Existence of life

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

That's an Agnostic view. Agnostic view is always right because it's neither true nor false.

If something is neither true nor false then it is not always right ... It is as you said ... Neither true nor false ... Or neither right nor wrong ... That should be simple.

But this not the case here ... We are talking about whether something can be shown to be right or wrong ... If it can't be shown to be wrong then it is possible to be true until a point that it can be shown to be wrong or false.

[kprasad]

Re: Existence of life

Okay so I can't use the word science and I can't use the word faith ... So what can I use?

can you accept that faith can include evidence? If so, then I accept I have faith in Islam.

ok so they are working all the time ... Can evolution occur without mutation? What determines how their effects are more profound and when?

I never said any such thing. I said faith and science are not the same. One requires evidence and one is belief in the absence of evidence. It's you who said you have 'science' in your religion.

If you have evidence for something, then it is not taken in faith.

Evolution cannot occur without mutation. Climactic changes, changes in food, water, all can effect on the rate.

[Theorist]

Re: Existence of life

If something is neither true nor false then it is not always right ... It is as you said ... Neither true nor false ... Or neither right nor wrong ... That should be simple.But this not the case here ... We are talking about whether something can be shown to be right or wrong ... If it can't be shown to be wrong then it is possible to be true until a point that it can be shown to be wrong or false.

Key word. Possible but not yet true.. Therefore, it is neither right nor wrong.

I said Agnostic view is always right because it claims nothing! No one can argue if you hold agnostic position in a debate. It is inconclusive. It is kind of like Schneider's thought experiment. Is the cat dead or alive? We don't know until the box is opened. I can write two books on it: one stating the cat is alive because of such and such. The other book will note reasons why the cat must be dead. Which book is correct and evident? Neither. God works the same way because we are trying to understand a power/force that is beyond us, unseen and unheard.

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

I never said any such thing. I said faith and science are not the same. One requires evidence and one is belief in the absence of evidence. It's you who said you have 'science' in your religion.

If you have evidence for something, then it is not taken in faith.

Evolution cannot occur without mutation. Climactic changes, changes in food, water, all can effect on the rate.

Ummm ... Please answer my question ... So what do I call my conviction for Islam when I have evidence? It can't be faith according to your definition ...

Can evolution occur without climatic changes? ... Will mutations occur without any other conditional changes?

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

Key word. Possible but not yet true.. Therefore, it is neither right nor wrong.

I said Agnostic view is always right because it claims nothing! No one can argue if you hold agnostic position in a debate. It is inconclusive. It is kind of like Schneider's thought experiment. Is the cat dead or alive? We don't know until the box is opened. I can write two books on it: one stating the cat is alive because of such and such. The other book will note reasons why the cat must be dead. Which book is correct and evident? Neither. God works the same way because we are trying to understand a power/force that is beyond us, unseen and unheard.

But that is not my position ... I have made a decision ... I have decided in this case due to other factors to side with the notion there is God, but also stated that He cannot be detected and provided evidence from our scripture that He cannot be detected. So long as this position remains possible then I cannot be said to be wrong ... I am not being ambivalent like agnostics.

I disagree with the red part ... I would choose to say "not yet provable either way" ... But I am very much saying it is true ... I have selected a position and for me things can be true despite not having to prove them to be true.

Science will not allow that, but philosophy does ... And that is a draw back with science ... That only when science allows a discovery only then it is said to be true ... That is a problem because it does not entertain those aspects of reality that are outside our grasp.

[Theorist]

Re: Existence of life

But that is not my position ... I have made a decision ... I have decided in this case due to other factors to side with the notion there is God, but also stated that He cannot be detected and provided evidence from our scripture that He cannot be detected. So long as this position remains possible then I cannot be said to be wrong ... I am not being ambivalent like agnostics.

I disagree with the red part ... I would choose to say "not yet provable either way" ... But I am very much saying it is true ... I have selected a position and for me things can be true despite not having to prove them to be true.

Science will not allow that, but philosophy does ... And that is a draw back with science ... That only when science allows a discovery only then it is said to be true ... That is a problem because it does not entertain those aspects of reality that are outside our grasp.

If science relied on ancient texts then it wouldn't be science. I don't know more curious people than scientists. Scientists probably entertain wilder ideas and theories than most people. If you want to know the way God works, then you must honestly do the research, hypothesize, and experiment with what you have. What is the point of this process if you are not going to believe the results?

