Originally posted by Khayr: Salamz, Science- WE COME FROM NOTHINGNESS AND WE END IN NOTHINGNESS That is not what science says. Where did you get that from? Science believes in the principle of cause and effect. For there to be an effect, there must be a cause to 'cause' such effect. This means you can't get something from 'nothing'. But where we came from is more in realm of cosmology and outside the scope of evolution theory. Its entirely different debate altogether. Creation theory is more consistance with Natural Laws because it states that self evident TRUTH that SCIENTISM wants to DENY Creation theory says from nowhere and from nothing, sprung up the earth and all living things. This took place in the span of 6 days, over 6000 years ago. That is clearly incosistant with Natural laws as we know them today. Where the natural laws different say 6 000 years ago? According to science, no. From looking deep into space, thus looking at the oldest objects in our universe, we find that they are governed by the same laws as everything else in our world. So natural laws, as we know them today, governed the earth when creation theory says everything was created. "TO EVERYTHING THERE IS A BEGINNING AND AN END" That can only be said with certainty about living things. But not about non-living things. There are inanimate systems in our universe that had niether a beginning nor reached an end and are self-sustaining. Having said that, I've heard convincing arguements that such system can have a beginning. Even though at no point in the systems history can one pin-point to a particular stage to earmark its birth. Evolution and Scientism denies this self-evident REALITYYYY! No, they're not. The self-evident reality is that evolution is a FACT. An observable and demonstrable fact. Science doesn't deny anything facts show to be true. THAT WOULD MAKE THEM SUPRA, DIVINE, A GOD! So? Are you asking me to deny reality? The implications of this reality is not my problem. I'm only concerned with the truth. I'll leave the rest to learned theologians. and if that is what you are saying, then you are negating TAWHID!!! How so? I made no declaration about Tawhid. Only state facts as I see them. For if 'There is no Reality (GOD) but the Reality (GOD), There is no Seperation from GOD with what is CREATED, call it Matter or whateva... Then, that is Allah's problem, not mine. Its his world, his creation, which I am one. If there are realities which contradict one of his attributes, why should I be blamed for simply noting these realities :confused: HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT, especially if you are a Muslim??? I don't see why I shouldn't make such statement or for that matter any other statement as long as it's the truth. Note that I made no personal declaration only stated facts as stipulated by science.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: So for example although although data and experimenation support evolution, evolution cant nessecarily be true just because the data supports it, and it holds vice verca with regard to the creationism, i.e. something is, beacuse it is. Evolution is a FACT as supported by experimental data and evidences collected. However, evolution is not certainty. But then again no science theory is. Scientific theories are provisional. They are the best explanations we have for observed fact for time being. They can always be supplanted by better explanations and theories. That is what's great about science -- its subject to revision.

Originally posted by JustCause: Socod_badne, I am a bit confused with the above statement of yours, could you clarify it further please? Sure. The universe and everything that happens within it are guided by invarient set of natural laws. These are physical and non-physical laws that predetermine the possible outcome of many events. These events range from the paths of planetry motion to possible products of certain chemical reactions to the world of physics. For example, the laws of gravity predict that a ball thrown up in the air will fall back down. You will not see a ball lift its up from the ground and suspend itself in the air as this contradicts the laws of gravity. So these invarient natural laws rule out the possibility of there being chance in mention example. There is no chance in what will happened if you drop a ball suspended in the air. There are noted exceptions of course. Principally quantum mechanics world. The universe is built from quarks, leptons and so on. Since quantum mechanics applies to these particles, why shouldn’t quantum laws apply to the whole of the universe? That is at the elementary level and not the cosmic and non-subatomic world. The laws of quantum mechanics have effect at the very small scale -- at the electron, neutron, proton...level. That explains why the invariant natural laws don't apply to radio actively decaying molecules or quantum mechanics. I will just say now and don’t have the time to expand on it, that we live in non-deterministic universe! Don’t be like Einstein and say, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe!â€. We do live in non-deterministic AND deterministic world. You simply can not deny the plethora of empiracal evidence available for deterministic world. Einstien was partially right, God sometimes doesn't play dice with the universe. But on other instances like in the case radio actively decaying molecules, God does play dice with the universe. We often observe a radio active molecule decaying in some instances while in other instances under the same conditions, the same radio active molecule doesn't decay. God does play dice with universe in this instance.

