The Religion Discussion

[sMASH]

the scriptures with respect to man, shows that man was specially created. but i read them and thinking maybe, even that more figurative than literal. like the fashioning from clay and the breathing of life may be analogous to significant achievements of the hominid making them more on the human side than the ape side.

or it could actually be a little less figurative and a little more literal, like some ancient alien theorist believe that extra terrestrials modified the apes to get us. like the prometheus' engineers.

but for the while, until more answers are gotten, as muslims, we would say that man's creation was influenced compared to the rest of creation.

[MG Man]

god made us all different, right?
everyone has different perceptions, brain functions, learning capabilities etc, agreed?
Then by the virtue of god's great diversity, some of us are destined to be atheists, no?
Surely god knows the inner workings of my mind, because he made it, no?
Surely he knew the path I took to get to this point, because he knew from the very beginning
Ok so I had choices along the way, but he KNEW which choices I would make when given multiple directions to follow
So...........god knowingly made me an atheist
Yet you guys think I'm going to hell for my attitude towards him.......
but HE made me this way..........he knew from even before he created the universe, that he would make me and I would get to this point..........
God knowingly makes atheists
You guys can't condemn us based on your religious beliefs

i think we have a winner here.....

MGMan: That is your choice to believe or not believe in God. The same argument can be made for the creation of Lucifer. God knew before he created Lucifer that he could lead a rebellion in heaven. But that did not stop him from creating Lucifer.

God has a plan. A very good one at that. However, us mortals with an average life span of 70 or so years cannot begin to understand that plan because we are not the Creator but the created.

Consider something you have made. Let's say you took a piece of paper and made a card. You then gave that card life and a set of directions for its life. You also told the card that there are consequences for certain actions it may choose to take.

You let the card go to choose what it would do. Would you give the card all your knowledge or power? Why or why not?

The card can choose to ignore you and your existence (like some children do their parents). It does not change the fact that you knew what the card was going to do. You still gave it a choice.

Thus it is with God. At the end of the day, you and you alone will face the reality of the God whose existence you choose to deny.

at the end of the day, your god cannot punish me, because it was him that made me the dysfunctional wattless fcuk that I am
your god is a bad father

[jayt]

For evolution to be proven as real or credible, it has to pass it's very meaning. To evolve matter has to have existed, which by itself negates what evolution means. Something must have already existed to then evolve. Plain and simple. No scientist has been able to prove that. No one!. Absolutely no one ever. Hence, it is a theory. Everyone who is attributing Evolution to anything is really mistakenly confirming the Law of Cause and Effect. Cause and effect is real and practical, while Evolution is not. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory.

[Humes]

Believe what you want by reading from websites created by people who don't actually understand science and try to use to to inaccurately justify null hypotheses. It will make sense to others who don't understand science too.

Well said.

I'm becoming convinced that a primary tactic of believers is the obfuscation of any discussion to the point where opposing participants just become weary and leave. Then they claim "victory".

[MG Man]

For evolution to be proven as real or credible, it has to pass it's very meaning. To evolve matter has to have existed, which by itself negates what evolution means. Something must have already existed to then evolve. Plain and simple. No scientist has been able to prove that. No one!. Absolutely no one ever. Hence, it is a theory. Everyone who is attributing Evolution to anything is really mistakenly confirming the Law of Cause and Effect. Cause and effect is real and practical, while Evolution is not. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory.