Now about your first para. Let's replace the word God with boogeyman. Say a kid decides that the boogeyman under his bed exists but he read in a book that he cannot see him but he totally lives under his bed. Does this boogeyman exist? Nobody knows so no one is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the kid believes because he hasn't seen the boogeyman either.

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

If science relied on ancient texts then it wouldn't be science. I don't know more curious people than scientists. Scientists probably entertain wilder ideas and theories than most people. If you want to know the way God works, then you must honestly do the research, hypothesize, and experiment with what you have. What is the point of this process if you are not going to believe the results?

Now about your first para. Let's replace the word God with boogeyman. Say a kid decides that the boogeyman under his bed exists but he read in a book that he cannot see him but he totally lives under his bed. Does this boogeyman exist? Nobody knows so no one is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the kid believes because he hasn't seen the boogeyman either.

Peace Theorist

First of all this is not a debate for me (which is an argument) ... I do not want to win, but I want clear understanding between us if you want to continue in this conversation. Please try to understand what I am saying before commenting.

"If science relied on ancient texts then it would not be science" - what warranted this statement?

"What is the point of this process if you are not going to believe the results?" - This shows that you do not understand what my stance is at all ...

Now your thought experiment is totally flawed and here is why ...

a) Replace the word God with boogeyman - Okay, but by doing that you are also causing a huge issue ... and that is in the understanding of the concept of God as a whole ... a boogeyman has an already established folkloric definition and some of them are contradictory and none of them say that he is God the Creator of the Universe. Not only is the God concept stating in Islam that He is Unseen, but it also states that "no space confines Him" - If the boogeyman can be under the bed - for a surety it is wrong to infer that on to the concept of God. Replacing a name has ramifications in terms of their understood Attributes ... we can't just replace a name and expect to use analogy in one case to disprove the other.

b) Now in your thought experiment - you referred to "a book" again that is not like "The Qur'an" - the latter is proven to be a scripture that came uttered from the lips of an unlettered and uneducated person ... yet it contains wisdoms beyond the biggest intellects of his time and stands unchallenged today, despite the spurious claims ...

c) Furthermore, the experiment to be correct has to be linking the book to the belief - i.e. we believe that the Qur'an is from Deity ... so in your experiment - the boy needs to be sure that the book he has - comes from the boogeyman and would be able to present reasons why he is sure it is authored by the boogeyman.

Lastly, the only avenue that science can reveal is whether or not it can confirm a "sighting of God" - and we know that we will never be able to see God. It is hence a pointless experiment to do ... If science somehow shows "God" - then Muslims are obliged to reject that notion, not that we reject science see something or not, but to reject that what is being seen is God or not ... because if that entity whatever it is can be seen yet does marvelous and amazing unhumanly unimaginable things - it will still be contained within the 6 directions and have tangible form and hence inferior to its surroundings and hence we will have to conclude that entity claimant for God is a false claim ... a liar - a Dajjal - nothing can contain God - this is an Islamic axiom.

The way to fathom some semblance of God is not rooted in scientific experimentation ... Rather it is rooted in inductive argumentation from a philosophical point of view and it is rooted in faith ... but it is reasoned faith ... it is unlike superstition which is really what kprasad is saying when he refers to "faith" ... for him superstition and faith are the same thing. For me however and according to Islam - superstition is forbidden and a form of disbelief.

Faith and Superstition are fundamentally different but many cannot see that who argue from the scientific point of view. For example - astrology is a form of superstition because those who believe in it ascribe power to an arrangement of natural bodies to influence the workings in people's lives ... This is not because it cannot be scientifically proven or not, but because from an abstract point of view - things of lesser intelligence cannot govern the workings of higher intelligence to the extent of it being outside their control. Our consciousness tells us that we are in control of our affairs through our decisions and not the arrangement of natural phenomena.

God on the other hand is greater in intelligence than humans from the concept ... we are not getting involved at this stage on finding the existence of God ... but that is how we distinguish between faith and superstition - the conceptual constructs need to be correct. Regarding proof we always go back to what we have ... and that is scripture and the Prophet (SAW) and his miracles ... the recordings are true and historical as can be demonstrated by our extensive reference bibliography of transmissions of hadith, the burial chamber of the holy prophet (SAW) and various other artifacts that confirm the narrative.

