I apologize to the creator of the tread for the off topic rant. D Will try not to do that agian.

-------- Student of Allah

Whenever i do (address your fallacies), you run away ! E.g., here.

Why bother then ?!?

Ps. I didn't "call you names" ? Don't lie /

I did not run away. You have to realize that I don't hang around this forum as much as I used to. Plus, you do realize that to accept your beliefs about flat earth, one has to throw away the bulk of humanity's knowledge that has been repetitively verified to be true? Everything you said there relies on me to first discard everything we know about options, radioactivity, general theory of relativity, Newtonian laws/motion, how planets are formed, how gravity works, how oceans work, virtually everything. I didn't even ask you difficult questions like explaining why under the VERIFIED models of gravity we have, planets are meant to be spheroids once they have certain mass and your planet has a flat shape. Not to mention that all the interlocking mathematical models we have of planets (including earth) will have to be discarded despite them having predictive power. (best of luck trying to convince people to throw away all that working model too )

I ask you questions and you answer with things like

"and why would that be?"

You seem to think that refusing to address a question asked and simply linking to a non-scientific conspiracy related website is good enough of an answer. For example, I'm assuming that you have to discard everything we know about the sun's solar activities, radioactivity, nuclear process, size, distance, to make your model work? The least you can do is publish a paper where you lay out YOUR new equations for how all these work and we should be able to test them and give you your nobel prize. Or are you not interested in that at all?

It is impossible to have a discussion on that topic if your first requirement is that I get rid of 99% of what we have established to be true. None of the thing you ever link to while trying to answer any damn question ever goes back to any damn reputable scientific journal. It always goes back to conspiracy theory sites. It's like people talking about how the world rests on the back of an invisible infinite series of turtles that we cannot test. Yes, we have to throw away all of known science for that to make sense, but why would we bother with such a hypothesis in the first place? My biggest problem with the thing is that why don't you submit your model of how things work in a good scientific journal and have them peer reviewed and tested? I'm more than sure that it'll land you a Nobel prize.

P.S. Saying that people have useless eyes because their minds are blind is name calling. You're calling me mentally deficient and impaired. Which I have no problem with as long as you EXPLAIN why.

------------ Student of Allah

Salaam and hello.

The Quran says that God sends down water from the sky as a mercy and a blessing, and I?ve always understood this as rain from the clouds, but I've never thought that it could also be understood as water from outer space! (This could be common knowledge, but I didn?t know, LOL!) So when I saw the article, I just had to share it with someone!

After reading the article and doing some searches in the Quran, I noticed that the sending down of water from the sky is also mentioned with the creation of the heavens and the Earth, the creation of the sun and the moon, the creation of plants and creatures, and the Resurrection.

726 O Children of Adam, We have sent down for you garments to alleviate your bodies, and feathers; and the garment of righteousness is the best. That is from the signs of God, perhaps they will remember.

Now, you have 2 options

1. Understand that the use of "sent down" in the Qur'an cannot be used as positive proof of things arriving to earth from outer space.
2. Accept that garments came to earth from outer space.

Actually, there is a 3rd option. You can simply be dishonest and cherry pick. You can scream Allahu Akbar and talk about the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an when it talks about iron/water being sent down but just take the verse about the garment on to be something metaphorical.

Peace
----------------- Student of Allah

2246

http//fecdn.fractalenlighten.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/eyes-are-useless-when-the-mind-is-blind.jpg

Bias bred from Hatred

= Blindness

Shalom Aleikhem,

Yes, why bother explaining why I am wrong when you can basically call me names and pat yourself on the back!

May peace be with you

----------------------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Salaam,

Red alQuraan does not authenticate what you said.

Neither does it authenticate what the opposite. Or for that matter, what you'd propose it says. As I've pointed out in my other thread, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any accurate assessment to be made from the reading of such an ancient text if we are going to do so based on religious claims/sensitivities.

It will all boil down to a war of subjective interpretations where nobody can prove that their interpretation is right. I think a fairer thing to say would be that traditionally, most interpreters of the Qur'an interpreted the Qur'an to be implying that Muhammad did have multiple wive.

Peace
------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem Bender,

After a long time. Hope you are doing well.

Hi,

With all due respect, I do not believe that you have pondered on your questions in just 3 minutes.

"How can "free will" operate to alter what has been predetermined?"
You have set up a free will, and you decided that that free will has to operate in predetermined way.
How should that be ever possible?
To me it looks like either we have no free will or a free will who is for real free.
I believe in the last case.

I am sure you can find the flaws on your own on the rest of your questions, just give them some more time then 3 minutes.

I think you misinterpreted his question. He wasn't saying that "free will" itself if predetermined. He was saying that God already KNEW how it'll end for that person. Therefore, rendering free will IRRELEVANT and passing judgement ASININE! If you still don't get it, let me provide the following example

• You created a humanoid terminator style robot that makes decisions on it's own (FREE WILL)
• EVEN BEFORE MAKING THE ROBOT you KNEW that the robot will go shoot your mom in the face and kill her
• You make the robot, the robot runs to your mom and shoots her in the face killing her

The robot did it out of it's "free will". However, are you free of guilt? You made that robot knowing what it'd do after booting up. That could be held up in a court of law against you. As long as you confess to having full knowledge in advance and still went ahead with your plan to make the robot, you are partly responsible. In fact, between you and the robot, you had more "free will". You could have chosen not to make the robot and your mom would have been alive. But the robot didn't have that luxury. The robot's fat had only ONE outcome which you have foreseen.