Originally posted by JustCause: Socod_badne, I am a bit confused with the above statement of yours, could you clarify it further please? Sure. The universe and everything that happens within it are guided by invarient set of natural laws. These are physical and non-physical laws that predetermine the possible outcome of many events. These events range from the paths of planetry motion to possible products of certain chemical reactions to the world of physics. For example, the laws of gravity predict that a ball thrown up in the air will fall back down. You will not see a ball lift its up from the ground and suspend itself in the air as this contradicts the laws of gravity. So these invarient natural laws rule out the possibility of there being chance in mention example. There is no chance in what will happened if you drop a ball suspended in the air. There are noted exceptions of course. Principally quantum mechanics world. "The universe is built from quarks, leptons and so on. Since quantum mechanics applies to these particles, why shouldn’t quantum laws apply to the whole of the universe?" That is at the elementary level and not the cosmic and non-subatomic world. The laws of quantum mechanics have effect at the very small scale -- at the electron, neutron, proton...level. That explains why the invariant natural laws don't apply to radio actively decaying molecules or quantum mechanics. I will just say now and don’t have the time to expand on it, that we live in non-deterministic universe! Don’t be like Einstein and say, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe!â€. We do live in non-deterministic AND deterministic world. You simply can not deny the plethora of empiracal evidence available for deterministic world. Einstien was partially right, God sometimes doesn't play dice with the universe. But on other instances like in the case radio actively decaying molecules, God does play dice with the universe. We often observe a radio active molecule decaying in some instances while in other instances under the same conditions, the same radio active molecule doesn't decay. God does play dice with universe in this instance.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: peepz regradless of how much i agree or disagree with u, u do realised that evolution is completely agaisnt the creationist principles of islam, unless u can justify how Adam and Eve were mitochondrial dna ... Yes, I'm aware the versions of human history offered by evolution and creation are incompatible. As a muslim, I have no problem with that becuz I don't compare the two. One is religious, the other science. Science provides us explanations and mechanisms for what we observe in our world. It may contradict what Islam or other religions say on any particular topic. However, it doesn't contradict Allah in my opinion since everything we observe is directly the result of Allah's will. Nothing happens without Allah's will. [ anyhow, out of curiosity who are biologists here, and how do you reconcile the two very different views, if it bothers u that is? I'm biochemist, well almost. In couple of semesters.

Women and a bottle of Jack Daniels.

What took them so long? Fellow muslims, embrace for more Islamophobia!

ilaahi ha unaxariisto

Originally posted by Baashi: ID theory is not faith based theory and Christian Right jumped into the bandwagon for political and social reasons. It is the same old creation theory changed a little bit to make it look less religiously flavoured and more 'scientific'. Only the gullible and anti-evolutionist view it otherwise. Ironically Darwin's theory or rather the basis of his theory starts with assumption (Life is big accident and God has no role in both design and creation of the living organism) and from there it explains a whole lot that has nothing to do with that assumption. The 'whole lot' DOES have EVERYTHING to do with the assumption. I suggest you read more about evolution theory because it is proposterous to suggest the theory's content have nothing to do with its assumption. At issue is whether Darwinism can explain how man transitioned from chemical elements to bacteria-like organism to fish to mamamls then to its current form. The theory of evolution assumes the existance of at least ONE living organism and goes on to explain how all living organisms today descended from that first living organim. How that organism formed or who created it, is an area that evolution theory doesn't delve into. This is oft used arguement by creationists even though it has been repeatedly explained to them its futility, they continue to repeat it as if mere repition will make it true. It doesn't! At issue also is whether Darwinism can furnish its emperical eveidence to support the assertion that biological creation (from start to finish) is done by mutation and selection forces alone and Super Being or God has nothing to do with this whole enterprise known as life. This is the essence of Darwin's theory. There is plenty of evidences and facts for evolution of life on earth for those interested. From fossil records, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, biogeorgraphy, geology, Genetics...many other fields all confirm the accuracy of evolution theory's version of life's history. What more evidence do you need to believe it as a scientific fact? Not all science thoeries are as strongly supported by evidences and facts. Some have very week supporting evidences and are still accepted. Others are strongly supported. But if you compare Evolution theory to other 'well accepted' science theories, evolution theory comes on top on the strength of supporting evidence. Then, why does it get so much stick? Evolution is a fact not because evolution theory says so but we observe it in laboratories and in nature. It is an observed fact! However, what Intelligence Design challengers...contesting is the assertion that the history of life can be explained by Darwin's theory which doesn't take into account priori - the First Cause . Is life an accident or is it a designed product by Omniscent God? These, my friends, are the issue at hand. What first cause? Evolution theory, like all other science thoeries, doesn't take God into the picture in formulating theoires. This is the way science works, and I see no problem with it. Many scientists believe God and are perfectly comfortable in accepting the way science works. I can assure you if scientists considered the role of Allah in every situation, they wouldn't be much progress in science. Now, will I let my kids attend to such lectures. Most definately! Listening to all the sides of the argument doesn't hurt a bit! I agree.