[ajazali]

Re: Existence of life

@Theorist

No, not offended. My reaction to your posts is always something like this:

First, I never equated Aliens with God. Stop putting words in my mouth as you always do.

So if i ask a question for clarification that means i am putting my words in your mouth?.. too sensitive to debate.

You did not get what my point. As always, you are looking to pick a point to argue instead of debate.

and that gives you tough time, right?

Second, I would admit evolution is wrong if I felt that way.

What do you think about evolution of living being from non-living?

Like obviously, it is so totally not as convincing as a woman being born out of a man’s rib spontaneously, right? The thing with evolution is, you could actually predict certain outcomes examining fossil records. When the results verify predictions, then there has got to be some truth to it. No?

I am interseted in discussing a specific point, and that is obvious from the title of the thread and my question in OP, if you have read that. my question is specific to claim of evolution of living being from non-living.

@Theorist

We talked about this. Yes, it is different. I am not going to debate it again but I will say this; the two have very different forms of existence. While it is possible that we are in some sort of a simulation made by aliens, the matter with which we and computers are created are different. However at the subatomic level, we are still the same! It’s like when we create a game, we create all of it using the same programming, graphics, and animation. However, the characters inside the game behave as though they are living but everything else is non-living.

Concept of life of player in game is borrowed from real life of living objects. But you can recreate same objects any number of times you want in game. So you cannot compare human with game’s player. If you want to ponder in, word recreate is the key.
Another key point is start and stop feature of both living and non-living objects.
if living object goes to ‘stop’ state, it cannot not got to ‘start’ state.
if non-living object goes to ‘stop’ state, it can go to ‘start’ state.
if aliens have created human being then what is purpose of limit of not letting the human go back to ‘start’ state once it has reached ‘stop’ state?

If you ask a human if computers continue to exist, we would say no they don’t because they don’t have souls. We think we have souls, what if our creator who put us in this simulation knows we don’t have souls. What if wanting to live on after death is our wishful thinking and hence we think we have souls and have all these mystical experiences as a result of it?

not to hurt you, but this sounds like looking for reasons to believe in disbelief, just like someone is looking for reasons to believe in God. Why not look for reasons to belief in God?

[kprasad]

Re: Existence of life

Ummm ... Please answer my question ... So what do I call my conviction for Islam when I have evidence? It can't be faith according to your definition ...

Can evolution occur without climatic changes? ... Will mutations occur without any other conditional changes?

That's a question you need to answer for yourself. If you have evidence, then you don't need faith. Opinion isn't evidence! Using a holy book to verify it's own claims isn't evidence!
By the way, it's not my definition...it's the accepted definition.

The question you're asking, for clarity's sake is: Without the presence of one of the stimuli, can mutation occur?
If that is your question, then the answer is yes.

I don't understand your second question. You're asking if you can have change without change...that's not a reasonable question.

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

That's a question you need to answer for yourself. If you have evidence, then you don't need faith. Opinion isn't evidence! Using a holy book to verify it's own claims isn't evidence! By the way, it's not my definition...it's the accepted definition.

The question you're asking, for clarity's sake is: Without the presence of one of the stimuli, can mutation occur? If that is your question, then the answer is yes.

I don't understand your second question. You're asking if you can have change without change...that's not a reasonable question.

I'm not using a book to verify it's own claims ... I'm using logic and reflection and experience to test the arguments in the book ... When I found soundness in the arguments then I edged closer to accepting it ... For the areas that I can't possibly test then I use reason to accept them too that ... If the testable falsifiable areas have been true, then there is no good reason for me to take the untestable parts as false.

For me faith and superstition are different ...

Regarding the mechanisms of evolution ... Which mechanisms brought about the worm from its ancestor and which brought about a golden eagle? Specifically speaking ...

[kprasad]

Re: Existence of life

I'm not using a book to verify it's own claims ... I'm using logic and reflection and experience to test the arguments in the book ... When I found soundness in the arguments then I edged closer to accepting it ... For the areas that I can't possibly test then I use reason to accept them too that ... If the testable falsifiable areas have been true, then there is no good reason for me to take the untestable parts as false.

For me faith and superstition are different ...

Regarding the mechanisms of evolution ... Which mechanisms brought about the worm from its ancestor and which brought about a golden eagle? Specifically speaking ...

Lots of opinion, anecdotes, and hearsay, but still no evidence. This is faith. If you had evidence you wouldn't need faith. That why it's called a religion.

