant skull of yours

B-bye.

Muhammad Rasheed - Letting what exactly get through my "ignorant skull?" What have you all offered that is worth risking hell, or giving up paradise for?

What do you offer me?

Muhammad Rasheed - (other than depression, and cutting, and probably suicide, and stuff)

dr_sloth - lets say evolution is fake. What conclusion should we draw? Islam is true?

Muhammad Rasheed - Aren't you the one, dr, that asked me that same question about 6 pages back...?

dr_sloth - no. i asked whether you thought it mattered in relation to islam.
Now i'm asking whether you think it should matter to us. Because I can tell you that it doesn't to me.

Attacking evolution doesn't really count as dawah. You won't be accruing your dawah points for this. Islam doesn't become massively more tempting if you debunk evolution.

Muhammad Rasheed - dr_sloth wrote: “lets say evolution is fake. What conclusion should we draw? Islam is true?”

Again, I'm not the one that's searching through creation looking for something to replace God with. I believe God, and accept that the creation (and whatever is in it) functions based on His will as He said.

Whether evolution is fake or not only threatens what you hold, not me.

dr_sloth - MRasheed wrote: “Again, I'm not the one that's searching through creation looking for something to replace God with”

and neither am I. So what now?
Your dawah needs work. i know you think it is all up to allah, and the quality of your dawah doesnt matter too much. But surely you have to be in the right ballpark? Shouldn't you be talking about Islam?

MRasheed wrote: “Whether evolution is fake or not only threatens what you hold, not me.”

i agree, but i dont think you realise what you are saying. You are only saying that my view is falsifiable, whereas yours is not.
If evolution becomes overturned, thats only a threat to the theory of evolution. its not a threat to me. If such a thing ever happens, then i will simply stop believing in evolution. What is so scarey about changing your mind in accordance with the best evidence available at the time? Why would you describe such a thing as a 'threat'? and why is it preferable to have a view that is immune to evidence?

Muhammad Rasheed - dr_sloth wrote: “Your dawah needs work. i know you think it is all up to allah, and the quality of your dawah doesnt matter too much.”

Actually the Qur'an lists the Top Good Deeds with the highest potency that a believer should do.

dr_sloth wrote: “But surely you have to be in the right ballpark? Shouldn't you be talking about Islam?”

Do I need to talk about Islam to a bunch of former Muslims? The last time I was here, I was told by some that even these former Muslim atheists were better Muslims than I because they knew Arabic and I didn't and some were Arabs and I wasn't. Naturally I was taken aback by these glimpses into the core of why they REALLY were atheists. (and they have the nerve to call ME arrogant.)

I do talk about Islam with the heavy hitters, the ones who have a very strong discussion game, and it is with those few that I have the most fun with. The teens who have the "mock 'em & move on" motto are just to practice my "smite" game on (although the mod just told me to stop).

dr_sloth wrote: “i agree, but i dont think you realise what you saying. You are only saying that my view is falsifiable, whereas yours is not.”

Mine isn't. Islam is my religion perfected for me by Allah, remember?

dr_sloth wrote: “If evolution becomes overturned, thats only a threat to the theory of evolution. its not a threat to me. If such a thing ever happens, then i will simply stop believing in evolution.”

Many atheists see evolution as the coveted replacement for the crutch of the "God superstition," and it is VERY important to them that it be true. If you aren't one of those, then the bulk of my anti-evolution argument isn't for you.

dr_sloth wrote: “What is so scarey about changing your mind in according with the best evidence available at the time? Why would you describe such a thing as a 'threat'? and why is it preferable to have a view that is immune to evidence?”

There's nothing scary at at all about it when it comes to secular items. It's actually one of the reasons I enjoy science; I love the new discoveries, etc. The majesty of the wonders of creation is the signature of its Creator, and a sign to those who believe.