What makes all of this more bizarre is that then you end up being the judge who sentences the robot to torture for it's crime!

@Sturtlaghari

What if God exists and is not good and not all that intelligent or truthful?

Peace
----------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem everyone,

Thank you all very much for sharing your thoughts. This issue has always been of major significance to me. In a way, it still is.

Just as Wakas pointed out, my very own method relied on trying to minimize as much bias as possible. I believe that the reason we all have argued so much over the possible interpretations and implications of the reading is precisely because we all wanted to get at the true meaning of what we were reading.

While I do agree that actually putting some effort into understanding the various uses of the words/ contextual uses/ themes throughout the text helps a lot, I still don't see how it can help eliminate bias to a healthy degree. Please understand that I am not starting from the presupposition that the Qur'an has been authored by a deity and is unaltered. This means that while reading this book, I will consider the possibility of statements being there which may be factually wrong or immoral or inconsistent thematically. This means that a believer's scope of interpretation will suffer from even more bias than mine.

As long as the author doesn't show up, as long as words will have multiple meanings, as long as metaphors may be present among absolute statements, I really don't think we can ever objectively study this book. I'd understand if as a believer you wonder why an atheist like me even cares about that. I care because it has always been and always will be my goal to seek the truth. If there are scriptures that really do contain the truth, I'd really love to know them. Unfortunately, this dilemma that I've presented tells me that dealing with scriptures to falsify anything is like playing a game of football where we don't even know if there is a goal post, let alone where it is. We can do all the fancy moves imaginable to man but the fact will remain that nobody will know if they've even scored. The presence of other scriptures makes the matter far more complicated. It makes it such that we don't even know if we are playing in the correct field to begin with.

Peace
----------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem Ervin,

So, would you entertain s thought that maybe what I experienced, was from Satan, and how he did it according to the Quran?

No. The most simplistic answer can be found in what you said yourself

I read your answer on what can Satan do. You said that all he can do is whisper. I have been diagnosed with schizoafective disorder( mixture of schizophrenia and the specific form of bipolar).

.

That should tell you that your mind suffered from known problems arising out of physiological issues within your physical brain. Therefore, it renders and supernatural explanation redundant.

It's like asking if people think that Satan is pissing through my nose when I've already told them that the doctor diagnosed me with cold and flue.

Anyway, I hope you get well soon.

Peace
--------------- Student of Allah

I was reading a bit of history about prophet Muhamamad and I couldn't get much details about the number of wives he had.

Hadiths mention different numbers and ages.

Does the Quran say something about how many wives he had?

Thank you

Shalom Aleikhem,

Based on the Qur'an alone, all you'll be able to back up is the fact that Muhammad had multiple wives.

What would you do with the number? Just curious.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

@Arman An interesting post and perspective indeed. I'd like to know further about your thoughts on the issue.

Atheism is a belief in itself. It's the naive belief science has or can answer all questions. You can't be mu'min and remove God from the equation.

Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. It has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting science, let alone claiming that science can answer all questions. There are atheists who believe in after life, astrology, homeopathy, spirits, ghosts, flat earth, etc. A skeptical atheist, by his/her very nature, will take science more seriously. But that's a skeptical atheist we are talking about. Much like talking about a sporty Muslim. Just because a Muslim takes a lot of interest in Sports, you cannot conclude that Islam is the belief in sports. That'd be a pretty ignorant thing to conclude. The only thing you can conclude about an atheist is that they lack belief in Gods.

Peace
----------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

I do not think you have got at all even a hint of tlihawa's point. Even though he did warn about som eof the errors you make in the understanding of the mathal he put.

Salaam

I wasn't addressing the post. I was pointing out that the story is not a good analogy for anything as it is fallacious. If you start your thesis with evidently wrong assumptions, it doesn't matter how far you go, you'll be on the wrong path.

You are wrong, we witness the repetition of creation in nature continuously on this earth.
An example is grass.
We see grass and crops turn yellow, die and then return green and lively after a rain or after seasonal shift.
Thus will be the coming forth.
You are like the root that will die and then be brought back once again.
Death is not the end

See what I highlighted?

CREATION IN NATURE. We have only witnessed it in our world. We have no clue about what goes on outside the universe or what "outside" the universe even means.

Not even your examples can save you. What we know from your examples is that if the conditions are right, crops can regrow INSIDE THE FREAKING UNIVERSE. Not even ANYWHERE. They regrow on fertile lands where it's hospitable. Try growing rice on a molten aluminium bath in outer space. It just won't work. So every example you bring forth will be firstly things we observe in nature, not outside it. Secondly, they only work in a narrow band. Finally, try destroying the grass altogether. What do you think will happen? IT WILL NEVER EVER GROW BACK after winter. That is what happens to us. Our bodies get disintegrated. Try doing the same to the grass, feed that to animals and see if the exact same grass grows back magically.

Peace
------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Do you believe in mom?

In a mother?s womb were two babies. One asked the other
?Do you believe in life after delivery?? The other replied, ?Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.?

?Nonsense? said the first. ?There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be??

The second said, ?I don?t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can?t understand now.?

The first replied, ?That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.?

The second insisted, ?Well I think there is something and maybe it?s different than it is here. Maybe we won?t need this physical cord anymore.?

The first replied, ?Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.?

?Well, I don?t know,? said the second, ?but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.?