Fortunately, science sets a much higher bar for it's self...and we're all better for it. Science relies on evidence, data, and then people reach a consensus and agreement. It doesn't require faith. It's immune from arguments or those orally gifted with words. It's truths are evident from the weight of it's own correctness. Religion doesn't even come close...

Lets forget all the people in the world. Lets look at people that claim to share the same religion you do. Can you show me consensus on exactly what your holy book means from...let's say...80% or it's adherents? Evolution is almost universally accepted, more than 99%, by scientists.

As to your last point: Natural selection.

Another point, I've made before: You have no counter theory. There is no religious theory that explains the data remotely as close as evolution does. There is no basis for your argument, barring a religious one. You have zero evidence.

[Theorist]

Re: Existence of life

Peace Theorist

First of all this is not a debate for me (which is an argument) ... I do not want to win, but I want clear understanding between us if you want to continue in this conversation. Please try to understand what I am saying before commenting.

"If science relied on ancient texts then it would not be science" - what warranted this statement?

"What is the point of this process if you are not going to believe the results?" - This shows that you do not understand what my stance is at all ...

Now your thought experiment is totally flawed and here is why ...

a) Replace the word God with boogeyman - Okay, but by doing that you are also causing a huge issue ... and that is in the understanding of the concept of God as a whole ... a boogeyman has an already established folkloric definition and some of them are contradictory and none of them say that he is God the Creator of the Universe. Not only is the God concept stating in Islam that He is Unseen, but it also states that "no space confines Him" - If the boogeyman can be under the bed - for a surety it is wrong to infer that on to the concept of God. Replacing a name has ramifications in terms of their understood Attributes ... we can't just replace a name and expect to use analogy in one case to disprove the other.

b) Now in your thought experiment - you referred to "a book" again that is not like "The Qur'an" - the latter is proven to be a scripture that came uttered from the lips of an unlettered and uneducated person ... yet it contains wisdoms beyond the biggest intellects of his time and stands unchallenged today, despite the spurious claims ...

c) Furthermore, the experiment to be correct has to be linking the book to the belief - i.e. we believe that the Qur'an is from Deity ... so in your experiment - the boy needs to be sure that the book he has - comes from the boogeyman and would be able to present reasons why he is sure it is authored by the boogeyman.

Lastly, the only avenue that science can reveal is whether or not it can confirm a "sighting of God" - and we know that we will never be able to see God. It is hence a pointless experiment to do ... If science somehow shows "God" - then Muslims are obliged to reject that notion, not that we reject science see something or not, but to reject that what is being seen is God or not ... because if that entity whatever it is can be seen yet does marvelous and amazing unhumanly unimaginable things - it will still be contained within the 6 directions and have tangible form and hence inferior to its surroundings and hence we will have to conclude that entity claimant for God is a false claim ... a liar - a Dajjal - nothing can contain God - this is an Islamic axiom.

The way to fathom some semblance of God is not rooted in scientific experimentation ... Rather it is rooted in inductive argumentation from a philosophical point of view and it is rooted in faith ... but it is reasoned faith ... it is unlike superstition which is really what kprasad is saying when he refers to "faith" ... for him superstition and faith are the same thing. For me however and according to Islam - superstition is forbidden and a form of disbelief.

Faith and Superstition are fundamentally different but many cannot see that who argue from the scientific point of view. For example - astrology is a form of superstition because those who believe in it ascribe power to an arrangement of natural bodies to influence the workings in people's lives ... This is not because it cannot be scientifically proven or not, but because from an abstract point of view - things of lesser intelligence cannot govern the workings of higher intelligence to the extent of it being outside their control. Our consciousness tells us that we are in control of our affairs through our decisions and not the arrangement of natural phenomena.

God on the other hand is greater in intelligence than humans from the concept ... we are not getting involved at this stage on finding the existence of God ... but that is how we distinguish between faith and superstition - the conceptual constructs need to be correct. Regarding proof we always go back to what we have ... and that is scripture and the Prophet (SAW) and his miracles ... the recordings are true and historical as can be demonstrated by our extensive reference bibliography of transmissions of hadith, the burial chamber of the holy prophet (SAW) and various other artifacts that confirm the narrative.