God is the Truth that all lesser truths radiate from. Recognizing that fact is how you win at life itself. But allowing something crazy to spread doubt in you like a cancer until you finally accept that doubt as a substitute for the truth, is how you fail at life, and it IS scary. For those weak of will, they should avoid anything that may plant/cultivate that seed of doubt so they will not be in danger. Not everyone is strong enough to entertain certain concepts without it causing them trouble. In the Qur'an God warns people like that to leave it alone... don't think about that stuff. For example, like how Quod feels when he thinks about the immaculate conception of the Christ. Just thinking about it makes him withdraw from the truth of his Lord, and it represents a temptation to his soul... a temptation of doubt that once he's accepting of, will only doom him. A man has to recognize his personal weaknesses and protect himself from them. Quod should instead just let it go, not think about stuff that will make his spirit weak, and surrender to his Lord that he may experience mercy.

dr_sloth - MRasheed wrote: “Do I need to talk about Islam to a bunch of former Muslims?”

u dont 'need' to do anything. It is what I would do, if I thought Islam was obviously true.

MRasheed wrote: “Mine isn't [falsifiable]. Islam is my religion perfected for me by Allah, remember?”

it is the third time i heard you say it. My memory is fine. I'm telling you that 'unfalsifiable' is not an attribute of your worldview that you should be boasting about. It means 'unverifiable'.

MRasheed wrote: “Not everyone is strong enough to entertain certain concepts without it causing them trouble.”

and are you one of those weaklings?

Muhammad Rasheed
- dr_sloth wrote: “u dont 'need' to do anything.”

I'm saying why would I need to proselytize to a bunch of people who already were Muslim? That was part of the draw of coming in here to trade with you; I didn't have to explain Islam 101 every time I wanted to discus matters of faith, right?

dr_sloth wrote: “It is what I would do, if I thought Islam was obviously true.”

I have zero problem talking about Islam with those who are interested in having a "real" discussion. It's why I refer to them as the "heavy hitters." They can talk about it with depth, and it is fun.

dr_sloth wrote: “it is the third time i heard you say it. My memory is fine. I'm telling you that 'unfalsifiable' is not an attribute of your worldview that you should be boasting about. It means 'unverifiable.'”

Are you supposed to be able to verify a belief system whose activating principle is "faith" by definition, dr_sloth? It sounds like judging it by rules it was never intended to conform to is the chink in your own armor.

dr_sloth wrote: “and are you one of those weaklings?”

Hm. If I was weak in faith, I imagine I would've been afraid to challenge in debate people who were supposed to have studied Islam all of their lives, but found it wanting objectively.

dr_sloth - MRasheed wrote: “I'm saying why would I need to proselytize to a bunch of people who already were Muslim? That was part of the draw of coming in here to trade with you; I didn't have to explain Islam 101 every time I wanted to discus matters of faith, right?"

We all passed Islam 101. It is the 'evidence for islam 101' class that I always failed. i still have idea at all what reason there is to believe that islam is true.

MRasheed wrote: “Are you supposed to be able to verify a belief system whose activating principle is ‘faith,’"

no. i didnt realise you thought it came down to faith. Most muslims i have come across say any clear thinking person should reason their way to Islam through the numerous and obvious 'signs' allah left lying around. They normally say faith is not required.

Muhammad Rasheed - dr_sloth wrote: “We all passed Islam 101. It is the 'evidence for islam 101' class that I always failed.”

That's interesting. "Evidence for Islam" in the way you are expressing it here, doesn't compute to me. The whole point to our existence is to pass this earthly test and move on to a successful life in the unseen realms. Faith in that aspect of existence being real is the MOST important part. What are the FIRST of the two pillars of Islam? Belief that God is real. It is AFTER you accept that, and commit to it, that the evidence for it will manifest itself as signs, but that isn't the requirement to accept Islam. The requirement is to believe, to accept that the Supreme Creator's word is True because He is the Supreme Creator. Accept it on faith because He knows and you know not! Did YOU create the universe? CAN you create a universe? Then prostrate yourself to Allah, Lord of the worlds! Glory be to He! Any "evidence" is a basic appeal to logic.

dr_sloth wrote: “i still have idea at all what reason there is to believe that islam is true.”

There's two aspects to it: 1.) belief in the unseen and 2.) scholarship into the history of the faiths among men on earth. The first one you just have to believe and have faith in it. There is no earthly "evidence" that can be bagged & tagged through the scientific method. By its nature it is otherworldly. But the second one can absolutely be used to find a reason to choose one religion over another. My posts earlier regarding James the Just vs St. Paul is one reason why my own studies demonstrate why I could NEVER choose Christianity over Islam. The evidence was strong and obvious (and a sign to this here believer).

dr_sloth wrote: “no. i didnt realise you thought it came down to faith. Most muslims i have come across say any clear thinking person should reason their way to Islam through the numerous and obvious 'signs' allah left lying around. They normally say faith is not required.”