The first replied ?Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That?s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now??

The second said, ?She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.?

Said the first ?Well I don?t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn?t exist.?

To which the second replied, ?Sometimes, when you?re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.?

Yup, God is surround us. Please be aware that this story is just for the illustration, not represent the GOD himself, but at least can help you to understand the situation.

As the babies had no idea what will come to them on the life after birth.. and so do we for the life after death..

This is a false analogy. I'll explain why.

Baby 1 You
Baby 2 Me
Mother Universe

Are you suggesting that the Universe is God? Are we physical parts of God? In that case, all non-believers in God will agree with you. If you describe God as "our container and the things around us that provides nourishment", all atheists will then say that they believe in that god. However, that isn't what you are proposing. You are proposing unknowable things.

It happens that in case of the fetus example, we already know the answer to what will happen after delivery. We have Billions, if not trillions of example throughout the animal kingdom to prove to us that it works that way with delivery of mammals from their mommy. Do we have ONE SINGLE example of that of the afterlife? NO! Not a single one. Therefore it's irrational to equate the two. It's like saying, "The mommy duck gave birth to the baby duck. Therefore iPhone 5s must have given birth to iPhone 6". That is a very irrational way of thinking.

We have testable evidence for what happens after delivery, therefore it is irrational to say that there can be no life after delivery. What comparable testable evidence do we have for life after death? Nothing. Essentially, what you are suggesting is that just because human beings can give birth to babies, we must be able to go on living after our brains and bodies have been destroyed! Do you not see the problem with that? If the brains and bodies of the fetuses were destroyed in the process of the delivery, would the baby have a life???????? If not, why do you expect human beings whose brains and bodies get destroyed at death to keep on living?

Peace
---------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

The genetic similarities found between human being, chimpanzees and gorillas forced the scientists to believe that human being originated from chimps. .........................................................

That's not true. Evolutionary biologists don't believe that we evolved from chimps. Both Chimps and Human beings evolved from common ancestor which is very different from saying that we evolved from them. Much like you and your cousin descended from common forefathers, that is not to say that you came from your cousin.

As for the rest of your post

What you are saying isn't what the scientific community is saying. You seem to be making stuff up! We do not have genetic basis for the conclusion that the Darwinian theory is correct??????? Are you kidding me? Here is something from Francis Collin (administrator of the Human Genome Project)

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
"God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures", interview by Laura Sheahen, Beliefnet (undated)

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
"Collins Why this scientist believes in God", editorial, CNN (April 6, 2007)

Archaeological evidences refute evolution?

Apes - humans

Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago

Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).

Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya

Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya

Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).

Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).

Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).

Fish - Tetrapods

Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).

Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).

Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).

Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 200. Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.

Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).

Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).

Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).

Dinosaurs - birds

Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).

Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011).

Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.

Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).

Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).

Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.

Synapsids - mammals

Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).

Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 200 akin to those of modern mammals.

Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).

Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.

Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).

Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).

Land mammals - Whales and dolphins

Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).

Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).

Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.

Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.

Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).

Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).

Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).

Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 196.

Protohorse - Horses

Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 200.

Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.

Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 200.

Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).

Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 200. They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).

Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 200.

Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.

Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).

Miscellaneous

Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.

Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 200.

Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).

Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).

Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).

Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).

Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 200.

Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).

Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).

Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).

Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).

Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).

Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod and advanced amniote characters" (Prothero, 2007).

Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).

Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).

List of relevant publications (to study the academic literature on the listed fossils)

Ahlberg PE, Clack JA, Luksevics E, Blom H, Zupins I (200 Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology. Nature 453(7199) 1199?1204.

Anderson JS, Reisz RR, Scott D, Frobisch NB, Sumida SS (200 A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders. Nature 453(7194) 515-518.

Apesteguia S, Hussam Z (2006) A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature 440(7087) 1037-1040 .

Benton MJ (2005) Vertebrate Palaeontology, 3rd edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.

Clack JA (2002) An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'. Nature 418(6893) 72-76 .

Clack JA (2005) Getting a Leg Up on Land. Scientific American 293(6) 100-107.

Coyne JA (2009) Why Evolution is True. Oxford Oxford University Press.

Dawkins R (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth The Evidence for Evolution. London Bantam Press.

Evans WE (1992) Horse Breeding and Management. New York Elsevier Science.

Florida Museum of Natural History (date unknown) Dinohippus.

Forster CA, Chiappe LM, Krause DW, Sampson SD (1996) The first Cretaceous bird from Madagascar. Nature 382(6591) 532-534.

Friedman M (200 The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature 454(7201) 209-212 .

Futuyma DJ (2005) Evolution. Sunderland Sinauer.

Gibbons A (2009) A New Kind of Ancestor Ardipithecus Unveiled. Science 326(5949) 36-40.

Gingerich PD, Arif M, Clyde WC (1995) New Archaeocetes (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Middle Eocene Domanda formation of the Sulaiman range, Pun Jab (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan 29(11) 291-330.

Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Zalmout IS, Khan IH, Malkani MS (2001) Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293(553 2239-2242.

Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Von Koenigswald W, Sanders WJ, Smith BH, Zalmout IS (2009) New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan Birth on Land, Precocial Development, and Sexual Dimorphism. PLoS ONE 4(2) e4366.

Hu D, Hou L, Zhang L, Xu X (2009) A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus. Nature 461(7264) 640-643 .

Jenkins FA, Walsh DM (1993) An Early Jurassic caecilian with limbs. Nature 365(6443) 246-250 .