And that's faith. without any evidence all of it is based on faith. Astrology is superstition because Astronomy is pretty evident and verifiable. You can observe and calculate the movement of celestial bodies. That's evidence of Astronomy. Astrology offers no such evidence so it's superstitious. If you believe in Astrology blindly then that's faith too. You can't say the same for Islam and other superstitious claims. Quran is as evident as any superstitious claim according to Science. None is verifiable. Can we observe and measure hellfire? Do we have any proof of heaven? Many historical "facts" are recorded incorrectly but then no point in telling you that because you wouldn't believe. That's faith.

Logic and science do not play into faith. All of this means nothing to someone who thinks nothing of God, an unseen being that may not matter at all. Why would anyone care what you think of something that is not verifiable and you say it yourself that it is not. It is kind of like a folklore. What makes Islamic God better than other gods? You may or may not find your way to God by simply exploring and experimenting with nature. Science studies nature. Everyone understands the basic concept of religious God but not everyone's definition of God is of that religious God. We don't know what God is, whether or not it exists the way we define it. Scripture isn't proof of God. It's written by men, a collective effort to record one man's thoughts. Now what that means to some people doesn't matter. There are a million more books that talk about history, miracles, and what not. Why don't we hold them in the same regard? just because nobody stamped it with the words "from GOD"

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

Lots of opinion, anecdotes, and hearsay, but still no evidence. This is faith. If you had evidence you wouldn't need faith. That why it's called a religion.

Fortunately, science sets a much higher bar for it's self...and we're all better for it. Science relies on evidence, data, and then people reach a consensus and agreement. It doesn't require faith. It's immune from arguments or those orally gifted with words. It's truths are evident from the weight of it's own correctness. Religion doesn't even come close...

Lets forget all the people in the world. Lets look at people that claim to share the same religion you do. Can you show me consensus on exactly what your holy book means from...let's say...80% or it's adherents? Evolution is almost universally accepted, more than 99%, by scientists.

As to your last point: Natural selection.

Another point, I've made before: You have no counter theory. There is no religious theory that explains the data remotely as close as evolution does. There is no basis for your argument, barring a religious one. You have zero evidence.

Peace kprasad

You are the one coming out with the mantra ... Not I ... You have not engaged me once ... It's like seeing a conversation in parallel. Alas, the conversation has come to the issue of "evidence" ... According to you I have no evidence ... Yet I have presented my evidence and instead of analysing it or cross-checking it yourself you have chosen to step away talk about consensus without addressing g the evidence itself. What sort of science do you practice? Why are you afraid to go seriously into this discussion?

What is evidence? Do you know? Or are you confusing that for objective proof? And you are not in the right to complain when your baseless claims of the various mechanisms of evolution are not rooted in a scripture or text book. Who says that evolution can happen in those ways you described and what evidence did they present? I want to learn about evolution deeply ... Perhaps deeper than you might want to go ... Let's do it together ... Let's also look at the Qur'an deeply ... And please cut out these half hearted high level claims ... They sound like a mantra ... And I'm not getting put off from that sort of dismissal ...

if you want to talk science then let's do so ... Let's hold the rest of this conversation without casting opinions on each other and let's try to learn something together ... Can you do that?

[TLK]

@ajazali:10016035

What do you think about evolution of living being from non-living?

O yaar, yeah tum kya stuck ho gaye ho iss point pe. Your whole body is consist of non living particles. You grew from a baby to whatever height and weight you are by consuming non living stuff. When you eat bread, it becomes part of your body cells. You are essentially turning non living into living every moment of your life.

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

And that's faith. Logic and science do not play into faith. All of this means nothing to someone who thinks nothing of God, an unseen being that may not matter at all. Why would anyone care what you think of something that is not verifiable and you say it yourself. It is kind of like a folklore. What makes Islamic God better than other gods? You may or may not find your way to God by simply exploring and experimenting with nature. Science studies nature. Everyone understands the basic concept of religious God but not everyone's definition of God is of that religious God. We don't know what God is, whether or not it exists the way we define it. Scripture isn't proof of God. It's written by men, a collective effort to record one man's thoughts. Now what that means to some people doesn't matter. There are a million more books that talk about history, miracles, and what not. Why don't we hold them in the same regard? just because nobody stamped it with the words "from GOD"

Peace Theorist

It appears you want to protest but you do not want to engage ... So let's take one of your questions piece by piece ... Let's analyse together which "God Concept" is the ideal one to have ... Shall we do that? Entertain me ... As a disclaimer I will say from the onset that this is purely academic ... In other words showing the Islamic God concept to be superior does NOT infer God exists ... That is not my claim ... I am simply answering the question "what makes the Islamic God better than other gods"

My first question :
In Islam the concept of God is such that it is impossible to do something that God does not allow to happen ... Which other concept of God in the world's religions holds a similar idea?

