Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jul 6, 2012.
But in all seriousness nu i think u guys can learn a lot from one another.
backfire or backdoor?
that is the question.
why? because he is an american christian endorsed muslim?
i have my sources of knowledge, the qur'an and the hadith.
i'm sure my fellow brother will think the same.
salaam u alaikum warahmat-ullahi.
I see no fruit. I can tell by ur attitude, how u treat people
The biggest being how you explain things. The reason no one gets a straight answer from you.
U get angry, like improperly. Sometimes just asking u a question from a genuine
place is even met by your offence.
I ask terra the same questions. But for some reason I get an actual
response from him. And takes time to explain it.
you're not worth it.
you've asked me the same questions and i've answered.
i care not what you think of me or how i deal with people, who are you?
if you've got a new muslim mate who will answer your questions, then ask him.
Wa'alykum salaam, warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu.
I don't have answers to most questions. But it's really quite something when a non Muslim asks us questions. Sometimes they do it to annoy Muslims, at other times, because they are genuinely interested in learning something new... I do not care for "why" they ask us questions, I just care that they did - and that makes me smile. And it makes me smile because they asked ME and not CNN or FOX if you know what I mean...
I was watching a documentary on Christianity, directed and produced by atheists and I thought "very clever" because the subtle ways in which the atheist agenda of Godlessness creeps into the documentary, painting Christians as people who were so fickle that they would gladly accept any doctrine as long as the name of Jesus was on it... LIES.
The Early Christians were hunted down and killed, and they did not give up their beliefs, they died as martyrs...
point i'm trying to make here is - if you want info from source, go to source - not to alternative and opposite source! The strangest thing is - this is what most people do, abrogation, using logic that is neither here nor there because they do not even understand the correct methodology.
Modern secular education has failed us in the sense that we no longer conduct un-biased research even though we know how to... this is one of the reasons why the world is in a mess in the first place. Integrity was lost, replaced by a material philosophy that negates the ideals of moralistic values further ingrained thru a doctrine.
The doctrine that is being preached to kids nowadays is the one where your kids will grow up asking "mum, was your great great great grandfather an ape?"
Yeah, bring the facepalm smiley already.
That could be a reasonable excuse if u didnt do it to friggin ..everyone.
there's a few problems here, though. if you only 'go to the source' in terms of religion, you'll always land at the conclusion that the religion is true. because the source is an old book saying that it is true over and over and over. only by listening to the other side do you get any idea how credible its claims might be; a religious devotee is not likely to point out flaws with his own religion. but i do agree you need to go to the source as well to get a true idea of where they stand.
this is strange. what about the 'materialistic' approach do you think is unbiased, and why does it negate morality?
also, do you doubt evolution is true or do you merely find it unpleasant to think about?
Seemingly, you are right. In any book of scriptures, you will find verses that claim "truth". But these verses do not imply that you must believe what is written. In any book (Torah, NT, Quran) you are encouraged to read with an open heart.
See, a lot of scripture is literal in places, and ambiguous in places... those with out prejudice, can discern the truest intent of the Lords words and the understanding will fruit for them... for others though - like those who wish to read the holy books like they read JK Rowling - and offer a critique according to their own flawed understanding, the message would be lost.
Also, there is the issue of reading the holy books in their proper contexts. For example, there is a verse in the Quran which reads "and kill them (unbelievers) wherever you may find them" - many Islamophobes have incorrectly interpreted this verse as a command by God to kill non Muslims... they chose to ignore the verses that came before it and after it...
To read it in context, and in order with the other verses, you come to the understanding that you may Kill them if:
1) They invade your land and seize your property and -
2) They make it impossible for you to practice your religion freely
3) They enslave you and your family
... and the verse ends with "And you Lord is most forgiving, most merciful" - meaning, it is better if you refrain from killing them and be patient with your Lord instead, so forgive those who trespass and keep your faith with your Lord.
By "go to the source" I do not mean just scripture, either. Because, doing that itself is a very difficult task. As a Muslim who is learning Arabic, I find the Quranic Arabic so much more eloquent and the translations, coupled with commentries and exegesis, do not do the Quranic Arabic justice in my opinion.