Lu J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2009) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Macdonald DW (ed.) (2009) The Encyclopedia of Mammals, 3rd edition. Oxford Oxford University Press.

MacFadden BJ (1986) Fossil Horses from "Eohippus" (Hyracotherium) to Equus Scaling, Cope's Law, and the Evolution of Body Size. Paleobiology 12(4) 355-369.

Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277) 43-48.

Prothero DR (2007) Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York Columbia University Press.
Prothero DR (200 What missing link? New Scientist 197(2645) 35-41.

Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E (2007) Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(16) 6568-6572.

Raven PH, Johnson GB, Losos JB, Mason KA, Singer SR (200 Biology, 8th edition. New York McGraw Hill.

Ridley M (2004) Evolution, 3rd edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.

Romer AS (1969) Cynodont Reptile with Incipient Mammalian Jaw Articulation. Science 166(3907) 881-882 .

Senter P (2006) Scapular orientation in theropods and basal birds, and the origin of flapping flight. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51(2) 305-313.

Thewissen JGM, Williams EM, Roe LJ, Hussain ST (2001) Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature 413(6853) 277-281.

Thewissen JGM, Cooper LN, George JC, Bajpai S (2009) From Land to Water the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Evo Edu Outreach 2(2) 272-288.

Thewissen JGM, McLellan WA (2009) Maiacetus displaced fetus or last meal? PLoS ONE.

Van Valen L (196 Monophyly or Diphyly in the Origin of Whales. Evolution 22(1) 37-41.

White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G (2009) Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326(5949) 75-86.

Xu X, You H, Du K Han F (2011) An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature 475 465-470.

Yates AM, Bonnan MF, Neveling J, Anusuya C, Blackbeard MG (2009) A new transitional sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Early Jurassic of South Africa and the evolution of sauropod feeding and quadrupedalism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Zimmer C (199 At the Water's Edge Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life. New York Free Press.

As we clearly see, the works of the experts in the field have validated and confirmed the theory of evolution. We found these fossils where the theory predicted them to be found. I have no idea why creationists still act like we haven't found anything. For the love of God!! This list of transitional fossils isn't even an exhaustive one. Yet, its enough to utterly destroy the claims of the creationists that only survive if taken on faith, not evidence.

The gene pool of ANY population on this planet is changing with every damn generation! How on earth did you conclude that nobody observed that in the last 2000 years? That is one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard. Or were you looking for some extreme changes like a group of us evolving wings? Given the time scale evolution works with, which can be billions of years, how would you expect to see dramatic changes in such a short span of time? The fact that the genetic codes are changing is the evidence that everything is changing. Just do some simple math and calculate the percentage difference over hundreds of millions of years and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

This doesn't belong in the Science section of the forum, does it?

To answer your question

The texts can be interpreted in so many different ways that we may conclude that the possibilities are virtually infinite. Therefore, if you dare blame the text, there will always be people who will propose an alternative interpretation. That makes it unfruitful of an approach to take to answer your question. I personally believe that it's a case of arrogant ignoramuses. When people without any knowledge of how the world works assumes the position of leadership and assumes that they know it all, how can you expect progress? That is the curse of the Islamic orthodoxy. They are too afraid to revise their interpretations, let alone stop bothering with the cancerous texts of Islam known as hadiths.

For example, when a Qur'anic verse says to chop off someone's hands, someone with access to Islamic historical documents will just go around chopping hands. However, someone who doesn't have access to that cancer will use their common sense and not try to establish such a barbaric practice. The verse can be interpreted in other ways too. They will have the freedom to explore the peaceful alternatives without being imprisoned by the shackles of hadiths/tafsirs.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem SC,

Did someone call? Oh well, I'm here anyways.

This was getting really interesting and I liked where reel was going...SoA, don't you think you're being a wee bit melodramatic? You come on pretty strong yourself, didn't think one poster could make you run off.

In case the taunts worked, feel free to carry on the discussion, keeping it to the point and avoiding personal attacks. Thanks.

I ACTUALLY do think I was being a bit melodramatic.

It isn't about my strength. I was just a bit put off by the hypocrisy of the whole thing. I am pretty sure that if a new guy came in here trash talking about all Muslims and trying to demonize them to the point reel was trying to demonize atheist, people would say something to that d*ck. And when moderators later come in to see the drama, I'm sure they wouldn't ask the Muslims on here to be strong. They'd go after the bigot.

But hey! Not everyone believes in fairness, equality and justice for all (irrespective of them arguing for or against your side). And no, I am not asking any mods to do anything about it. I've changed my mind. It'd be a petty thing to be upset over. I mean it's not like someone repetitively tried to portray all Muslims as evil.

Peace
--------------- Student of Allah

Are you insulting the men of this forum? Aren't they evidence? Do you believe these men even after taking the Quranic path will rape?

No. I never said a word about the men on this forum. Please quote me where I did so.

What would they be evidence of? I never talked about anybody else BUT YOU.

I have no idea about which member of this forum will end up raping anyone. I have no reason to believe that joining this forum and following Qur'an alone makes anyone more or less likely to be a rapist than not joining this forum and not following your book. Bad people do bad things, irrespective of whatever label you put on them.

He did tell us there will be bad things. But from atheistic point of view, why don't you tell us why rape exists when people are naturally compassionate and hate to see the bad?
Yeah only if God was like human.