The good people at Mitsubishi are not amused by your statement

[sMASH]

wonder what duane has to say on that... lol.

ever watch the special those tv stations have in the evening when is ramadhan? plenty times they start with a little verse. the verse starts out 'oh, you who believe, fasting is prescribed for you...'
that gets me thinking, it did not say fasting is prescribed to every one, it says to those who believe.

i u don't believe it, it does not apply. but if u do, then it does. in other words, do what you are supposed to do, or rather, when in rome yada yada. but the rome is what u think is the right philosophy.

plenty people here who spoke about the eastern philosophies say that every one has to follow their own path, and each path is different, although they may resemble at times. the analogy of every one going up the mountain summarizes it pretty well visually.

islam says it is the best way, letting you know there are other ways. the best way, because that is what we believe (from napkin). u can't put blame on any one who after consideration, came to a conclusion. at least they have observed and considered, which is more in line with doing the human thing than just doing what u came up in.

we came up in the garden on eden, doing as we were accustomed doing. then when we were presented with a difference, an option, we considered it and took it. it was against the obvious rules, but it was necessary for us to be beings who consider, who will demonstrate sentience.
we erred, cause we are human. and that err was forgiven, because the act was easy to forgive, and it was the capacity of the being to forgive.

Surah al-Hujurat 49:13 'People,We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other'
we are told that we were made into different peoples, who have different beliefs. god created that, so who are we to condemn what god has designed?

[MG Man]

wonder what duane has to say on that... lol.

ever watch the special those tv stations have in the evening when is ramadhan? plenty times they start with a little verse. the verse starts out 'oh, you who believe, fasting is prescribed for you...'
that gets me thinking, it did not say fasting is prescribed to every one, it says to those who believe.

i u don't believe it, it does not apply. but if u do, then it does. in other words, do what you are supposed to do, or rather, when in rome yada yada. but the rome is what u think is the right philosophy.

plenty people here who spoke about the eastern philosophies say that every one has to follow their own path, and each path is different, although they may resemble at times. the analogy of every one going up the mountain summarizes it pretty well visually.

islam says it is the best way, letting you know there are other ways. the best way, because that is what we believe (from napkin). u can't put blame on any one who after consideration, came to a conclusion. at least they have observed and considered, which is more in line with doing the human thing than just doing what u came up in.

we came up in the garden on eden, doing as we were accustomed doing. then when we were presented with a difference, an option, we considered it and took it. it was against the obvious rules, but it was necessary for us to be beings who consider, who will demonstrate sentience.
we erred, cause we are human. and that err was forgiven, because the act was easy to forgive, and it was the capacity of the being to forgive.

Surah al-Hujurat 49:13 'People,We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other'
we are told that we were made into different peoples, who have different beliefs. god created that, so who are we to condemn what god has designed?

sMASH, I have no problem with anyone believing their way is the best way
What I do have a problem with, is religions that tell their followers to go out and convert non-believers
that simple commandment is what leads to wars, hate, genocide etc

[jayt]

MG Man... me and the people at Mitsubishi... we cool. I took the CK2 instead. Dem was happy still.

[Dizzy28]

wonder what duane has to say on that... lol.

ever watch the special those tv stations have in the evening when is ramadhan? plenty times they start with a little verse. the verse starts out 'oh, you who believe, fasting is prescribed for you...'
that gets me thinking, it did not say fasting is prescribed to every one, it says to those who believe.

i u don't believe it, it does not apply. but if u do, then it does. in other words, do what you are supposed to do, or rather, when in rome yada yada. but the rome is what u think is the right philosophy.

plenty people here who spoke about the eastern philosophies say that every one has to follow their own path, and each path is different, although they may resemble at times. the analogy of every one going up the mountain summarizes it pretty well visually.

islam says it is the best way, letting you know there are other ways. the best way, because that is what we believe (from napkin). u can't put blame on any one who after consideration, came to a conclusion. at least they have observed and considered, which is more in line with doing the human thing than just doing what u came up in.

we came up in the garden on eden, doing as we were accustomed doing. then when we were presented with a difference, an option, we considered it and took it. it was against the obvious rules, but it was necessary for us to be beings who consider, who will demonstrate sentience.
we erred, cause we are human. and that err was forgiven, because the act was easy to forgive, and it was the capacity of the being to forgive.

Surah al-Hujurat 49:13 'People,We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other'
we are told that we were made into different peoples, who have different beliefs. god created that, so who are we to condemn what god has designed?

sMASH, I have no problem with anyone believing their way is the best way
What I do have a problem with, is religions that tell their followers to go out and convert non-believers
that simple commandment is what leads to wars, hate, genocide etc

This!!