We only have on word for Love in English, Arabic has over ten... each one describing a certain type of love. Knowing this, you can understand that the translations make a right mess of things sometimes. So, if unable to understand the old Arabic (or Aramaic if you are Christian or Jew), then find a scholar who you respect and like, and ask them for their inderstanding of it...
...But beware of scholars for the dollars - today there are many.
Morality is not exclusive to religious peoples, please don't mistake my intention when I wrote what I did previously in another post.
But you cannot argue that people of the book (for example: Jews, Christians and Muslims who actually follow their doctrines) are a lot more grounded and less promiscuous than those who do not ascribe to a faith. When it comes to moral decisions, the non religious may consider that they are about to engage in sinful activity, but with no fear of God, they only have their own conscience to ignore...
...those who aknowledge God, will feel a very big pinch when it comes to making the decision to sin, and will often not do it. Even though they managed to ignore their own conscience, they often find it harder to ignore their faith - they know that God is watching and knows all...
Yes I doubt this theory, a lot. So do many scientists actually. Not just that but I do not find these supposed "evidences" to hold any weight at all, because the probability factor for evolution to take place, is quite literally - 1 in a figure I cannot even comprehend.
Not just that but when it comes to questions such as "Why are there laws of nature?"... Pro-Evolution scientists tend to change the subject. But it is a necessary question to ask. Because many highly respected scientists do not consider it unscientific to believe in an intelligent "First Cause". And though evolutonists acknowledge that the "origin of life" remains a mystery, there are many conflicting theories...
Richard Dawkins says that by virtue of the vast number of planets that exist in the universe, there must be life out there somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in "the evolution of life and mind" hits "dead ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible."
Life is not just an assortment of chemical elements though. keep in mind that it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. So, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological data. I seem to be veering away from the point I was making though, so let me attempt to bring it back.
Does evolution make me uncomfortable? No. It makes me smile because I see it as nothing more than a social experiment to present a new idea, a new philosophy, a new religion to the world, nothing more, nothing less... of course, I have come across the fanatics of this new religion called atheism. And have seen how they dismiss anything which disagrees with the atheist world view, with a religious fervour bordering on extreme fanaticism, so really, I do find it quite amusing. Especially when you consider that the "facts" they rant off don't hold much weight when you throw them one back. Namely: Simple bacterial can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than 3 or 4 billion years. Professor Frantisek Vyskocil of Charles University, Prague is known internationally for his research on neurophysiology. Once an atheist, he now firmly believes in God, and he came to his belief, through science.
So did British Philosopher, Antony Flew - he was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. In 1986, Flew was called "the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism." Imagine that, this man also did a u turn on his belief system. Why? In short, he became convinced that the universe, the laws of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance.
Not to mention Crick, who was one of the guys who discovered DNA... yup, him too. Infact, you'll even a very long and impressive list of Nobel Prize Winners who believe in God, and not chance...
hi. i cut out much of your post cause of character restrictions, but i hope it is clear which parts im responding to. i did read the whole post and am not ignoring the points i cut out.
to the first portion: i didn't mean to make it sound like i was only referring to reading scripture. i was saying that whether you read scriptures or simply ask the believers in that religion, you are unlikely to get any negative feedback about the religion because their ultimate source is the holy book itself, which doesn't tend to self-criticize. that doesn't mean the religion is actually flawless.
to make my point clearer, presumably you don't believe in the book of mormon. now you might read the book of mormon and dismiss it based on preconceived notions that you had before you started reading, or you might dismiss something a mormon evangelist is saying based on those notions. but if you go in with no preconceived religious/moral/historical notions then you are unlikely to doubt the mormon religion based solely on what their holy book or devotees say. only when you consult outside criticism of the religion do you really get a fair idea of how credible some of its claims are.
well, i neither deny nor confirm that claim because frankly i haven't seen any statistics. but i will say that you can't apply religious morality as the standard by which you judge non-believers. you mentioned promiscuity, but i don't think having sex is actually immoral so long as its two (or 3, 4, 5, ...) consenting adults. you look at that as immoral, but i think the sexual repression found in the abrahamic faiths is unfortunate. especially when they take it back to the days of the torah and start stoning people for sexual crimes. that's truly more disgusting than any sexual act, imo.
just a couple points:
1.) how'd you calculate the probability of evolution?