So God telling you that there will be bad things is reason enough to let him off the hook of responsibility? That's a very unreasonable thing to say. You think if I program robots who I know will kill your parents and then just say "There will be bad things", then I am no longer responsible after they go and butcher your family? No you don't. So don't have the double standard when it comes to God.

When did I say that people can only be compassionate and hate to see bad stuff? From this statement of yours alone, I can deduce that either you aren't reading what I am writing, or you are simply incapable of understanding. Let me quote what I said

1. That is not true. I don't know about the type of person you are. However, doesn't go around raping and murdering or abusing little kids because there are laws against those things. Our built in instincts nurtured by values that reflects the basic premises of well-being I discussed earlier (health being preferred over sickness,etc) is what makes us moral. The law is there to penalize the ones going against those things only.

2. Emanuel's writings are extremely polarized and focuses solely on the dark side. Which is NOT THE TRUE PICTURE. Yes I have been unkind at times, but just because I have been unkind at times doesn't mean that I am some kind of volcano oozing out unkindness. That is what Emanuel has done with his post. He absolutely ignored all pros of homosapiens and wrote solely about the cons. And modeled homosapiens only after that, making us look like the monsters that WE ARE NOT. It's like someone saying "Homosapiens can be forgiving. Therefore they are only able to forgive. They can't ever hold anything against anyone". It's just as flawed as that. Don't know why you can't see through his extremely polarised analysis of homosapiens. On top of that, why would you share his post to make the point? There have been countless peer reviewed journals and books published on the nature of Man. What makes Emanuel's polarized opinions trump all of that research? Your bias perhaps?

That is what I said and you twisted it to make it sound THE EXACT OPPOSITE! I never took a polarized position on the issue of us being good/evil. I CLEARLY STATED that it is not that black and white. I did state that we have the ability to do bad and good both. Whereas you were trying to promote the idea presented by Emanuel that it's only bad that we can do.

1. Please do not twist my words to mean the exact opposite of what I said.
2. The answer to your question is that bad people will do bad and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to make sure we can keep them from doing bad.

Your analogy is connected to separation between the bot and its creator. This does not apply to God.

Well then you just dug your God a deeper grave. Now he is all the more responsible as he presumably is connected to the criminals and victims. How does being connected make him not responsible? If you were connected to a women being raped and the rapist and you could stop that from happening, would you be like "Damn it! I am connected to them! Let's just let her get raped."?

True because it is beyond your reality. You are trying to know it through your limited knowledge you gained from today's scientific thinking.

I am your God. The reason you don't get it is because "You are trying to know it through your limited knowledge"

So convenient, isn't it?

Once again, you are applying your limited reality to understand God. He has his own rules which we still are not capable of understanding. However, we do know that he listens to us when we need something. I at least got surprising benefits despite not taking any steps. Now would you say it was sheer luck and not answer from God? If you choose luck then you know that there is no scientific proof that it exists. I posted a reply for you in another thread. I am pasting the link here. After reading it through, explain to us by using science why these things are happening
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607936.20

Once again, you are applying your limited reality to understanding the fact that I am your God. I have my own rules which you still are not capable of understanding............................

Does saying that make it true? If not, you should understand why you explained NOTHING. You answered NOTHING.

Which question did I skip?

Ignore it. I have come to realize after thousands of words (my bad) that you are not here for that. You will just make big claims and always avoid providing evidence. You will refuse to explain how you resolve any dilemma I present to you beyond saying things like "your human mind can't understand it". If that is a good explanation for why you are correct, then me claiming to be your God and saying "your human mind can't understand it" should equally be a good explanation for me actually being your God.

GERMAN SCIENTISTS PROVE THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH
http//worldnewsdailyreport.com/german-scientists-prove-there-is-life-after-death/

Can you please link me to the peer reviewed scientific journal where this was published? It is not a matter which should go unnoticed by the scientific community at large. Therefore I am astonished to see no Nobel Prize being awarded to that team. Forget Nobel Prize, didn't even hear about this despite being a geek in this field. If they indeed published their findings in a reputed peer reviewed scientific journal and got their works double checked by others and validated, I HAVE NO PROBLEM in accepting that there is life after death. However, I must first verify that it's a legitimate thing. One doesn't and shouldn't conclude factual matters of scientific inquiry from articles on news sites like that. So please link me to that paper and I will come back and tell you what I think and also let the entire scientific world know that someone deserves a Nobel prize.

In his hands??? He isn't a human. However, if you are pointing to quranic term "hand" then do note that it means ability. I can't speak about a God who is human like!

http//media2.theranking.com/card/12247/image/5e56343dada029d40a90b44e1ca3d495/resize_image.jpg

Really? When someone says a sentence like "Donna took matters into her own hands", you think that they are talking about Donna actually carrying stuff around in her hands? If not, why are you making a big deal out of this? Do I also have to tell you from now on that when I say Thursday, it has nothing to do with Thor?

You say you can't speak about a God who is human like. The last time I checked, humans were the only species known to author books/ keep records. I won't even get into the fact that your model of God possesses many of the the traits that evolution drilled into animals over the years. It's a total anthropomorphic character.

Don't you think you are contradicting? When you talk about God you see rape and murder, but when it comes to atheism you claim that humans are naturally moral. Don't you think this is a bias? I don't know where you live, but what Emanuel wrote is something we see in the west a lot.