[sMASH]

and that is where the people have short comings. we do not think about the teachings relating to each other. we would focus on the part where ours is the best, and that we have a mandate to spread the word of islam. when situations arise where our faith is invigorated, we want to go and dominate the world, our zeal over powers us. we forget the other teachings that we cannot force any body into it, that we must let others do freely as we would like to do freely ourselves. we forget that we must not become pests in our spreading of the word.

many times, when non-muslims reverted to islam, was because they asked and got answers over time. one thing led to the next, time allowed for consideration and previous knowledge became the foundation for further knowledge when enough time was allowed for it to be understood. they were not forced, they were not challenged, but saw sumting or observed sumthing which catches their interest. when exploring their interest, then questions arise and challenges arise of their consideration.
hardly any one converts when being bothered all the time, or bashed with the message.

[MG Man]

hardly any one converts when being bothered all the time, or bashed with the message.

actually many people convert because for starters, they don't fully understand their own religion to begin with
Then someone from another religion starts poking holes in their beliefs, and then shows them a more sensible / user friendly alternative
This works rather well with hindus who don't know much about their religion, and it makes them easy prey............Presbyterians had a field day with them.........it makes them easy targets when challenged, and presented with more user friendly options......
Ultimately the convert replaces his bullsheit with someone else's bullsheit and seems happier for it.....kinda like Kamla replacing poor governance and corruption with poor governance and corruption and being praised by her mindless followers for it......
Converting to islam simply means you were a clueless moron to begin with........either that or you were a clueless moron who has a lust for power

But sMASH, lemme ask u something........why dont muslim men cover up their faces too? If the rationale is that covering up a woman prevents lust etc.........

[bluefete]

god made us all different, right?
everyone has different perceptions, brain functions, learning capabilities etc, agreed?
Then by the virtue of god's great diversity, some of us are destined to be atheists, no?
Surely god knows the inner workings of my mind, because he made it, no?
Surely he knew the path I took to get to this point, because he knew from the very beginning
Ok so I had choices along the way, but he KNEW which choices I would make when given multiple directions to follow
So...........god knowingly made me an atheist
Yet you guys think I'm going to hell for my attitude towards him.......
but HE made me this way..........he knew from even before he created the universe, that he would make me and I would get to this point..........
God knowingly makes atheists
You guys can't condemn us based on your religious beliefs

i think we have a winner here.....

MGMan: That is your choice to believe or not believe in God. The same argument can be made for the creation of Lucifer. God knew before he created Lucifer that he could lead a rebellion in heaven. But that did not stop him from creating Lucifer.

God has a plan. A very good one at that. However, us mortals with an average life span of 70 or so years cannot begin to understand that plan because we are not the Creator but the created.

Consider something you have made. Let's say you took a piece of paper and made a card. You then gave that card life and a set of directions for its life. You also told the card that there are consequences for certain actions it may choose to take.

You let the card go to choose what it would do. Would you give the card all your knowledge or power? Why or why not?

The card can choose to ignore you and your existence (like some children do their parents). It does not change the fact that you knew what the card was going to do. You still gave it a choice.

Thus it is with God. At the end of the day, you and you alone will face the reality of the God whose existence you choose to deny.

at the end of the day, your god cannot punish me, because it was him that made me the dysfunctional wattless fcuk that I am
your god is a bad father

The dysfunctional .... is your choice. You can also choose to be a functional ... !!!!

You still have to answer at the end of the day.

[bluefete]

@Sweetiepaper & death:

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/the_mea ... nger_alive

The Meaning of Death: How do we know someone is no longer alive?

At what point does a person actually die? That depends on who you ask. To one person, it's the moment the heart stops beating. To another, it's when the brain enters a "vegetative" state. But a heart can be forced to keep beating; and how dead is a person, really, if she can continue to grow, develop, and even give birth after experiencing "brain death"?

