for evolutionists :Darwinism Incompatible With the Qur'an
-
I am curious Andya, since you are a scientist - how does self-referencing make something authentic? If Quran claims to be authentic how can we be sure? Does mere claim to authenticity make it authentic? Does mere claim to authenticity make anything authentic in general?
I would love to hear your take on this...
thats not what the linked article is about, I suggest you read it before coming up with a conclusion about what was meant
-
I am curious Andya, since you are a scientist - how does self-referencing make something authentic? If Quran claims to be authentic how can we be sure? Does mere claim to authenticity make it authentic? Does mere claim to authenticity make anything authentic in general?
I would love to hear your take on this...
thats not what the linked article is about, I suggest you read it before coming up with a conclusion about what was meant
I was not refering to the article but the words "Quranic self-referencing". I am familiar with this term. I was told it before and I guessed that Andya meant the same thing... but I am sure he can correct me in this...
Regards,
-
I am curious Andya, since you are a scientist - how does self-referencing make something authentic? If Quran claims to be authentic how can we be sure? Does mere claim to authenticity make it authentic? Does mere claim to authenticity make anything authentic in general?
I would love to hear your take on this...
Regards,
I don't view this matter in a scientific way. I see it as a believer. For me the Qur'an is axiomatically true, no question about it, and it is internally consistent. This is of course not a statement of faith, I have no way of proving this is true or false outside the Qur'an, therefore unscientific. I know it reeks of inconsistency in hinking, but I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't feel anything wrong with that.
-
I am curious Andya, since you are a scientist - how does self-referencing make something authentic? If Quran claims to be authentic how can we be sure? Does mere claim to authenticity make it authentic? Does mere claim to authenticity make anything authentic in general?
I would love to hear your take on this...
Regards,
I don't view this matter in a scientific way. I see it as a believer. For me the Qur'an is axiomatically true, no question about it, and it is internally consistent. This is of course not a statement of faith, I have no way of proving this is true or false outside the Qur'an, therefore unscientific. I know it reeks of inconsistency in hinking, but I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't feel anything wrong with that.
At least your are honest. You have understood the implication of the question and you have answered it in the context of a believer as opposed to a scientist.
Would you yourself put forward "self-refencing" argument as evidence of authenticity of the Quran?
Regards,
-
At least your are honest. You have understood the implication of the question and you have answered it in the context of a believer as opposed to a scientist.
Would you yourself put forward "self-refencing" argument as evidence of authenticity of the Quran?
Regards,
This will sound strange and apologetic to you, but for me it is a matter of faith that the Qur'an is authentic.
Faith may be reinforced by evidence, but it does not necessarily need evidence.
To me, self-reference gives me confidence that the Qur'an ultimately won't give contradicting answers. But I stop at that, I don't dare speculate further.
-
This will sound strange and apologetic to you, but for me it is a matter of faith that the Qur'an is authentic.
That's fine. It is your belief and I respect your beliefs. But how did you come to reject hadiths and sunnah in the first place?
Faith may be reinforced by evidence, but it does not necessarily need evidence.
But faith can be undermined by rational evidence too? So do you check for both types of evidence or you don't do neither?
To me, self-reference gives me confidence that the Qur'an ultimately won't give contradicting answers. But I stop at that, I don't dare speculate further.
Does that mean you stop questioning the Quran?
Anyway thanks for your honest answers...
Regards,
-
Salaam Andya Primanda
Which parts of evolution do you accept? Personally I don't see any inconsistency with micro evolution but macro evolution is just a propaganda to erase the traces of God from science. Even evolutionists admit that they can't provide transitional forms to substantiate their fantasies.
Do you believe abiogenesis, macro evolution ever did happen?
Thanks.
Peace...
-
Peace born-again,
Salaam Andya Primanda
Which parts of evolution do you accept? Personally I don't see any inconsistency with micro evolution but macro evolution is just a propaganda to erase the traces of God from science. Even evolutionists admit that they can't provide transitional forms to substantiate their fantasies.
Every part of it. Btw, 'macroevolution' is just 'microevolution' going over for a long time. And it is not a propaganda to get rid of God--science IMHO cannot say anything about God.
Transitional fossils do exist. I use one for my avatar. You can read about lots of them here
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
http//www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.htmlDo you believe abiogenesis, macro evolution ever did happen?
Us scientists do not prefer the word 'believe'. I accept that macroevolution did happen, because there is evidence for it--transitional fossils and we know the possible mechanism. As for abiogenesis, I withhold my judgment. Research is still going on but it is still a long way from reaching major conclusions.
-
But were is evidence at the molecular/genetic level? Evolution does not make sense nor could occur if the basic genetic information is not reprogrammed to accomodate the change to be passed on. Even if the genome is mutated/reprogrammed than were is the evidence? I am a scientist I want evidence!