Again! You've done it again! Since it's from the same post, I won't count this as a repeated offence. However, please scroll up and read what I've said about you twisting my words to mean the exact opposite of what I said. I never ever implied that we are only capable of being moral naturally. Please scroll up and read what I am writing before strawmaning me.

What is diff between belief in a religion versus God? Just because I did not mention atheism as the other religion does not mean that is not true.

Again! No clue what you are talking about.

What I was trying to explain to you is that saying something is a phenomenon is different than saying something is a belief. My emphasis wasn't on the word God or religion. If you now ask how a phenomenon is different than a belief, then maybe this will help

A phenomenon is a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

I provided. I saw God. The description given above is the evidence of it. Feel free to start researching to know what I said is true. Don't wait for other researchers. Also I have actually told you in another thread to do something so you may find your own result without spending a dime. I am pasting it here
Try that test in yourself and see how you react. Try adding in your signature "I wish God would kill my parents" and stay with it for a while with the notion that since God doesn't exist me praying for their harm won't matter.

You provided evidence??????????? hypno

How in the world is you seeing God the same as providing me with evidence? I beg your pardon but how old are you? Just let me know if you are a minor, young adult or just older.

Your TEST is not such a good one given that everybody's parents die from all sorts of reasons all the time. How would I tell the difference from them just dying accidentally or from medical issues as opposed to by my prayers being answered? I have a rock solid way. ) Here it is

Why don't you pray to your God to give my another extra arm. Pray in whichever method you think your God responds the best. If I grew an extra arm, that would be one rock solid evidence that prayers do work. Or does your God get shy when there are no random chances or natural causes to help him out? Is he like that person who can disappear when nobody is looking?

Generalization? Doesn't China exist anymore?

Now I am confident that you are not capable of comprehending what I am writing. Let me break it down for you so that you can understand why I wasn't generalizing. This is what I said verbatim

I, along with virtually all atheists I know do live like there is no tomorrow. Guess what? None of us rape,murder, rob, etc. I understand that if you didn't have someone watching you all the time, you'd probably do all that. Please just don't project them onto us. Ask us first about what we feel like doing instead of projecting your feelings onto us.

So, in context, I was talking about the atheists I know and myself. Not about every damn person who doesn't believe in a God!! That would be an absurd thing to say after writing essays about how atheists are no more criminal than theists.

It just means humans are capable of doing evil, but some who have fear of God would choose to stay on the right track.

Why are you ignoring my kind of people? The complete picture is like this

Humans are capable of doing evil, but some who have fear of God would choose to stay on the right track while there are those who'd choose to stay on the right track because that is the right thing to do, not because of fear of punishment.

Much like I told you before, unlike you, the reason I am not a child molester is not because I was afraid God is watching me. It's because I ON MY OWN don't have the urge to be that evil. So does the bulk of humanity not have that urge. Only a tiny minority of messed up people do. But I can understand if you are naturally that evil.

I did not see anywhere you mentioned that prison population coming from religions did their crimes in the name of God. I told you all the reasons for which we cannot use prison population to understand who commits the most crimes.

1. What the hell are you talking about? What has in the name of God got to do with anything we are talking about? Did I ever say that the God believers go to prison because they do crimes in the name of God? What are you talking about? Are you even capable of holding a rational discourse?

2. No, you did not give a single valid reason for why we cannot use the only thing that will tell us about the end result of people's beliefs to society. All you did was to indirectly imply and accuse all of them to be faking beliefs in God and thereby also indirectly saying that only Atheists can commit crime. That is not a valid reason. That is known as a bigoted statement.

But it looks like even atheists agree with me
Scientific research yields inconsistent and contradictory evidence relating religion to moral judgments and outcomes, yet most people on earth nonetheless view belief in God (or gods) as central to morality, and many view atheists with suspicion and scorn. To evaluate intuitions regarding a causal link between religion and morality, this paper tested intuitive moral judgments of atheists and other groups. Across five experiments (N=1,152), American participants intuitively judged a wide variety of immoral acts (e.g., serial murder, consensual incest, necrobestiality, cannibalism) as representative of atheists, but not of eleven other religious, ethnic, and cultural groups. Even atheist participants judged immoral acts as more representative of atheists than of other groups. These findings demonstrate a prevalent intuition that belief in God serves a necessary function in inhibiting immoral conduct, and may help explain persistent negative perceptions of atheists. http//journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092302

http//www.lindsaydoeslanguages.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/thatfaceicantstoplaughing_0a3b441c09cc3bcd59fc5eee414b263b.gif

So, finally, conclusive evidence that you actually seriously lack in comprehension skills. Did you even bother to read what it says from the start? The study is NOT ABOUT WHETHER ATHEIST COMMIT MORE CRIME OR ARE MORE IMMORAL. The study was about the NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF ATHEISTS BY OTHERS which CONTRADICTS WHAT WE KNOW FROM WHAT WE HAVE LEARNT SO FAR THROUGH STUDIES. For you, I will make it easier by highlighting this obvious bit you missed out on

Scientific research yields inconsistent and contradictory evidence relating religion to moral judgments and outcomes, yet most people on earth nonetheless view belief in God (or gods) as central to morality, and many view atheists with suspicion and scorn. To evaluate intuitions regarding a causal link between religion and morality, this paper tested intuitive moral judgments of atheists and other groups. Across five experiments (N=1,152), American participants intuitively judged a wide variety of immoral acts (e.g., serial murder, consensual incest, necrobestiality, cannibalism) as representative of atheists, but not of eleven other religious, ethnic, and cultural groups. Even atheist participants judged immoral acts as more representative of atheists than of other groups. These findings demonstrate a prevalent intuition that belief in God serves a necessary function in inhibiting immoral conduct, and may help explain persistent negative perceptions of atheists.