I genuinely think it odd that you all have been taught that way. It sounds for all the world as if someone was deliberately sabotaging your religion.

three - Yes. I was taught the same thing, that there is too much evidence for Islam being the ¨true religion¨, and that one simply has to choose Islam over the ¨on faith¨ faiths because it is the natural state of humans.
That ¨on faith¨ concept is what I associate with Christianity, and the evangelical side of it, at that.

Muhammad Rasheed - But Christianity... at its core... did come from Allah. Accepting that the messenger was who he claimed to be, an anointed representative of the One God, here to instruct the people in scripture and wisdom is a matter of faith needed for all the messengers: Belief in the Prophets.

First you believe, then you act. Faith is the activating principle; your actions the proof of that faith. That's why if you simply surrender and do as He commands, you'll win through to paradise based on the record of your deeds alone even if you didn't have that faith in your heart truly. God's mercy will be on you because you ACTED like you believed and trusted Him. Of course your mansion won't be next to the Throne, but you'll still get in. The lowest level of heaven is better than the coolest level of the realm of torment.

dr_sloth - MRasheed wrote: “What are the FIRST of the two pillars of Islam? Belief that God is real. It is AFTER you accept that, and commit to it, that the evidence for it will manifest itself as signs, but that isn't the requirement to accept Islam.”

ok, so you accept that an atheist would have to take a leap of faith to accept Islam. That is not something often conceded.

MRasheed wrote: “The requirement is to belief, to accept that the Supreme Creator's word is True because He is the Supreme Creator. Accept it on faith because he knows and you know not!”

I won’t be accepting it on faith because that is just silly.

Even if allah is real, that still wouldn’t be a reason to believe everything she says. What if she has good reason to tell you an untruth? Doesn’t she work in mysterious ways?

MRasheed wrote: “Did YOU create the universe? CAN you create a universe?”

But this is just rhetoric isn’t it. You probably think it is brilliant because the quran asks similar questions. You have successfully imitated at least one component of the qurans’ inimitable style, but these questions aren’t anywhere near as profound as you think. Not even when Allah asks them.
Whether or not I created the universe isn’t a topic I need to ponder on. I have never been under the impression that I created the universe. Nothing I believe rests upon the idea that I created the universe, or my ability to create a fly, or to create myself from nothing/water/a blood clot/clay. I don’t need to be reminded that I do not have magic powers.

MRasheed wrote: “The first one you just have to believe and have faith in it.”

I see; more faith.

MRasheed wrote: “My posts earlier regarding James the Just vs St. Paul is one reason why my own studies demonstrate why I could NEVER choose Christianity over Islam.”

Attacking evolution doesn’t prove islam, and neither does attacking Christianity. I could give you my own list of reasons why I find Christianity even less plausible than you do. What I’m looking for is a reason to believe that Islam is true. But you have been appealing to faith quite a lot. So maybe you already agree that there isn’t one.

Muhammad Rasheed - dr_sloth, for every time you said 'silly,' or said that something God said wasn't profound, I found it to be the opposite. I read my Lord's message and it spoke to me deeply, and left me in awe.

The reasons to accept Islam for me are because without doubt, the Qur'an is exactly what it claims to be, and Allah, the Supreme Creator doesn't lie. Allah has our best interests at heart, and wants us to succeed, but left the choice up to us. It is all a Great Game, that He plays because it pleases Him to do so. A Game that I intend to win.

Muhammad Rasheed – dr_sloth wrote: "Even if allah is real, that still wouldn’t be a reason to believe everything she says."

That comes across as the very HEIGHT of arrogance to me. Like there's a tangible wall made of pure pride that you radiate. There's nothing I can say to it.

dr_sloth wrote: “Attacking evolution doesn’t prove islam, and neither does attacking Christianity.”

No, Islam holds up all by itself. I attack those two because they are either pagan, or have aspects of them tainted with paganism.

dr_sloth - MRasheed wrote: “dr_sloth, for every time you said 'silly,' or said that something God said wasn't profound, I found it to be the opposite. I read my Lord's message and it spoke to me deeply, and left me in awe.”

yeah i know, but in any other circumstance you would agree with me that accepting things on faith is silly. I know you think those rhetorical questions are profound too. Since you're such a big fan of them, here is another one: Do you think maybe you're easily impressed?

