Big Bang

[Resigned]

according to our book of faith, 1 day is sometimes equal to 50,000 years. (70.4)

And sometimes it's not!

Try using the term epoch in the context of islamist creationism. An epoch can be whatever timeframe is convenient so you can adjust your creationism tale as needed and the uthmanic contradictions are less embarassing.

[shaad_lko]

And sometimes it's not!

Try using the term epoch in the context of islamist creationism. An epoch can be whatever timeframe is convenient so you can adjust your creationism tale as needed and the uthmanic contradictions are less embarassing.

isnt that smart of us ?

[MF]

isnt that smart of us ?

Everything in due measure...that's what the Qur'an says. It mentions all sorts of things taking time to develop...Adams (pbuh) existence...the material world...even the Qur'an itself, which it compares to the stages of creation as it develops. The word "evolution" seems to have some stain on it from the ignorant "we come from monkeys..." Proposing that there are only two possibilities would undermine the very intelligence humans have been blessed with. In fact, it seems that people have taken positions and are unwilling to budge. On one side, those that take scripture as a complete explanation of the innerworkings of the universe (as if that's its purpose). On the other, those that are unwilling to admit that our knowledge changes and that in 100 years (less or more) we may totally redefine our views and understanding of the world around us. This fight, which really is the fight of others, will pull Muslims further into the Dark Ages. In fact, thanks to those times many of these austere attitudes were adopted by Muslims from others. The history is there...with every generation we grew more rigid, more intolerant and we closed our mind more...some of it was do to us and some because we were influenced. This fight between evolutionists and creationists is not an Islamic one. Our struggle is supposed to be getting closer to God Almighty. It is a sad day when people decide to throw out education and knowledge - they don't even understand - for a religion - they don't appreciate well - which asks them to use their mind...

Ron's quote applied to evolution but perhaps there is a lesson on this subject also.

wether a day is 1000 years or 50000 years depends on if you want to reconsile religion with science

[shaad_lko]

Ron's quote applied to evolution but perhaps there is a lesson on this subject also.

wether a day is 1000 years or 50000 years depends on if you want to reconsile religion with science

yeah, I dont really see a need to reconcile religion with science or vice-versa - both can flow on their own, though I'll add the caveat that for me religion (which happens to be Islam) is an all-defining entity which puts science in its correct sphere.

[Bowman]

Big Bang,anybody?

13.7 billion years ago,there was NOTHING!

What does the Koran say about it?

[Resigned]

Big Bang,anybody?

13.7 billion years ago,there was NOTHING!

What existed (or may not have existed) prior to the Big Bang is precisely what the scientific community is trying to discover. The Large Collider is currently being used in that process of discovery.

The problem with those who vilify science and only find truths in their korans (the alleged book of science), is that mankind is forever chained to falsehoods, fears and superstition.

Life presently (on this planet and perhaps elsewhere in the cosmos), is a product of where and how life began. The problem with the theistic environment is that the search for how life began is at a dead end. In the theistic environment, (and more so in the islamist creationist environment), we’re precluded from ever seeking an answer beyond allah and muhammud as the mechanism. I certainly can't say with any certainty how life began. I do hear what creationists say and I question the parts I find strange and unsupported.

The reason why so many "koranists” refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal muhammud receiving “revelations” to support their notion that all human beings are totally depraved and are in need of Salvation and a path to heaven through muhammud.

[alan]

Life is clearly a fine balance and conditions allowing it to arise and for that matter to allow everything to exist are recognised by science to to be so.
It is acknowledged that if things were infitesimally,fractionally differant to the way things are,none of this,our universe would exist.
This is where athiests,not scientists are at a dead end.They cannot explain the beauty of this precision,only strugling to say it was chance!

[Resigned]

Life is clearly a fine balance and conditions allowing it to arise and for that matter to allow everything to exist are recognised by science to to be so.
It is acknowledged that if things were infitesimally,fractionally differant to the way things are,none of this,our universe would exist.
This is where athiests,not scientists are at a dead end.They cannot explain the beauty of this precision,only strugling to say it was chance!

Oh my, Alan, but there are so many flaws and misconceptions in your post, it's hard to know where to begin.

For a bit of perspective (1998):

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Notice that “Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.”

Interesting, no? Nearly 95% of scientists involved in the biological sciences (roughly similar numbers for physicists and astronomers) held no belief in god(s).



More recently (2009):

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.

It seems that only one third of scientists hold a belief in god(s). Of course, there are many gods so that the number of scientists who believe in your particular god(s) may well reflect the results of the 1998 data.

And for you reading pleasure:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

I'll also note that it's those Atheistic scientists who are pursuing the search for life in this solar system and beyond. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as "creation" is uniquely an earthly event. Although, I feel confident in assuring you that when/if life is discovered elsewhere in the cosmos, some obscure hadith or verse will eventually be "discovered" / reinterpreted / made-up as describing the event. "Ah, see, science "proving" the koran once again". Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What theists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.

[alan]

Oh my, Alan, but there are so many flaws and misconceptions in your post, it's hard to know where to begin.

For a bit of perspective (1998):

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html




Interesting, no? Nearly 95% of scientists involved in the biological sciences (roughly similar numbers for physicists and astronomers) held no belief in god(s).



More recently (2009):

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...nd-Belief.aspx



It seems that only one third of scientists hold a belief in god(s). Of course, there are many gods so that the number of scientists who believe in your particular god(s) may well reflect the results of the 1998 data.

And for you reading pleasure:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html



I'll also note that it's those Atheistic scientists who are pursuing the search for life in this solar system and beyond. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as "creation" is uniquely an earthly event. Although, I feel confident in assuring you that when/if life is discovered elsewhere in the cosmos, some obscure hadith or verse will eventually be "discovered" / reinterpreted / made-up as describing the event. "Ah, see, science "proving" the koran once again". Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What theists are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.

You havnt addressed the point I made at all.Save your time and dont ramble about things I havnt talked about and which you have not responded.Iam amased how you can respond without reading the post-it seems.

[Resigned]

You havnt addressed the point I made at all.Save your time and dont ramble about things I havnt talked about and which you have not responded.Iam amased how you can respond without reading the post-it seems.

If you had read your prior post, you would have noticed that you made reference to “Atheists, not scientists are at a dead end”. As I demonstrated, the vast majority of scientists are Atheists or hold a belief not connected with your religion. Science is certainly not at a “dead end”, so your comment is flawed.

Life is clearly a fine balance and conditions allowing it to arise and for that matter to allow everything to exist are recognised by science to to be so.

I’m not aware that what you claim is true and you provide no citation for your claim.

What you’re hoping to do is to make a case for gods but you haven’t done that either.

There’s nothing in life that points to design. It points to nothing more than we live in a universe where the conditions allow for life. How fortunate for us.

But concluding that the existence of life is the “purpose” for which gods “designed” life is like concluding that because someone wins the lottery, the lottery was designed for them to win. In actuality, lotteries were “designed” for a completely different purpose, i.e. for states to make money. The fact that (occasionally) somebody actually wins is just a side effect.

That you imagine that life’s ability to develop on earth means it is the purpose of gods is a spectacular example of hubris. We are an accidental side effect of a universe that is actually profoundly hostile to life, and does not care one whit whether we exist or not.

It is acknowledged that if things were infitesimally,fractionally differant to the way things are,none of this,our universe would exist.

Who is that acknowledged by?

What you’re claiming is that if conditions in the universe were different, things would be different. That’s what we call “stating the obvious”.

We 'happen' to live in a universe which 'happens' to have a planet which 'happens' to have such conditions that allow life to develop which always 'happen' to function in such way that intelligent life can receive no harm from the hostile space outside our sphere and so on.

In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole "irreducibly complex" argument (which is what you’re suggesting), is deeply flawed. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well.

[alan]

http://youtu.be/QT4-mBJGg2o