Originally posted by Fidel: Speaking of creationism, what do you all thing of Carbon (or radiometric) dating? The processes by which the age of trees and rocks are estimated. I know Bible thumpers hate the whole idea of the book of Genesis in the bible being contracticed. In fact, they have an army of "scientists" out there disproving and creating doubt on radiometric dating. You see if life existed on earth say 1 billion years ago, as some testing of fossils has shown, then Genesis is essentially out of the window. What do you all think of this? Carbon dating is pretty accurate as far as the scientific community is concerned. It is very reliable as well. According to science the Universe is 15 billion years old and our earth is like 5 billion years old.

Originally posted by Elysian: An apple falling is a fact, true, but I wouldn’t regard that as a scientific fact, I would call that an observation. You don’t need science for making a statement like “I saw an apple fallâ€, then everything in our environment would be scientific facts… like “people eat apples†or “birds have feathers†… even children would be able to state scientific facts, like “apple is greenâ€. True, observances of natural events are not all scientific facts. But since we are talking about the principle of gravity as explained by the theory of gravity, falling of an apple from a tree can be regarded as 'scientific fact'. I guess the standard for classifying something as 'scientific fact is if there is a proposed science theory that explains it. As a researcher the first thing you do is to state a hypothesis and a null hypothesis; for example: Radioactivity cause cancer vs. Radioactivity does not cause cancer. To test the viability of the null hypothesis you have to design and conduct experiments. Depending on the experimental data the null hypothesis either will or will not be rejected as a viable possibility (of course most scientists hope for data that will reject the null hypothesis… no one is interested in “radioactivity does not cause cancerâ€, although that is important finding in itself… but that’s a whole other topic). After you have run all the necessary experiments, collected all data, you interpret the data and/or do statistical analyzes which hopefully supports rejecting the null hypothesis, and finally you can make the statement – Radioactivity cause cancer – which would be a scientific fact! So in the end what you call scientific fact is what I call data/ observations. What would you call “my†scientific fact??? If the experiment is reproducible and PREDICTIONS made by your hypothesis are consistant with data gathered and observed, then your theory can move from 'speculative stage' to established scientific fact and acceptable science theory.

Originally posted by Johnny B: determinisim....-> every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. And there comes the needle-eye opening of the creationisim. Since an endless inevitable reaction yields a meaningless startless action, the thought of it having no START "somewhere" is an insult to the everage sound judgment which is not based on specialized knowledge("common sense" if u like) Deterministic universe is one that runs in conformity with invariant natural laws. These laws predetermine the outcome of every event. There are exception, as I already said, like radioactive decaying and quantum mechanics. Creationists DON'T believe in deterministic world. Afterall, creation theory is inconsistant with natural laws of our world. Now, in deterministic world, with every effect having a cause, the idea of startless action or effect is impossible. However, it is not an insult to sound judgement to say an effect can have no start. We already observe this fact in our world. There are self-sustaining systems that have neither a cause nor a start!

Originally posted by Johnny B: nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like). The entire universe functions on deterministic course with exception of quantum mechanics field. Invariant natural laws of the universe make this possible. Nature is driven by invariant natural laws, no room for 'chance'.

Originally posted by Elysian: As I said, I don’t know what arguments intelligent design presents, if they don’t have any scientific evidence or arguments, it cannot be part of the science curricula. However, they might have some interesting points that can be integrated when teaching evolution... I have to disagree here. I don't think they have anything 'interesting' that is worth teaching to kids. I have yet to see any, maybe in the future but so far nothing interesting or worth considering, they are peddling same old holy scripture arguements sprinkled with little bit of psuedoscience. Students in schools should be taught science and the scientific method. Why? Becuz we see the fruits it has beared through many wonderful and beneficial invention and innovations that have lengthened and embettered life. No need to change what has worked. Furthermore, science is the only discipline that is self-correcting. When science theory is flawed or has short comings it is scientists that correct them, not priests. That is why holy men should have no say on science and science matters other than personal opinions. Scientific facts and scientific theories, are not flawless certainties! Scientific facts involve not only testable and observable elements but they also involve.... Scientific theories explain scientific facts. Since the knowledge we use to make these explanations is tentative and not complete, then yes, science theories are not certainties. No science theory is certainty, not even the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity says that apples fall from trees. Bus since the theory of gravity is not 'certain', would be wise to suggest that it is not certain that apples will fall from trees? Of course not. Becuz we know to be a FACT that apples fall from trees, the theory of gravity only gave us an explanation and mechanism and why it happens. Same is true with the theory of evolution. Evolution theory is both fact and theory. It's a fact becuz we observe speciation in laborateries with yeasts and bacteria and in the field with like with English Moths and plants. Nothing will change that speciation is natural occurance.

Originally posted by Pucca: ^they have a name for ppl like that...its not chinese though. *cough* short stuff what is it? :confused:

Originally posted by Haseena: Bismill Allah My brother, I would like you to give the evidences for your claim that the muslims have never been one ummah, even at its earliest stages. Since this is not math or logic debate, I can't give you a 'prove', I can only provide evidence/s. Muslims were never united as a single Ummah, if they did can you point out under which caliphate? When I look Islamic history, I see muslim fighting muslims were as frequent and common as muslims fighting non-muslims. Right after the prophets (pbuh) death, half of his closest and most trusted campanions were killed by other muslims. Arab tribes who prior to the prophet's (scw) death fully embraced islam, revolted and had to be crushed, violently, by Abu Bakr. From Abu Bakr to crusaders time to today, we muslims have been our biggest enemy. What does this tell us? That we muslims are more violent towards each other than others? I argue not. It only shows that we are humans like all other humans. We'll kill, hate, discriminate and indulge in intercine conflicts. To think that we'll somehow live peacefully and happily one day as united nation is wishful thinking. There is nothing from recent or distant history that gives us any confidence to hold such vision. But what we have today amongst us is lack of proper Aqeedah, you will see today in the majority of the muslim countries people who worship graves,awliyas,support the kuffars,ruling with man made laws etc. It is due to these problems that our ummah today are in a state of weakness and humiliation. That is simplistic thinking. If what you list are reasons for muslim problems, then why haven't 1.5 billion muslims figure out how to solve them? Islamic world's decline has been proceeding for a long time now, several centuries at least. But Allxamdulillah, Allah has raised amongst us, people who are pious and who love Allah and his messenger, they are the mujahideen. They are indeed few, but insha Allah, their hearts are filled with Imaan, and how many times have small armies but with believing men win over a supremacy of kufr. Indeed Allah is with them. I don't think the problem muslims face is military one. Its social, political, economical, intellectual...military inferiorty with regard to the West exists but its not the biggest problem facing us muslims. If the other listed problems are tackled first, the military strength disparity will slowly disappear. Once again I would like to emphasise the importance and value of the ansar al muslimeen, our noble mujahideen of today, aid them any way you can, with your wealth, your self, or use your tongue propagate for their cause indeed it is for this ummah they bleed. And blood is a must in this case, just look at the history of Islam. The sword must be raised in order to eliminate kufr and hypocricy. Which mujahideens? There are hundreds of them today, fighting all over the world. Personally, I'm against violence unless used as last resort. It usually doesn't solve your problems only compounds them and possibly create more enemies and newer sets of problems. And I certainly wouldn't raise any sword to 'eliminate' any kufrs and 'hypocracy'. Instead of eliminating, we should be building bridges, making friends and showing tolerance and civility towards the rest of the planet's inhabitants. Afterall, we are MINORITY. We must cleanse our hearts from all hatred. What do you mean by hypocracy? Hypocracy is human trait, you can never 'eliminate' it. It will be with us as long as we are here in this world.

I classify myself as chinese! I have prove. I'm short, brown skinned and have chinese eyes.

It doesn't matter how many errors or objectionable material are in the bible as the bible is not the word of God. That according to christians. They don't follow it as strictly as us muslims do the Quran. Besides, the 'christian world' is secular. Religion and state are separate. Religion is personal and private. I don't really get what the point of this post is? :confused: And you should think about the can of worms you're gonna open with your criticism of christianity. I see fellow muslims furious about critics of Islam. If we criticise other faiths, do we have any reasons to complain when they do the same to ours. Think about the consequences of your actions.