In search of answers, we turned to Dick Teresi. A seasoned science writer and the former editor of Science Digest and Omni, Teresi has spent the last ten years researching and writing about the science behind the line that separates life and death. He has recounted his findings and experiences in his new book, The Undead: Organ Harvesting, the Ice-Water Test, Beating Heart Cadavers — How Medicine Is Blurring the Line Between Life and Death.

In your experience, do most doctors and scientists relate to death in similar terms? In other words, does "death" mean the same thing to a cardiologist as it does to a cell biologist, a neurologist, or a neonatologist?

I've been a science writer since 1973, covering a lot of particle physics, and I've discovered that compared to, say, physics, "medical science" is an oxymoron. Doctors are not well schooled in scientific principles. They are healers, not scientists, and they don't understand basic concepts such as falsification in science. For example, doctors believe that if drug A heals 9 out of 10 people with disease X, then drug A heals disease X because it usually does. A scientist, on the other hand, believes that one exception destroys the whole theory.

The Meaning of Death: How do we know someone is no longer alive?More to the point, take brain death. Some patients are declared brain dead and then begin spontaneously breathing hours later. Medical scientists say it doesn't matter because most brain-dead patients do not come back to life, but a rigorous scientist would say that these cases speak loudly about the flaws in our criteria for death. And yes — death to a cardiologist means that your heart has stopped, and he can't get it to restart. But to a neurologist, it might mean something else. In 1968, a committee at Harvard Medical School put forth an article stating that there is a second kind of death: brain death. Even though your heart is still pumping, and you're still able to breathe on a ventilator, if your brain stem is down, you're dead. This theory was made law in all 50 states in 1981, so now in the U.S. we have two kinds of death: real death (cardiopulmonary death) and what some doctors call "pretty dead," or brain death. A cell biologist, on the other hand, may have a standard more rigorous than cardiologists or neurologists. They might want to see all one's cells dead, which we call putrefaction.

So clearly death is not as straightforward as some people make it out to be. Tell us a little about why that is.

Since the beginning of recorded history, we have looked for a simple set of criteria that tell us when a person is dead. This is because we don't like to bury or cremate people if they're still alive, among other reasons. We have looked for a central organ that spells the difference between life and death, or a set of behaviors that indicate with certainty that our bodies have called it quits.

But every time we think we have solid criteria, we find exceptions. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought the brain was totally unimportant, and they hollowed out the skulls of mummies, tossing the brain away. They concentrated on the heart. But stopped hearts often restarted spontaneously, and embalmers who declared live persons dead were stoned.

The Romans came up with "conclamation," which involved yelling a person's name in his ear three times — hardly a foolproof method. Inventions like the stethoscope helped immensely because some heartbeats and breaths are faint. Artificial respiration, smelling salts, and electric shock resuscitated people previously thought dead. Medical journals continue to fill with conditions that mimic death but which are not death at all.

Would you say that definitions of death have evolved over time?

Definitions of death have not changed a great deal, but that doesn't mean much. Often we'll say "death is the absence of life," but then we have to define "life" and that's almost impossible. All we can really do is set criteria for who's dead, and that is tough enough, and we have no real definitive set of standards.

You suggest in your book that relating to death as something that is "irreversible" can be problematic. Talk to us about what makes that word so troublesome.

"Irreversible" is not a very scientific term. Is the solar system "irreversible?" How about the universe as a whole? No, even the proton may eventually decay. Nothing is forever.

What science looks for is stable systems. We can say the solar system or the hydrogen atom is stable. Death comes, we might say, when the stability of the human body breaks down, and the system no longer works as a whole. Does that happen when the heart goes? The lungs? The lungs and heart together? The brain? That's the debate. We are acquiring more and more evidence that the body can go on in a somewhat stable system long after the brain has called it quits. For example, brain-dead pregnant mothers can continue to gestate and give birth to their babies long after being declared brain dead. In one case, a mother went 107 days after "death," and then delivered a healthy newborn.
"An MRI that twenty years ago was considered a 'photograph of death' is now just an image of a sick but reparable brain."