RED Science has already demonstrated that having a religion in no way guarantees moral behavior either through outcome or the judgement.

BLUE Even after science proving that, people still think that religion is necessary for morality and therefore gives atheists a hard time about it!

Green The study demonstrates that in our society people tends to BELIEVE that religion is necessary for morality. THEREFORE, people ends up thinking that atheists are immoral.

It is beyond hilarious that you ended up pasting a study here which absolutely destroys your argument. And remember, who agrees or disagrees with you is irrelevant as long as all the scientific data suggests that what you believe is a load of crap.

Show me where I claimed majority in the jail are atheist.

Go read the part where you tried to imply that the prison population are pretending to be theists.

I already told you about the environment of jail. Any psychopath can lie. Even a Muslim, hindu or Buddhist criminal can claim to be Christian just so he become free or feel that he has got God in christ.

See? This is what I was talking about. Do you also have a memory loss issue? You just asked me to point out where you said any such thing and right after that you go on to state that what is likely is that prison inmates around the globe are all liers who could just be pretending to be believing in Gods.

Bombing can't be humanitarian because it does sometimes kill civilians.

Of course intentionally and unreasonably going around bombing civilians is messed up. However, that doesn't mean that bombing itself because anti-humanity.

He isn't the only one. I just gave one example of intolerance.

& Yeah right! Please tell me more about how the world is dominated by evil atheists who are persecuting religious people on every front.

They surely aren't doing now....but people do have bizarre feeling that they should get rid of those who don't agree with them. That is why, we God alone people are supposed to be killed if found in Afghanistan.

Yes! Please tell us more about how throughout human history, it was always atheists killing religious people for their beliefs. And also tell us more about how atheists are killing God alone folks in Afghanistan as we speak. Right? It can't be other god believers killing them. Right? How could that be?

3. You say that other atheists can be unlike me. So could other God believers. I know God believers who are murderers and rapists and corrupt traitors. Now what? Should I start having a panic attack about anything who believes in a God just because someone else could be less peaceful person than you are?

Try arguing with an atheist about sexual liberation.

If you want to be afraid of atheists/secular people being criminals, first show us the evidence. I have been asking for it for a long time now. Have written chapter books on it in this thread. Yet you refuse to bring any evidence. All you do is keep asserting or implying that prison population throughout the entire world, which is a very good source to prove your case, is full of 100% liars who are all atheists pretending to believe in Gods.

Answered above.

I will just leave it there for people to see just how crazy and irrelevant your responses are. That is why I made sure what you were responding to can be seen in the quotes so that people can tell for a certainty that you aren't even reading before responding.

Call the mods. I wholeheartedly welcome you to do it. Don't let the urge go unsatisfied. I am taken by your tolerance

I'll leave it up to the mods. If they decide that portraying atheists like that counts as hate speech, they can warn you. In a weird way, I don't want them to delete anything you've written. The reason being that there are many rational people here who will read all these exchanges and will get to see why I will stop responding to you here from now on. The following are just a few ones I will point out

• You lack basic comprehension skills of written words at least. That means that it's a waste of time responding to you.
• You respond with total non-sequitur. I could be asking you about thermodynamics and you'd respond back saying "Potatoes are tasty".
• You demonize atheists and sound like those Mullahs that managed to make sure that a lot of Muslims hold an unwarranted grudge against jews and a very skewed perception of them.
• Also that you try to quote mine scientific papers while embarrassingly not realizing how the paper is about your argument being wrong. When that's the way you skim through scientific papers, there is no way anyone with any self respect will ever want to discuss matters of truth with you.

May peace be with you.

Peace
------------------ Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Thank you for the link. I have watched it now .

For real?

Here is one example ,from many others, of my understanding of "Intelligent design"

The human start life as one cell,before becoming a baby. That cell has a DNA structure that instruct it to grow /become many cells,then different organs each organ very complex and with a different task and role for the body. Surely An "Intelligent programmer,designer" has designed/created such a complex system?

And how do I know that? How do you know that "surely" it had to be an intelligent designer?

I understand that it is complex. What I don't get is how you look at something that complex and just conclude that it had to have an intelligent designer. We have an understanding of how that process takes place. However, let us ignore that scientific knowledge for now. I am interested in knowing why you say that "surely an intelligent designer did it"?

Also, can we please move this discussion to the science section? We can discuss topic wise. Take our time to learn about each others view points and investigate deeper? We are both trying to get at the truth here, it'll do us no good to start talking about several complicated topics at once. Do you agree?

My belief in Qoran,and you may already know this,is my own research and checking of the "interlock" system . Impossible for any human to compose a book and Mathematically seal it . To be aware of the count of each letter,word sentence and chapter and place them exactly with mathematical accuracy to produce a full book that is both a literacy and numeracy masterpiece.

That is something I, when I was a Muslim, along with many other believers of the Qur'an, rejected as nothing more than numerology kinda thing. Sorry that I can't think of a better word for it right now. However, we can discuss this "interlocking miracle" in another thread perhaps. I am open to that.

