canadianhorsefan
Member
*Link Remove*
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science confirms the Qur'an
- Thread starter canadianhorsefan
- Start date
canadianhorsefan
Member
*Link Removed*
Last edited by a moderator:
We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)
The opening statement of that website sets up a flawed premise from the get-go.
Science has confirmed that man is not made from clay and in fact was not created by a We at all, but instead evolved entirely on his own.
So much for science confirming the Qur'an.
The opening statement of that website sets up a flawed premise from the get-go.
Science has confirmed that man is not made from clay and in fact was not created by a We at all, but instead evolved entirely on his own.
So much for science confirming the Qur'an.
canadianhorsefan
Member
"in fact was not created by a We at all, but instead evolved entirely on his own. " Interesting. Yes, we get babies, they get babies, the cycle goes on. But where are our "souls" from?? From Allah. He decides if we are boys or girls, whatever He wants, and He tells an angel what to do. And "We" in Arabic is a way of showing authority.
Well, there are Muslim and Christian scientists, not all Athiests. Also, can you PROVE that Allah had no part in our creation and that there were no Prophets at all?
canadianhorsefan
But where are our "souls" from?? From Allah.
Did you read the thread on souls where I showed that there is no evidence to support the existence of souls?
He decides if we are boys or girls, whatever He wants, and He tells an angel what to do.
Does he also choose who will be born with birth defects? Does he choose who will have a miscarraige? Does he choose against the prayers and wishes of his followers? What does he tell the angel to do?
Well, there are Muslim and Christian scientists, not all Athiests.
So what?
Also, can you PROVE that Allah had no part in our creation and that there were no Prophets at all?
I cannot prove anything of the sort - of course, neither can you.
But I could look at the evidence which shows the universe came into existence from natural laws with no evidence to show gods had anything to do with it. So, I don't see any connections between gods and the creation of the universe.
As far as prophets are concerned, there is one standing on almost every street corner professing one thing or another. If I were to suspend logic and reason altogether and ignore the discoveries science has offered, I might believe what these so-called prophets are saying.
Back in the time when people were ignorant to the world around them, a guy wandering out from the desert claiming to have spoken with an angel and delivering the word of god might appear attractive, especially when people were looking for easy answers. People 'believed' the Earth was flat until evidence showed it to be spherical.
Today, the same guy wandering out of the desert making such claims would undergo a psychological analysis and kept under surveillance for 30 days and eventually released into the custody of a state asylum.
Muhammad was simply a man who decided to confirm and retain the ignorance of the time and use it to achieve power. Unfortunately, his lies have stifled potential human achievements over the centuries by keeping people ignorant and oppressed. The website you provided in your opening post is a perfect example.
Did you read the thread on souls where I showed that there is no evidence to support the existence of souls?
He decides if we are boys or girls, whatever He wants, and He tells an angel what to do.
Does he also choose who will be born with birth defects? Does he choose who will have a miscarraige? Does he choose against the prayers and wishes of his followers? What does he tell the angel to do?
Well, there are Muslim and Christian scientists, not all Athiests.
So what?
Also, can you PROVE that Allah had no part in our creation and that there were no Prophets at all?
I cannot prove anything of the sort - of course, neither can you.
But I could look at the evidence which shows the universe came into existence from natural laws with no evidence to show gods had anything to do with it. So, I don't see any connections between gods and the creation of the universe.
As far as prophets are concerned, there is one standing on almost every street corner professing one thing or another. If I were to suspend logic and reason altogether and ignore the discoveries science has offered, I might believe what these so-called prophets are saying.
Back in the time when people were ignorant to the world around them, a guy wandering out from the desert claiming to have spoken with an angel and delivering the word of god might appear attractive, especially when people were looking for easy answers. People 'believed' the Earth was flat until evidence showed it to be spherical.
Today, the same guy wandering out of the desert making such claims would undergo a psychological analysis and kept under surveillance for 30 days and eventually released into the custody of a state asylum.
Muhammad was simply a man who decided to confirm and retain the ignorance of the time and use it to achieve power. Unfortunately, his lies have stifled potential human achievements over the centuries by keeping people ignorant and oppressed. The website you provided in your opening post is a perfect example.
(Q) said:
The general theory of evolution (atheistic, life from non-life, cross-species) is bad 19th century science. Not one shred of it can be replicated in a laboratory, and it is not well-supported by the fossil record or other science, microbiology in particular. It is a materialistic philosophy more than anything else, and certainly not dispositive.
Fra.Morelia
Member
We also do not have the millions of years evolution takes to spend on repicating it in a laboratory.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Actually, creationism thinks life can come from non-life/the divine/the spiritual world (and needless to say, it cannot be replicated, either! though to those who support it, this is contorted as a strength of the 'theory'). Evolution says that all complex life (like chimpanzees) comes from living parents. So for example, the fossil record shows that the distinct characteristics of a primate we call chimps have not been around forever. According to evolution, chimps did not come from dust, or materialize suddenly as part of some heavenly plan.quick said:
Also, evolution is not atheistic any more than gravity is atheistic. It is science explaining a natural phenomenon. Evolution, in the eyes of the rational theist, explains how God created man (just as gravity explains how God makes things fall down).
Er, I'm sorry about reviving this thread after like 7 days.
The concept that non-life > life occured isn't flawed, considering how many mechanisms by which it could have happened. I've been through this in the other forum I'm registered in, but whatever. Here it is again.
This is going to be pretty long, so I'm sorry about this...
And then, about 3 pages later (there was some argument in between)...
Sorry about all that. Anyway, thanks.
The concept that non-life > life occured isn't flawed, considering how many mechanisms by which it could have happened. I've been through this in the other forum I'm registered in, but whatever. Here it is again.
This is going to be pretty long, so I'm sorry about this...
And then, about 3 pages later (there was some argument in between)...
I just took a look at my biology textbook then [(this was about two days later)];
It is believed that RNA may have been the first genetic material. As the RNA also possibly functioned as the first enzymes.
---This will be an exact copy from the textbook I mentioned before---
Several scientists have tested the hypothesis of RNA self-replication. Short polymers of ribonucleotides have been produced abiotically in laboratory experiments. If such RNA is added to a solution containing monomers for making more RNA, sequences about five to ten nucleotides long are copied from the template according to the base-pairing rules . If zinc is added as a catalyst, sequences up to 40 nucleotides long are copied with less then 1% error.
In the 1980s, Thomas Cech revolutionized thinking about the evolution of life when he discovered that RNA molecules are important catalysts in modern cells. This finding disproved the long-held view that only proteins (enzymes) serve as biological catalysts. Cech and other researchers found that modern cells use RNA catalysts, called ribozymes, to remove introns from RNA. Ribozymes also help catalyse the synthesis of new RNA, notably rRNA, tRNA and mRNA. Thus, RNA is autocatalytic, and in the prebiotic world, before there were, enzymes (proteins) or DNA, RNA molecules may have been fully capable of ribozyme-catalyzed replication.
-----------------------That's the end of the direct cut------------------------------
So there we go. Apparently I was right about the pre-eu/prokaryotic cells (called protobionts, incidentally) being assembled from a lipid bilayer (selectively permeable, thus, regulated internal environment). Lucky guess [in response to an earlier post I made].
Sorry about all that. Anyway, thanks.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I've always looked at most of the organized religions as man's attempt to find solace in an often harsh world. I see the attempt to use science to "justify" or confirm one's religious beliefs rather curious. Rather like quoting Marx to give credence to one's stance in favor of capitalism.
DontFearMe
Member
This was interesting reading canadianhorse put up. i see no one wanted to refute anything except the clay issue. I do not know what science says on this. Where men came from. Evolved from apes? and apes evolved from what? and what evolved from what? until we go all the way back to the first life form, where did this come from? thank you.
There was no reason to go further - once discrepancies are found, the entire site becomes highly questionable.
Try this for starters:
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Except that this is all false. Aren't religious types supposed to be truthful?
Looncall
Well-Known Member
We'll never know, since it's been about 8 years since that guy's been here.
Yes, one of life's mysteries. I wonder why the thread was showing.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Absolutly amazing. A claim that science confirms Islam, and not a single scientific hypothesis. The verses provided are 'observables1' Any one can look up and see clouds, feel the wind pushing south, see the clouds moving south, and make that connection. The fact that people have always had the ability to look around and make some sense of what is going on is hardly reason to claim that science proves everything in some silly book is then verified.
If this kind of logic was valid, the science has confirmed all of christianity is true, becasues Jesus asked if the people could not look around them and know the seasons were changing. The Greeks provided empirical evidence that the earth was round and had a diameter of approximately 24,000 miles around 250 BCE. Therefore everything they ever wrote down is confirmed!!!
HOGWASH!
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Spiderman Fallacy
You're an aspidermanist?