I'm afraid no. We muslims were never united as one ummah, not even in the heydays of islamic supramacy. One of the biggest misconception muslims hold today is that we were united in the past as single Ummah. But where is the evidence for that? I think this is part of the reason why muslim nations are stagnant in terms modernizing and developing like the rest of the world. Our leaders tell us our problems will be solved once we unite as single ummah. The same message is echoed from Imams in mosques. Yet we see no unity forming and continue to lag behind the rest of the world. Right after the prophet's death (scw), muslims started killing each other. Yes, it is true that in the early days of Islam we were better united then today but not to the extent most muslims think we were. There was never single united Ummah practicing 'perfect' islam. So what reasons do we have to believe there will be one in the future? Even during one of muslim world's greatest hour, during crusades, some muslims were siding with and aiding the crusaders. Muslims helping the butchering of their fellow muslims. History is replete with other similar instances. Even us somalis, who are same ppl with same history, culture, tradition and 99% islamic are divided into 100 clans, sub-clans and sub-sub-clans. Is it then, likely that 1.5 billion muslims, or even half of that, with innumberable languages and varying cultures and traditions, will unite as single Ummah? ISLAM IS PERFECT, MUSLIMS ARE NOT. That is our problem as well as a solution to our problems. We muslims as humans are susceptible to the same human weaknesses that afflict everyone else. We are tempted, seduced and often succumb to power, prestige, greed, jealousy...we shouldn't delude ourselves that we are somehow immune from these human weaknesses. Human history should be our best guide as to how to get us out of this misery. And human history tells us that we DON'T NEED unity to overcome our problems. Look at europe's ascendency to influence and power. At one point in history, europe was everything it is not today. Poor, backward, intellectually stagnant, religiously intolerant and economically and culturally underdeveloped. But their rise to power and prominance was achieved while divided. Europeans surpassed the muslim world in every field while they were divided, bickering and warring among themselves, and competing against each other through colonial quests. In my opinion, what muslims need to do is to persue their selfish interests. Each group of muslims should look after their interests first and formost. In that way, hopefully, they'll overcome their difficulties and challenges and thus strengthen the muslim Ummah as a whole.

I hate those kops :mad:

No! She looks like she's been to ...

Originally posted by NGONGE: Baashe, Theories can be proven wrong because one can carry out experiments to prove or disprove a theory. One can not do so with god (not scientifically anyway, I think). It’s debatable if one can do it philosophically, but plenty have given it a damn good try. Do you think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes? How? Science theories CAN NOT be proven right or wrong. Scientific theories are provisional. They are subject to change and revision. Unlike math and logic, you can't 'prove' anything in science. In math, 1+1 always equals two, no matter what new evidence turns up. But science theories rely on evedince and facts, you can not prove them right or wrong since you can not be certain of what new evidence or fact may turn up tomorrow that may either discredit or force a re-phrasing of the theory. If you can prove scientific theory, then you can never correct or revise that theory. For example, Einstien would never have come up with his theory of gravity since there was already another theory of gravity by Newton. Personally I'm against creationism theory being taught in science classes becuz it is not science. But I'm all for it being taught in schools in other than science classes. Perhaps under philosophy, religion or whatever.

Originally posted by Baashi: Elysian, Also at issue is whether life has a purpose at all. The Intelligent Design proponents assert that this question is philosophical/theological in nature and Darwin has not provided any new answers that can withstand the scientific inquiry. This is another case where creationists have introduced ad hoc arguements into the evolution debate. Science explains and provides mechanisms for the facts we observe around us. It has no say on theology or philosophy.

Originally posted by Elysian: However, although they know (or should know) that what is called facts today are only true until proven otherwise, it still is a painful experience for the scientists involved to admit they were wrong, hence the dogmatic attitude. How can FACTS be proven otherwise? Isn't fact what is already proven? :confused:

Originally posted by Baashi: Hoodi hoodi qaraabo, I kinda fell in line with the opposite side of argument against Darwin not because of religious reasons but the compelling evidence the other side presented in their argument. What compelling evidence? I'd like to read them. Have you guys paid any attention to this new development? What's your take on this issue? The case for evolution theory, that all living organisms descended from first living organism, is waterproof. There are no 'hard facts' against it. There is growing body of evidence for it. Science considers evolution as a fact as well as a theory. Its important to keep that in mind. Like all science theories its tentative and subject of revision and re-examination. You can bet your life on it that evolution theory will take many turns and twists before your time. This, however, doesn't mean it is wrong, the core of the thoery is pretty much rock solid as far evidence for it is concerned, but a demonstration of science at work. Intelligent design is a repackaged old creationism theory. I have yet to see any compelling evidence they put forth discrediting evolution theory. To discredit a science theory, you need to use the science as your tool. You need to apply the scientific process/method of discrediting old thoeries. Instead of doing that, creationists are using half-baked psuedoscience agruements and holy scripts. As long as they continue to go through this route, they'll never succeed in their objective of discrediting evolution theory. They're simply wasting their time and misleading the uninformed masses. This is also another veiled attempt by christians to get religion back into public schools. They wont suceed!