How do you think our understanding of death might continue to evolve in the years to come?

I can only hope that medical scientists become true scientists, and acknowledge some ugly truths: that life lingers on far past our criteria for death. Perhaps it is impractical for us to keep people alive-and on life support-indefinitely. Today we declare such inconvenient people to be "dead," even if they're not, so we can bury them and be rid of them. Perhaps we should acknowledge that they are not dead, but in, say, "condition X," a condition at which time we can terminate them. These are ugly realities, and it is easier just to call them dead. But we should face reality, and make tough decisions.

Do you think our relationship with death is more likely to change in response to breakthroughs in medical treatments, or advances in our ability to understand the body? I recognize that these two things are not mutually exclusive; but if I might borrow an example from your book, what I'm getting at here is the distinction between something like tissue plasminogen activator (a medical advancement that "moved the line" dividing life and death, so to speak) and imaging techniques like MRI that allow us to visualize a brain and decide if someone is or is not "dead."

Yes, [tissue plasminogen activator, aka "tPA"] is a good example. In the past, brain scans taken of people 1 to 3 hours after a stroke would be read as the scans of a dead person. Today, tPA can bring people back to normality even 3 hours after a stroke. So an MRI that twenty years ago was considered a "photograph of death" is now just an image of a sick but reparable brain.

But again, these are not definitions but criteria for death. One of the problems of brain death is that it was described as death all the way back in 1968, and there have been remarkable discoveries in neuroscience since then. In 1973, Candace Pert discovered the opiate receptor in the brain. The discovery of endorphins followed, as did dozens of other receptors and neurohormones. The brain of 1968 was envisioned as a Tinker Toy kind of machine, with electricity mixed in. Now we know biochemistry has a great deal to do with consciousness.

And yet, that has all been ignored because brain-death criteria were developed in the stone age of neuroscience, and neurologists still are schooled in this backward fashion. Neurochemicals are found being secreted in supposedly dead brains because brain-death tests are not designed to detect them. Our tests are crude, requiring an exam shorter than my last eye exam, and using such crude instruments as a flashlight, ice water, cotton swabs, and the like. None of this can tell us about consciousness.

The Meaning of Death: How do we know someone is no longer alive?Organ harvesting/transplantation and the science surrounding death. You suggest that the two have difficulty playing nice. Why is that?

Plain and simple: we want the organs. Organ transplantation is a $27 billion per year business. Most of the people harvested for organs today would not have been considered dead prior to 1968. But really dead people-those whose hearts have stopped and are not breathing-do not make good donors. The blood stops bringing oxygen to the organs, and, for lack of a better word, they spoil. But if the donor is just "mostly dead," meaning that his heart is still beating and he can still breathe with the aid of a ventilator, then the organs remain fresh and juicy and bring huge prices in the transplant business.

The average cost for a heart transplant, such as the one Dick Cheney just received, is nearly $1,000,000. Kidneys will cost you about $250,000 each. The donors by law cannot be compensated, so this is a very, very profitable business, one in which the raw material-human organs-do not have to be paid for, thanks to federal law. It is one of the great federal subsidies of our time.

How close do you think science and medicine can come to truly defining death — at least as it pertains to the notion of death on the organismal, human level?

Because "irreversible" is locked into our present definition of death, I don't think we can ever truly define it. And what happens to consciousness? I personally believe it disappears with the entropy of the body, but many would say otherwise, and I have no evidence to dispute them.

To what extent is the definition of death a philosophical question? With your answer to that question in mind, do you think doctors are the most well-equipped people to come to decisions involving life and death, and are there any realistic alternatives?