[Theorist]

Re: Existence of life

Peace Theorist

It appears you want to protest but you do not want to engage ... So let's take one of your questions piece by piece ... Let's analyse together which "God Concept" is the ideal one to have ... Shall we do that? Entertain me ... As a disclaimer I will say from the onset that this is purely academic ... In other words showing the Islamic God concept to be superior does NOT infer God exists ... That is not my claim ... I am simply answering the question "what makes the Islamic God better than other gods"

My first question : In Islam the concept of God is such that it is impossible to do something that God does not allow to happen ... Which other concept of God in the world's religions holds a similar idea?

Request denied. I am not protesting, just telling you why and where Science and religion don't mix. I have no interest in telling anyone which concept of God is more idealistic. To me this discussion is pointless. :)

[kprasad]

Re: Existence of life

@psyah

Peace kprasad

You are the one coming out with the mantra … Not I … You have not engaged me once … It’s like seeing a conversation in parallel. Alas, the conversation has come to the issue of “evidence” … According to you I have no evidence … Yet I have presented my evidence and instead of analysing it or cross-checking it yourself you have chosen to step away talk about consensus without addressing g the evidence itself. What sort of science do you practice? Why are you afraid to go seriously into this discussion?

What is evidence? Do you know? Or are you confusing that for objective proof? And you are not in the right to complain when your baseless claims of the various mechanisms of evolution are not rooted in a scripture or text book. Who says that evolution can happen in those ways you described and what evidence did they present? I want to learn about evolution deeply … Perhaps deeper than you might want to go … Let’s do it together … Let’s also look at the Qur’an deeply … And please cut out these half hearted high level claims … They sound like a mantra … And I’m not getting put off from that sort of dismissal …

if you want to talk science then let’s do so … Let’s hold the rest of this conversation without casting opinions on each other and let’s try to learn something together … Can you do that?

None of what you presented is evidence! All of it, every bit, is opinion and hearsay. There is nothing for me to examine and analyse. You can make up and say whatever you want, that’s not evidence and it’s not objective.

Here is some very light reading on evolution, backed with data: Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

Request denied. I am not protesting, just telling you why and where Science and religion don't mix. I have no interest in telling anyone which concept of God is more idealistic. To me this discussion is pointless. :)

So why did you ask the question? Are you really that set in your ways ... I'm trying to methodically demonstrate to you that the Islamic concept of God is superior ... And you don't want to hear my answer ... So far you do not sound like a scientist ... The fact that you keep saying "science and religion don't mix" requires you to put forward the structure of science and the structure of religion and compare them ... But so far you have not gone deep enough to make a fair comparison ... Also my claim is that the belief in the evolution theory is closer to faith than it is to accepting a scientific theory through the various forms of scientific enquiry.

If ever science and religion have mixed it is in evolution ...

[psyah]

Re: Existence of life

@kprasad

None of what you presented is evidence! All of it, every bit, is opinion and hearsay. There is nothing for me to examine and analyse. You can make up and say whatever you want, that’s not evidence and it’s not objective.

Here is some very light reading on evolution, backed with data: Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

Peace kprasad

Come on … At least explain why the Qur’an cannot be accepted as potential evidence that should be analysed.

For evolution … Let’s go through the concepts and I don’t want light reading … I want the heaviest facts you can find please … Let’s get right in to the depth of the theory …

[Theorist]

Re: Existence of life

@psyah

So why did you ask the question? Are you really that set in your ways … I’m trying to methodically demonstrate to you that the Islamic concept of God is superior … And you don’t want to hear my answer … So far you do not sound like a scientist … The fact that you keep saying “science and religion don’t mix” requires you to put forward the structure of science and the structure of religion and compare them … But so far you have not gone deep enough to make a fair comparison … Also my claim is that the belief in the evolution theory is closer to faith than it is to accepting a scientific theory through the various forms of scientific enquiry.

If ever science and religion have mixed it is in evolution …

ok. Why would I hear your answer? Why shouldn’t I hear someone else’s? Yes, I am not a scientist. Even as a non-scientist person, I would hear everyone’s opinion equally. If we talk about fair, then it would have to include the opinions of the whole world.

I am done.