Muhammad Rasheed - In the Qur'an God says numerous times that those who believe will recognize things that the disbelievers will miss; that the veil of pride will harden their hearts from truth.

Faith is very important; more important than you recognize. You dismiss it at your peril.

"Any other circumstances" are secular, and operate under different rules. Elementary.

dr_sloth wrote: “ok, so you accept that an atheist would have to take a leap of faith to accept Islam. That is not something often conceded. “

Everyone has to take the leap of faith to believe in the religions of God. For some it is easier than it is for others -- just like everything else humans endeavor to do -- but it is important to do it correctly still.

dr_sloth - MRasheed wrote: “'Any other circumstances' are secular, and operate under different rules. Elementary.

i'd be surprised if you didn't think accepting christianity on faith was silly. Your distinction is not religious/secular. It is Islam/everything else.

Muhammad Rasheed - If it wasn't for Paul's interference, a follower of the Christ's original message would still need to recognize the final prophet as who he was.

Islam holds up great all by itself, and does a great job of explaining the Greater Message of God throughout history. I love it.

I don't really see the problem, to be honest. Most of the time you all's stance just comes across as pig-headed and stubborn. Especially that line about not having faith in God just because He was God.

Quod sum eris – These are my 5 strongest arguments against the Quran:

1) The quran

2) Sanity

3) Reality

4) Nonsense

5) Common sense

So I thought I'd expand on them, because I honestly mean these to be arguments we can address.

1) The quran:

The quran claims itself to be the perfect uncorrupted word of god. That's it's biggest flaw. It invites challenge in a way other holy texts don't, and is really to arrogant for it's own good. The level is enough that it doesn't have the flexibility needed to stand the test of time. The fact that it doesn't have this flexibility, and that it needs it in the first place, is an argument against it in my opinion.

2) Sanity

There's only so much a human being can reasonably be held accountable for when it comes to spiritual matters. There's a verse in the quran which says allah has not given us two hearts. I personally view this as metaphorical, not literal. We view and believe certain things a certain way. I cannot at the same time believe in the quran while seeing flaws in it.

3) Reality

The quran, like all the other holy texts, claims to be the word of god. The way to verify this is testing it, see if it stacks up. Quite frankly it doesn't. Dust devils and jinns, spontaneous human creation, great flood, there's a lot to choose from, but I'll pick a few.

The story of the arc and the great flood. This would have happened around 4000 years ago. It's quite simply impossible for the number of races, ethnicities and the huge amount of genetic traits to come from one incestuous family in just 4000 years. It cannot happen. Something else that puts a hole in the story is the amount of people who were thriving at this point. God flooded the entire world. Except for the Chinese who were developing at an incredible rate and remained unaffected from a global flood that wiped out every human on the planet. The Japanese were also unaffected. And the Africans. And the Europeans. And the Native Americans. And the Aztecs. And the South Americans. And most of the middle east. The flood never happened. It's not real.

The quran teaches that humans were created from clay in a specific creation. If you're to count on the hadiths, then it's just even more ludicrous. We know the first human was not a 90 foot tall clay giant. Even if you don't take the hadiths into account, it also doesn't account for evolution, the proof of which is overwhelming. Nor does it account for the number of people today who have Neanderthal DNA in them from before the Neanderthals went extinct. Everything I know to be proven fact contradicts the claims of the quran. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that it was a story told by ancient societies because they didn't have any answers. Adam never existed. It's not real.

The sun orbits the Earth...yeah, we've known that's bullshit for a few centuries now.

It says in the quran that in the embryo/foetus the bones are the first thing to form. "So we made the clot a morsel, so we made the morsel bones, so we clothed the bones (with) meat". This is wrong. The skeleton is actually among the last to be formed. You'd think the all knowing creator of everything would realise this. It's wrong.

The stars are missiles to be hurled at jinns. Or they hunt demons. I haven't read the quran in a while so I can't remember the exact quote, but you can look it up to see exactly what it says. This is also wrong. The stars are just stars, they do the exact same thing as the star we orbit, the sun.

Women are defective in intelligence. Coming from a culture where gender mixing is the norm and close relationships aren't looked down upon, I can tell you this isn't true from my own experience. And then there's current trends in school grades, sciences, IQ and employment performance, the fact there are women in MENSA (if you don't know MENSA is like a super genius club, only 2% of the human population globally have a high enough IQ to qualify for membership). Now we live in an age men and women have equal rights, women are on the same level and even starting to out preform men. So I'm going to say this is wrong.

4) Nonsense

Do you believe that allah puts a veil over our hearts? If the answer to this is yes, then my reply to that would be that I'm blameless. If the reason I don't see the truth of islam is because allah put a veil over my heart, then it stands to reason I'll be punished (by being sent to hell) for a crime I didn't commit. My reason for saying I'm being punished for a crime I didn't commit is that allah delibertly put a veil over my heart so I would never know him, therefore the fault is allah's, not mine.

Do you believe nothing happens accept by allah's will? If so then it's the same as above. If nothing happens except by allah's will, then allah made sure I wouldn't believe in him. So again the fault lies with allah, not myself.

Do you believe islam teaches there's no compulsion in religion? If so does that mean if you don't accept islam as true, then you go to hell? If so, this means that allah has told us something to be taken as truth, and he punishes us for taking him at his word instead of assuming he was lying.

Do you believe in the virgin birth? If so, can you understand why I might think it's more likely that a teenage girl told a lie rather than a virgin magically conceiving a child, carrying it to term, birthing it, and the child while still an infant speaking?

Can you also understand why it may be confusing that said infant would only speak once to a few people and refuse to speak again to others, which would cause all doubt in the divinity of allah to be wiped away?

Here's a situation. Let's say there's something in your house you don't like. It offends you. Let's also say you have the power of a god. Would you A) throw away the thing you didn't like or give it to charity, or B) bring it to life, give it intelligence so it can understand what's happening, enable it to feel pain, and torture it forever and ever and ever? Which is more merciful?

5) Common sense

It becomes a common sense issue. Let's say that I'm wrong. Let's say all the things I'm of the opinion are true are wrong. It doesn't change the fact that I find the quran unbelievable. I can't have more knowledge than what's available to me. Let's take evolution. I find it believable. I'm convinced of it. The quran goes against it. I have no reason whatsoever, nothing at all compelling me to believe the quranic story over proven scientific fact.

Or another, let's take the big bang. I'm convinced by what knowledge I have that before the universe, and after the universe, there was no Earth. This planet did not exist. It took a very long time for our star to be born and for our planet to form. This seems plausible to me. From what I know of physics and cosmology, I can accept this. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Earth existed from the start and was ripped apart from heaven.

Or another. The quran and hadiths suggest a flat Earth. At one point it's spread out like a carpet, at another the Earth is like an ostrich egg (had to pick the bird that buries it's egg and flattens the soil), allah will roll up the Earth like parchment/paper, and on and on it goes. Everything I'm aware of tells me this is wrong. It becomes less and less believable to me. So with all this in mind, common sense tells me that the only truth that lies hidden in the quran is simply the truths of the cultural norms and mindset of that society and time. Historically and psychologically it's interesting, but that's all it is. No more, no less.

And I have to admit, these aren't even my strongest arguments. I haven't thought about this endlessly, I haven't delved into the theology to throw things at you. The above is just what came to mind as I sit here filling the time on a lazy Sunday evening.

Muhammad Rasheed - Quod Sum Eris wrote: “So I thought I'd expand on them, because I honestly mean these to be arguments we can address. 1) The quran: The quran claims itself to be the perfect uncorrupted word of god. That's it's biggest flaw. It invites challenge in a way other holy texts don't…

That’s actually its biggest strength, and a sign for those who believe. It’s God speaking directly to mankind, explaining who He is, and instructing us in exactly what He requires of us. It’s the only holy text that does this with no other "deity" challenging its claims. The One God’s word is true.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “…and is really to arrogant for it's own good.”

You don’t think the omniscient, omnipotent Supreme Creator of reality has a right to express arrogance? This is a perfect example of the fundamentally narrow-mind of the atheist, who is incapable of abstract thought beyond the familiarity of his immediate surroundings.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “The level is enough that it doesn't have the flexibility needed to stand the test of time.”