2.) evolutionists change the subject when you bring up the existential 'why' because it is irrelevant to the theory. maybe there's a god and maybe there isn't. maybe there are many gods. none of those scenarios would either confirm nor debunk evolution. the theory relates to how lifeforms change, how lineages merge and split. it's not an all-encompassing explanation of reality.
you're basically making appeals to authority by saying so and so believes in god and he discovered DNA, which is really a non-argument anyway. on top of that it seems you picked the wrong scientist to try and make this point.
Francis Crick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
see for yourself:
Francis Crick - Biologist - Thoughts on religion - Web of Stories
the other co-discoverer of DNA, james watson, is no more a fan of religion than his colleague. he describes himself as 'an escapee of the catholic religion' and says that 'the luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in god.'
what's more, they used the theory of evolution to predict that the genetic code of DNA would be universal. darwin and mendel's theories combine to give a perfect explanation for how life interacts on this planet, and DNA is the holy grail that proves those theories not only plausible but demonstrably true. so its curious that you would try to make the appeal that some scientist believes in god when even if they did, they most certainly believe in evolutionary biology as well.
but as long as we're on the topic of what scientists believe:
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do Scientists Really Reject God? | NCSE
so when you say:
"For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than 3 or 4 billion years."
i have to wonder how you deduce that, and what information you're working with that the majority of the scientific community has missed.
Hi again Reggie
If I start quoting you, I get the feeling I won't be able to write my own words lol. SO I will refrain from quoting and just type.
1) I read comparatively, and study religion comparatively also. It's a wonderful thing when you can sit down with a Christian, A Jew and a Hindu and just - talk. We often quote eachothers scriptures and I really have no problem with it. In fact, here and there I have quoted the bible (OT and NT) to help make a point or two... However, I can understand that it is not the norm for a Muslim to quote bible in a favourable sense...
With regards to the Mormons book. I have not read it. But now you have got me curious
2) Aah, the stoning of the adulterer... interesting point you raise. You have to understand that in those times, people got stoned just for petty theft. When you look at history in the correct context, you find that the Bible, Torah and Quran were actually a lot more conservative and lenient with punishment on earth, in comparison to man made laws around at the time... Mercy comes in stages my friend.
3) you asked me:
// I didn't calculate the probability of evolution, this guy did - check out the probability factor he calculates at the end of the short clip:
What exactly do you consider "many", since it's something like 90-95% of scientists accept evolution.
The following scientists watched a program being aired on TV which tried to claim that the theory of evolution was proven. They signed the following statement in order to have the program reviewed by an independant committee:
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A****mbski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
There were more Scientists but considering, and considering that not all of the scientists were even aware of this program, this is one heck of a turn out don't you think?
"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."
Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.
Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it."
Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."
Interesting stuff eh?
fair post, but i think reggie has posted many of my responses to this post.
i never had anything against any other religion.
the christian king embraced the first muslims travellers with open arms.
but as reggie said, go to the source and you'll see bias.
don't go to the source and you'll see bias too.
no, only people like you.
others i entertain debates with because they have some valued input.
i'm sorry but i can't get into another winded evolution debate with someone who posts paragraphs of random nonsense. i don't know why i even started this argument but i'm afraid i just don't have the patience for it anymore.
just to clue you in on why i find your approach so unconvincing, bordering on dishonest:
1.) your info seems to mostly come from the discovery institute/ID camp. they're a joke. your vid references a bunch of statistics to give it the appearance of validity, but that argument is actually too simplistic to be at all meaningful.
CB010: Probability of Abiogenesis
one of the stats is from the work of doug axe, and is a misuse of his results. Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function - The Panda's Thumb
2.) you quote mined francis crick to say two different things that he didn't intend to say.
3.) you posted a list of scientists that is supposed to be impressive yet you ignore the wide scientific consensus on evolution which is backed up not only by popularity but by stacks of peer reviewed research. a list of 700 is impressive, but a list of 400,000 is a conspiracy?
4.) you perpetuate the idea of the 'persecuted minority.' where the ID camp has been persecuted it has been for outright dishonesty. the reason they aren't taken seriously is because they produce little to no stimulating research.
you might be accommodating, and you might be a decent guy. but you're misinformed on this topic, if you're not being willfully dishonest.
Separate names with a comma.