Today, more than ever, it has become a philosophical question. When we witnessed the brain-death exam of a woman in Springfield, Massachusetts, after the perfunctory tests, a nurse proclaimed, "Whatever it was that made her her isn't there anymore." So that is the new standard: "personhood." Doctors say brain death is imperfect as a rule for calling the body biologically dead, but so what? The "person" is gone.

Here's what I'd like to know: during what year of medical school do doctors learn what a "person" is, and when the person is missing?

In your experience, how do non-scientists and non-doctors relate to the concept of death? Is there as much disagreement over (or differences in definition between) what it means for a cell, organ, animal, or human to be dead, or is that kind of thing not even on the average person's radar?

I imagine there are grave disagreements. But I think on a personal level, we are all on the same plane. We are terrified. Death is the unknown and shall always be the unknown. We don't know where we're going, if anywhere. And will we be annihilated? I kind of think so, and that is hard to grasp. We all have to face the fact that at some point, the universe will exist without us. We are not special and are not ultimately needed. Neither science nor medicine is of much help here, and neither is most egocentric religion. I've had to deal with this reality during the ten years I worked on this book. In the end, it is of some comfort to know that whatever inequities exist in the world, we are all equal in this regard, and we all share the same fate.

Dick Teresi is the author of The Undead: Organ Harvesting, the Ice-Water Test, Beating heart Cadavers-How Medicine Is Blurring the Line Between Life and Death.

[stickman]

But sMASH, lemme ask u something........why dont muslim men cover up their faces too? If the rationale is that covering up a woman prevents lust etc.........

I am not sMASH, but women are vastly inferior to men in Islam. Muslims will argue otherwise.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

[Bizzare]

Guys, why can't scientist create a human being? We've reached a point in science where scientist can replace our organs with artificial devices or even use foreign devices to support or allow failing organs to function properly. With such knowledge, scientist should be able to take a dead man and "revive" his system using artificial methods and bring life back to his body again. In fact, they should even be able to replicate every aspect of the human body (all organs included) creating one on their own and bring it to life.
Something science will NEVER be able to do. They'll never be able to create life or bring life back to a lifeless body!!

No matter how far they reach in artificial intelligence, they'll never be able to mimic "free will" completely either. Instead we'll have robots who make decisions solely based on human programming.

There's definitely a God. That I know for sure. As for religion.......

[megadoc1]

if this is a religion discussion ched ,why are some folks coming in here to discuss evolution?
is evolution really science or a belief system?
anyways this ched has 144,000 views hmmmmmm!

[Bizzare]

Evolution is a subsection of religion. Just like Islam, Christianity etc, evolution is just another belief.

[MG Man]

evolution of religion:
the sumerians came up with some good stories
the christians stole them and made them their stories
islam came up with bible V2.0
Pastafarianism

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

For evolution to be proven as real or credible, it has to pass it's very meaning. To evolve matter has to have existed, which by itself negates what evolution means. Something must have already existed to then evolve. Plain and simple. No scientist has been able to prove that. No one!. Absolutely no one ever. Hence, it is a theory. Everyone who is attributing Evolution to anything is really mistakenly confirming the Law of Cause and Effect. Cause and effect is real and practical, while Evolution is not. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory.

Vocabulary.

The word "theory" in science does not have the same meaning as the vernacular that you are using.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Such as Newton's Theory of Gravity. I hope you don't think that gravity is unsubstantiated!

Take a read:

Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, often in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as either fact or theory and occasionally both or neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse. In the context of creationists claims, theory is used in its vernacular meaning as an imperfect fact or an unsubstantiated speculation. The purported intent is to discredit or reject the scientific credibility of evolution. However, this claim cannot be substantiated.[1][2][3]

Evolutionary theory unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments into a testable explanatory scheme. In this sense, the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) definition of theory refers to an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations; this includes, for example, the theory of gravity. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".[4]

The scientific theory of evolution explains the causes of evolution, as distinct from the more straightforward factual claim that the process of evolution occurs. Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution. These and many other causal evolutionary theories can be expressed in the mathematical framework of population genetics. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not only been expressed mathematically, but has also been rigorously tested and corroborated empirically by scientific evidence from countless studies. Evolutionary theories continue to generate new testable hypotheses within paleontology, genetics, ecology, and developmental biology.

A fact is not a statement of certainty, but through repeated confirmation the things or processes they refer to are generally accepted as true according to the reliability of inference (inductive, deductive, and abductive). Facts refer to "events that occur" or "the state of being of things" that can be publicly verified, proven through experiment, or witnessed by direct observation.[3][5] That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science that continues to explain vast numbers of facts in biology.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... and_theory

you claim evolution is unsubstantiated. What do you believe is substantiated?

[sMASH]

mg, which gyul u ever hear about ever getting totoolbay over ah fella, stalk 'im, hold 'im down and rape 'im?

with respect to the qur'anic verse quoted above, these are guidelines on how to deal with a lewd wife who does not respect herself as a woman ( ah ting gettin on badd). it also give a little male/female roles distinction in some what of a preamble.

the most sensational part of that excerpt is in the latter piece where 'strike' is used in most translations. this is unfortunate as the word which is used has multiple meanings, inclusive of 'to hit' or 'to tap' i.e. daraba.
it does not specifically mean 'to strike' in the sense of that we who are accustomed to speaking english are accustomed to associate with strike. further evidence of that is that when the intention is to convey significant force with a blow, or to strike is intended, different words were used to that meaning, such as 'yatakhabbatuhu'.
the word used darab is meant to say set straight as in to let her know what time it is, if she wants to stay in the marriage. so, is like u giving her an ultimatum, the manner of which is very straight and hard.

but then moving back up to the beginning of the excerpt, u all see that it is male dominant and woman suppressive. it is a patriarchal society, with guidelines on how to live, with gender roles and what not.

of course, as u say, we would argue that it is fair, but maybe the argument would be best heard from a muslima, who reverted to islam of her own free will, especially from a country of western society like america or europe. who better to explain why a woman would want to be part of islam than a woman.

well, i would have to find some site and post the link here, but i goin to see prmetheus again, now.. laters

[jayt]

You claim evolution is unsubstantiated. What do you believe is substantiated?

Duane, I believe that the Law of Cause and Effect is substantiated. I cannot speak scientifically, so theory for me is a claim based without proof (common speech). I believe that matter can evolve, but in this thread, the theme is Religion and in the context of Religion, Evolution is false. So, everything was created by a Supreme being / Creator. With reference to Evolution, in regard to Religion / Creation, there is no empirical evidence or observation to support it. The laws of Cause and Effect in regard to Religion / creation however, is substantiated.

[sweetiepaper]

sweetiepaper

What empirical evidence convinced you that the whale's hind legs evolved into tiny flaps?
A diagram is not empirical evidence.

And how do they know the age of the Pakicetas is 52 million years old? Do you understand how they calculate the age of these animals/ age of the earth?

There is a mountain of scientific evidence in favour of evolution.

Like what? What is the evidence for evolution satisfied your mind evolution is true?

Universities around the world explore, research and teach evolution. They would not do so if the subject was unfounded or weak.

Right, because it is impossible to put something into a textbook that is not true.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ in ALL the text books?

is there a University text book for biology that teaches about Adam and Eve?

Also read my post here
viewtopic.php?p=6289919#p6289919

"That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science that continues to explain vast numbers of facts in biology."

The laws of Cause and Effect in regard to Religion / creation however, is substantiated.

how exactly?

[sweetiepaper]

@Sweetiepaper & death:

Yuh really had to call me and death out dread so

The experiences i was referring to was that of clinically dead persons as defined by our medical standards. Their brain stops functioning, their heart stops beating and they stop breathing as well. The body loses consciousness for a period of time. Whichever definition is used, the substance of some of these experiences as Van Lommel has found, is authentic and true since there is no other logical explanation for such events.

I imagine there are grave disagreements. But I think on a personal level, we are all on the same plane. We are terrified. Death is the unknown and shall always be the unknown. We don't know where we're going, if anywhere.

Although we cannot know for sure what lies behind death's door, it would be foolish of us not to acknowledge the possibility of an afterlife, especially in light of the near death experiences of clinically dead people.

[jayt]

jayt wrote:
The laws of Cause and Effect in regard to Religion / creation however, is substantiated.

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
how exactly?

In it's very simplest terms, the Supreme Being / Creator "Caused" everything to be "Created."(effect)

[Humes]

If something has to be created...who or what created the Creator?

If you say the Creator is infinite and uncreated...then why can't all of reality, the universe as we know it, be infinite and uncreated as well?

Not suggesting that it is, but don't be selective about the logic you're trying to apply.

[AdamB]

if this is a religion discussion ched ,why are some folks coming in here to discuss evolution?
is evolution really science or a belief system?
anyways this ched has 144,000 views hmmmmmm!

Believers in the Theory of Evolution may admit that they don't "believe" that it is entirely correct. Evolution is a process, not the origin.

Did the laws of science just appear panned out or settled down like dregs in the bottom of yuh water tank? Believers in Religion/GOD should admit that there is validity in the laws of science in that it is the means by which GOD controls the affairs of the Creation.

Many make the assumption that either Evolution or Religion is correct but not both. Moving forward from my statement above, I am putting it to you that the possibility exists that Evolution was part of the process of Creation. Similarly, look at the Creation of the heavens and the earth from the Quran: the creation of the Earth was completed while the Heavens was smoke, meaning the completion of the Creation of the Universe (outer space / planets / stars, etc) was after the earth. The "Days" mentioned are periods of time which could be millions of years but equal units of time. Think about it, we can't say it was solar days because the Universe wasn't finished being created!

GOD says in the Quran Ch 41:9-12
9 Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).

10 He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four days were equal in the length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).

11 Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly."

12 Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower.

We can't deny confirmed scientific facts but they do not conflict with Creation and GOD from the perspective that GOD is THE ORIGINATOR!! Some of the assumptions in Darwin's theory may be incorrect but that is only part of the puzzle of CREATION VIA SCIENCE being unfolded.

[Humes]

The experiences i was referring to was that of clinically dead persons as defined by our medical standards. Their brain stops functioning, their heart stops beating and they stop breathing as well. The body loses consciousness for a period of time. Whichever definition is used, the substance of some of these experiences as Van Lommel has found, is authentic and true since there is no other logical explanation for such events.

I doh doubt for a second that people who are clinically dead experience or perceive something extraordinary. I just think it's important to realise that the way they (and others) interpret whatever that interpretation is what's up for debate. When someone is socialised to expect a light at the end of the tunnel, an ascent to heaven, a chorus of angels, trumpets etc...it's easy for them to apply those things to what, in reality, might simply be a purely physical experience.

That doesn't provide any sort of evidence of the afterlife to me, really. Not saying I'm dismissing the possibility of an afterlife, but these testimonies are about as dependable as the people who claim they've been abducted by aliens.

[Humes]

jayt wrote:
The laws of Cause and Effect in regard to Religion / creation however, is substantiated.

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
how exactly?

In it's very simplest terms, the Supreme Being / Creator "Caused" everything to be "Created."(effect)

Or maybe the infinite nature of the Universe (cause) is what is responsible for its own existence (effect).

Or maybe the universe has always existed (cause) and therefore doesn't need a creator (effect).

See how easy it is to apply ridiculously simplistic "reasoning" to any and everything?

[megadoc1]

If something has to be created...who or what created the Creator?

If you say the Creator is infinite and uncreated...then why can't all of reality, the universe as we know it, be infinite and uncreated as well?

Not suggesting that it is, but don't be selective about the logic you're trying to apply.

s
see these two arguments
Cosmological Argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Kalam Cosmological Argument[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m ... l_argument[/url]
tell me what you think if you mind