[looks @ watch] That’s 1,500 years and counting, right? What metric are you using for that statement, Quod?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “The fact that it doesn't have this flexibility, and that it needs it in the first place, is an argument against it in my opinion.”

Well, in my opinion that only represents you pulling a fake weakness out of thin air that doesn’t apply in any way, shape or form.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “2) Sanity: There's only so much a human being can reasonably be held accountable for when it comes to spiritual matters. There's a verse in the quran which says allah has not given us two hearts. I personally view this as metaphorical, not literal. We view and believe certain things a certain way. I cannot at the same time believe in the quran while seeing flaws in it.”

1.) There are no flaws in the Qur’an. All the flaws are in your prideful mindset. Let them go.
2.) Since you do not yet have faith in your heart, then just surrender, and do as He commands. Sustain the effort and He will bless you, strengthen your heart, and develop that surrender into true faith. But you must repent of your disbelief and surrender to Him.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “3) Reality: The quran, like all the other holy texts, claims to be the word of god. The way to verify this is testing it, see if it stacks up.”

lol The way to verify this is to take God at His word and do as He commands. Faith is the activating principle for the unseen.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Quite frankly it doesn't.”

How would YOU know???

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Dust devils and jinns, spontaneous human creation, great flood, there's a lot to choose from, but I'll pick a few. The story of the arc and the great flood. This would have happened around 4000 years ago.”

Where are you getting that date from, and why should I take it seriously?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “It's quite simply impossible for the number of races, ethnicities and the huge amount of genetic traits to come from one incestuous family in just 4000 years.”

Then why are you making the leap that that’s the way it was supposed to have happened? What justification are you using for thinking so narrow-minded about it? For someone who is not supposed to believe in the tale anyway, I would think you would be more open to other angles in which the tale COULDV’E happened so that it at least would make sense in the narrative. Your stubbornly closed mind and dismissal isn’t of much use to anyone.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “It cannot happen.”

Well, in what way could it have happened, using logic and knowledge of what we do know of scripture and the tales of the prophets? Tell me.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Something else that puts a hole in the story is the amount of people who were thriving at this point. God flooded the entire world. Except for the Chinese who were developing at an incredible rate and remained unaffected from a global flood that wiped out every human on the planet. The Japanese were also unaffected. And the Africans. And the Europeans. And the Native Americans. And the Aztecs. And the South Americans. And most of the middle east. The flood never happened. It's not real.”

There was a time period in our past in which every one of these peoples’ named absolutely did experience a global flood catastrophe. In fact, that date if added to the narrative is one of the pieces that will make the whole Deluge event make stunning sense.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “The quran teaches that humans were created from clay in a specific creation. If you're to count on the hadiths, then it's just even more ludicrous. We know the first human was not a 90 foot tall clay giant.”

I am not one to uphold as authentic those hadith that make claims of the unseen that are not also backed up by the Qur’an, but aside from that, how DO we know that the first human wasn’t a giant? Homo sapien are pretty old, in fact, old enough to have made our debut on earth during the Age of the Mega-Fauna. If a creature like Gigantopithecus could exist, then what kept our earliest ancestors from being huge, too?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Even if you don't take the hadiths into account, it also doesn't account for evolution, the proof of which is overwhelming.”

There is zero proof that supports evolution, Quod, let alone “overwhelming” proofs. That is a fiction you’ve been indoctrinated with.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Nor does it account for the number of people today who have Neanderthal DNA in them from before the Neanderthals went extinct.”

Why would it mention something like that even if it was true? What would that have to do with the instructions for building a Muslim ummah, and keeping you on the Straight Way? The few science tidbits the Qur’an did drop were mentioned for very specific reasons. Are you really critiquing the Book based on it not revealing secrets of the past that has nothing to do with its actual point on earth? Is that supposed to be a real criticism?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Everything I know to be proven fact contradicts the claims of the quran.”

Your idea of what is “proven fact” is pretty shady. Our understanding of everything you’ve mentioned thus far is liable to change dramatically in the next 15 years.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “The only logical conclusion I can come to is that it was a story told by ancient societies because they didn't have any answers. Adam never existed. It's not real.”

There are more humans alive now than there ever was, and logic demonstrates that all biological populations grew from smaller populations, all the way back to the smallest unit. Logically how could there NOT have been a first couple?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “The sun orbits the Earth...yeah, we've known that's bullshit for a few centuries now.”

I refuse to believe you intend that to actually be a serious critique.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “It says in the quran that in the embryo/foetus the bones are the first thing to form. "So we made the clot a morsel, so we made the morsel bones, so we clothed the bones (with) meat". This is wrong. The skeleton is actually among the last to be formed. You'd think the all knowing creator of everything would realise this. It's wrong.”

One of the biggest official criticisms against the Qur’an is that at no point does it ever make the attempt to explain anything in chronological order, so this is actually a strawman argument.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “The stars are missiles to be hurled at jinns. Or they hunt demons. I haven't read the quran in a while so I can't remember the exact quote, but you can look it up to see exactly what it says. This is also wrong. The stars are just stars, they do the exact same thing as the star we orbit, the sun.”

Why do you assume that it means “stars” in the strict technical astronomical sense? When the average person says “Wow, dude! Look at all the stars!” don’t we mean EVERY point of light we see in the sky, and not just the literal “stars?” He said the unseen spirits sometimes try to eavesdrop and they are chased away by mysterious points of light darting after them. The verse is pregnant with mystery, and creates far more questions than answers, yet your atheist mind snaps shut like a steel trap presuming to somehow know DEFINITIVELY exactly what it meant. That’s fundamentally ridiculous to me. God isn’t going to share the Secrets of the Unseen with us, not until it’s time, but He does tease us with hints a lot.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Women are defective in intelligence.”

The Qur’an does not say women are defective in intelligence. It actually says something very specific about the way they think when it comes to a very specific thing, but the fact that you interpreted it as meaning they are ‘defective’ says more about you than the Qur’an.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “4) Nonsense: Do you believe that allah puts a veil over our hearts?”

You have a veil over your heart right now, clear as a blaring noise.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “If the answer to this is yes, then my reply to that would be that I'm blameless.”

The veil is there because you rejected your Lord. Surrender to Him faithfully and he will remove it. He’s merciful like that.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “If the reason I don't see the truth of islam is because allah put a veil over my heart, then it stands to reason I'll be punished (by being sent to hell) for a crime I didn't commit.”

Your pride caused you to reject your Lord and turn your back on Him, and the punishment is a veil preventing you from seeing truth. To gain this ability you must humble yourself in surrender to the One who made you. And yes, on your damn knees.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “My reason for saying I'm being punished for a crime I didn't commit is that allah delibertly put a veil over my heart so I would never know him, therefore the fault is allah's, not mine.”

The veil is the consequence for what you did. A curse of consequence. The curse can be lifted only if your record of deeds begin to reveal that you no longer think the universe revolves around you. Bow down to your Guardian Lord who made you that the veil will be lifted, and you will have the Freedom of Seeing the Straight Way towards Allah.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Do you believe nothing happens accept by allah's will? If so then it's the same as above. If nothing happens except by allah's will, then allah made sure I wouldn't believe in him. So again the fault lies with allah, not myself.”

You are confused. Everything that happens at all is in Allah’s will. Everything that doesn’t happen wasn’t in His will to happen. That includes choices that you decided not to make; it was in Allah’s will that you performed the way you performed, but you made the choice. God doesn’t control you. He allows you to act. THAT is His will, and whatever you decide to act in He allows. It is also in His will that you will be held accountable for what you decided to act in.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Do you believe islam teaches there's no compulsion in religion? If so does that mean if you don't accept islam as true, then you go to hell? If so, this means that allah has told us something to be taken as truth, and he punishes us for taking him at his word instead of assuming he was lying.”

What are you saying here, Quod? God said that you can’t force people to believe. He’s certainly not forcing you to do anything, but He is warning you that there will be an accounting for what you decide. That’s not “force,” that’s a warning. “Force” would be an angel grabbing you by the back of the head and manhandling you through the motions of salat. God allows you to do whatever you want. There is no compulsion. Your actions decide whether you want to go to hell or not. It is literally up to you.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Do you believe in the virgin birth?”

Of course.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “If so, can you understand why I might think it's more likely that a teenage girl told a lie rather than a virgin magically conceiving a child, carrying it to term, birthing it, and the child while still an infant speaking?”

Sure, if there was no such thing as God, spirit, and the message. But all of these things are real, and God told you the truth of the matter and said to believe in it is a requirement of your surrender. There’s no more that need be said about it.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Can you also understand why it may be confusing that said infant would only speak once to a few people and refuse to speak again to others, which would cause all doubt in the divinity of allah to be wiped away?”

Does it matter?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Here's a situation. Let's say there's something in your house you don't like. It offends you. Let's also say you have the power of a god. Would you A) throw away the thing you didn't like or give it to charity, or B) bring it to life, give it intelligence so it can understand what's happening, enable it to feel pain, and torture it forever and ever and ever? Which is more merciful?”

All you have to do is surrender to Him and do as he commands and you will receive infinite bliss. That’s all. There is nothing more merciful than that. But to throw that infinite bliss away over pride? There is nothing more stupid.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “5) Common sense:”

Honestly it’s common sense just to surrender and do what He said. If you are wrong then you’ll get infinite bliss, and if you are right you’ll get the nothingness of the void. But if you instead choose atheism and you are wrong…? That’s a no brainer. Why take the risk? Especially if you have an issue with “torture it forever and ever and ever.”

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “It becomes a common sense issue.”

If you actually end up in hell it will definitely be a common sense issue. A complete lack thereof.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Let's say that I'm wrong. Let's say all the things I'm of the opinion are true are wrong. It doesn't change the fact that I find the quran unbelievable. I can't have more knowledge than what's available to me.”

That’s why the operating principle is “faith.” Just do it.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Let's take evolution. I find it believable. I'm convinced of it. The quran goes against it. I have no reason whatsoever, nothing at all compelling me to believe the quranic story over proven scientific fact.”

Evolution is a pagan religion (“Praise Darwin!”) pretending to be a legitimate aspect of science with not a single fact to support it. It is a house of cards with true believers like yourself upholding it purely by faith. It will be a poor substitute indeed for an infinity of bliss, and it won’t save you at all from the alternative.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Or another, let's take the big bang. I'm convinced by what knowledge I have that before the universe, and after the universe, there was no Earth. This planet did not exist. It took a very long time for our star to be born and for our planet to form. This seems plausible to me. From what I know of physics and cosmology, I can accept this. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Earth existed from the start and was ripped apart from heaven.”

The veil over your heart is making you talk crazy again. The Big Bang Model for the universe’s origin’s 100% support what the Qur’an says about it. Allah said the universe had a definite creation point in the distant past, and Big Bang confirms this miracle as true. Remember at first the atheists just assumed the religion was lying, and so theorized that the universe was eternal and never had a beginning.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Or another. The quran and hadiths suggest a flat Earth. At one point it's spread out like a carpet…”

Quod it’s spread out like a carpet from YOUR perspective as a human standing on it. Do you see the curve of the earth from your normal eye-level perspective? Why would He describe the earth as it looks from the moon’s surface to 7th century Arabs? Does that even make sense? This is exactly how ridiculous people sound when they have that veil on their hearts and can’t see.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “…at another the Earth is like an ostrich egg (had to pick the bird that buries it's egg and flattens the soil)…”

Right, because eggs are known for being FLAT. You are… I don’t know WHAT you are. lol

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “…allah will roll up the Earth like parchment/paper, and on and on it goes.”

That’s actually a great metaphor to describe the eventual destruction of the universe considering it’s been expanding out since the Big Bang.

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “Everything I'm aware of tells me this is wrong. It becomes less and less believable to me. So with all this in mind, common sense tells me that the only truth that lies hidden in the quran is simply the truths of the cultural norms and mindset of that society and time. Historically and psychologically it's interesting, but that's all it is. No more, no less.”

Considering the people in that particular time and place needed to master it at their level of understanding in order to spread it around the globe to all other people, why wouldn’t it be slanted towards that particular peoples’ cultural norms and mindset? Would the proud Arab have taken complete ownership of it, and so enthusiastically spread it around the world if it had instead had been slanted towards the cultural norms and mindset of the ancient Australian aborigine?

Quod Sum Eris wrote: “And I have to admit, these aren't even my strongest arguments.”

I 100% expect your “strongest arguments” to be on the same level of seriousness, and possess the same lack of insight. Try me.


See Also:
A Challenge to Evolutionary Theory Proponents: "Defend Yourselves If You're Able"

No comments:

Post a Comment