I read your posts to "reel" and others. There are many issues and assumptions from both sides with defining many things including a "believer", a "disbeliever"...etc That is where there are differences and misunderstandings.
For example not every religious person is a "believer"? Like not every Atheist is a "disbeliever"? etc

I am using the most literal dictionary definition of the word. Since the topic here is Atheism, a believer then would be one who believes in the existence of a God, in this context Allah the creator, and a disbeliever would be one who doesn't believe in the existence of that God. I understand that you can have your own definition of the word but I am not using that. So please read my exchanges with others with this in mind that I mean the things I said above when I am talking about a believer or a disbeliever.

P.S. I think the exchange with Reel has come to an end. What is the point in writing so much and going into so much detail about things when the person clearly baseless-ly accuses entire groups of people branding them as criminals and the only criminals on earth. Imagine how you'd feel if I was continuously trying to tell you here about how you ought to be a terrorist if you are a Muslim. Imagine how infuriating it would be if I even refused to provide evidence that all Muslims are terrorists and started suggesting that all the other non-Muslim terrorists are liars who are actually Muslims pretending to be non-Muslims! If someone joined this forum today and went around demonized Muslims saying things like that, I'm pretty sure they'd have a difficult time with the moderators.

I don't know if you have read my exchanges with her. The irony here lies in the fact that her behavior testifies to the fact that belief in a God alone doesn't make one behave better than an atheist. If that was the case, I, Student of Allah the atheist would be the one demonizing all Muslims here, not reel, the God believer.

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Here's a better example

A Do you believe in God?
B NO ! I AM AN ATHEIST! And here's why I think believing in f&) God doesn't make any f() sense.. bla bla bla bla

Compared with

A Do you believe in God?
B What is God?
A Are you an Atheist an unbeliever in God?
B I never call or label myself as such.. what is God?
A God is bla bla bla bla (the explanation varied as definition of God varies)
B If that's the case, then I do not believe in the existence of the God as you've defined it.
A You're an Atheist then..
B Perhaps.. to your God.

And yes sometimes "shutting the F&*k up" is better than saying anything unproductive with bursting emotion.

Here's another good definition of "religious person" (independence of their religion / ism)

?If the people of religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.?
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi

The outrage / emotional burst happens because the religious person feel his/her ego is being attacked when he sees that his / her identity is being attacked. (Islam, Christianity, Deity/God, Atheism, Nationality, Favorite Football Club etc..)
He / she is not defending his/her God or belief per se.. (that's BS) he/she's actually defending his / her ego.

The above instinct is embedded within human brain (survival instinct) thus commonly found on all human.
To remediate such condition it is advisable to not identifying yourselves to any -ism.

And that's why I advised the TS to unconvert himself from Atheism when he declared himself as Atheist.
Atheist and Non-Religious is not the same thing.

And suddenly you jumped into this thread...
Perhaps you were compelled to do so.. because your identity (Atheism) is being discussed here.

Yes! Let's just ignore the context of all conversations and always start from scratch. Let's just ignore the fact that the forum is predicated on the idea of a creator deity called Allah revealing a book for mankind. Let's ignore that altogether and start from scratch.

Exactly the way members of Manchester United FC fan forums should always ask each other which football they are talking about the moment someone uses the word football on that forum.

I agree with you on the point that if someone random out of nowhere asked me if I believed in a God, it wouldn't really make sense to say NO. I've actually said that in this very forum a few days back saying that I have met people who say that existence is good or our feelings or existence is God. In those cases, I'd be foolish to just outright say that I don't believe in a God.

Peace
------------- Student of Allah

Shalom Aleikhem good logic,

GOD has given us the eyes,ears and brain(according to my understanding) . Our intellect and reasoning can easily sort out if there really is " intelligent design" around us and in us. i.e is there an intelligentt,original source that " designed and created" us,and what is on our earth and universe?

Please define intelligent design. I have a hunch that you are talking about the same intelligent design that was thrown out of the court as "religious belief" not a scientific conclusion on the Dover Trial. If you do have the time, please watch this documentary https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=sht0n_WHWwE

We are coming to opposite conclusions so far,brother . If you are using Science and I am also using Science, you used Qoran and I am also using Qoran,does this mean there is something wrong with Science,Qoran, or both Science and Qoran?

I rely on science. However, that isn't strictly necessary to not believe in God claims. We can erase everything we know about the universe from science. Still, even then, I'd need evidence to believe in the existence of fairies, unicorns or God for that matter. Science just allows for me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Well, the scientific claims have strong evidence for which I can at least tentatively accept them. When it comes to the Qur'an however, now matter how I put it, I have to take it on faith. That was my problem with it.

Or does this mean one of us is coming to the wrong conclusion,or both of us?

Since we hold opposing views, one or both of us could be wrong.

Peace
---------------- Student of Allah

Now you are starting to get the point.
Atheism can and has been turned into a RELIGION.
Football Clubism can and has been turned into a RELIGION.
We see Chelseaism, MUism, Juventusism... etc..

You said you want to get an evidence of Atheism is a religion?

Not really. I didn't ask for evidence of anyone turning atheism into a religion. I said that the fact that someone says that they are an atheist, doesn't mean that they are saying that atheism is their religion. For that reason, I used the dictionary to make my point. It's much like someone coming here and saying, "hey guys, I love football". Then you starting to talk about how he must stop saying that as that is a religion!

That is what I found to be a really unfounded thing to say. Virtually anything can be turned into a religion. Now what? We all should just shut the Ef up unless we want to be called religious? That just makes no sense.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah