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.
If our body is consisted of non-living matter, can you replace this matter with some other type of non-living matter?
you cannot produce something like that whether you take it at particle level or matter level.
Ok, after the conception when baby takes first breath, life is evolved from non-living matter?
Considering you example, somehow we can induce that first living being was evolved from rocks as Darwin claimed?
Anyway it’s ok, if you are convinced.
Regarding my point, I am not stuck to this point. For every question there are three possible answers, ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘dont know’ and Theorist have replied with none of those options which means something wrong.
One would have thought that you have already heard the vast majority of the beliefs about God - in order to be objective for rejecting the concept. If you have rejected something prior to understanding it then that is clearly an act against science and against common sense in law and other logical frameworks. Rejections should be made on things that clearly defy reason after careful investigations have been undertaken.
This is why I can’t understand the attitude of those who claim to follow “science” but do not want to engage or are unable to … and criticise religious people for doing the very thing they themselves are doing … which is faith …
Believing the words of a scientist without oneself testing the evidence is purely being reliant on “human third person testimony” - that is the basis for most religions too … the difference is in religious cases we assess to see if the people concerned are known to be trustworthy and show they do not have vested interests … conversely many scientists want glory and fame and fortune for their recognition and I can’t vouch for their character until I can say that I know them.
If our body is consisted of non-living matter, can you replace this matter with some other type of non-living matter?
you cannot produce something like that whether you take it at particle level or matter level.
Ok, after the conception when baby takes first breath, life is evolved from non-living matter?
Considering you example, somehow we can induce that first living being was evolved from rocks as Darwin claimed?
Anyway it’s ok, if you are convinced.
Regarding my point, I am not stuck to this point. For every question there are three possible answers, ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘dont know’ and Theorist have replied with none of those options which means something wrong.
[/quote]
I did not say that I am convinced. I am just ponting towards an argument that seems to be weak from my point of view. Very simple form of life has been created in lab by scientist. Nature was able to produce similar conditions during the earlier times on earth for life to appear.
My major concern with evolution theory is consciousness. The theory cannot justify consciousness. How and when did we aquire that? Are we fully programmed beings who live in a bubble of hyper reality where we think that we control ourselves where in fact everything, every future thought and resultant action is already embedded in our DNA, much like the movie Matrix? If our DNAs are programmed (which they are) then where that programming came from? But primarily, where did self awareness came from. I doubt if amoebas have any self awareness. Then at what level it started, and why and how?
Another concern is with the survival of the fittest theory, according to which, every stage of evolution resulted in slightly different species, and those who were fit to survive, survived - and others simply perished. That means that somewhere we should find human looking fossils with non opposable thumbs or eyes on the sides of the face much like horses, than on the front that we have. Where are those fossils?
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 ...
Because you have no evidence that it is anything more than the plethora of religious books. Every argument you put forth for your holy book can be put forth for every other book by it's adherents; miraculous, perfection, can't be made by man, inspired by a deity, etc.. All nice claims, but no evidence.
As for evolution, what's your point? What is your argument?
I did not say that I am convinced. I am just ponting towards an argument that seems to be weak from my point of view. Very simple form of life has been created in lab by scientist. Nature was able to produce similar conditions during the earlier times on earth for life to appear.
My major concern with evolution theory is consciousness. The theory cannot justify consciousness. How and when did we aquire that? Are we fully programmed beings who live in a bubble of hyper reality where we think that we control ourselves where in fact everything, every future thought and resultant action is already embedded in our DNA, much like the movie Matrix? If our DNAs are programmed (which they are) then where that programming came from? But primarily, where did self awareness came from. I doubt if amoebas have any self awareness. Then at what level it started, and why and how?
Another concern is with the survival of the fittest theory, according to which, every stage of evolution resulted in slightly different species, and those who were fit to survive, survived - and others simply perished. That means that somewhere we should find human looking fossils with non opposable thumbs or eyes on the sides of the face much like horses, than on the front that we have. Where are those fossils?
Because you have no evidence that it is anything more than the plethora of religious books. Every argument you put forth for your holy book can be put forth for every other book by it's adherents; miraculous, perfection, can't be made by man, inspired by a deity, etc.. All nice claims, but no evidence.
As for evolution, what's your point? What is your argument?
Peace kprasad
You are doing this whole process wrong ... I am supposed to say this is my evidence - "The Qur'an" - and you are correct in saying that you are sceptical of "A Book" being evidence for the reasons you stated ... So for me the Qur'an is evidence, but for you the potential evidence would need to be shown "how" it qualifies as evidence. But you don't seem to care - you are ruling it out as evidence before hearing the case ... you say that every argument I put forth from my holy book can be put forth for every other book? Really? Ok let's see ...
1) The Qur'an remains unchanged through time ... this not just a claim it can be proven. Let me see any others that qualify ... please ...
You are doing this whole process wrong ... I am supposed to say this is my evidence - "The Qur'an" - and you are correct in saying that you are sceptical of "A Book" being evidence for the reasons you stated ... So for me the Qur'an is evidence, but for you the potential evidence would need to be shown "how" it qualifies as evidence. But you don't seem to care - you are ruling it out as evidence before hearing the case ... you say that every argument I put forth from my holy book can be put forth for every other book? Really? Ok let's see ...
1) The Qur'an remains unchanged through time ... this not just a claim it can be proven. Let me see any others that qualify ... please ...
No, I'm not doing it wrong. If you want to compare your holy book to science, then it cannot have any deference. Moreover, what you are presenting is opinion. I see absolutely no data, no evidence.
Your claim is challenged by lots of people! It's not accepted universally, but be that as it may. As to the nature of your claim: The Book Of Mormon remains unchanged through time. It is exactly as it was revealed to the founder of that religion...!
Good … You see now you have engaged a little … The Book of Mormon … Great … When was it around from? Oh yes, 1830 AD … Hardly a comparison before The Qur’an around since 700 AD …
But let’s see what we can find in the way of changes … Look here is an article … It talks about 3913 changes … I think we should read through that article very carefully. It also mentions grammatical mistakes … Oh guess what … My second claim is that The Holy Qur’an has zero grammatical mistakes …
Also, Joseph Smith was an educated lad … He still made grammatical mistakes possibly … Let’s look in to that… Our dear prophet (SAW) … Completely unlettered … No grammar mistakes … Let’s look at history behind that too … It’s only fair right?
He Joseph Smith also practiced magic … We could look in to that and see whether a person involved in deceptive, illusory behaviour should qualify as one who tells the truth!
There are criticism that the Book of Mormon used rehashings of various other works … These are the candidates and we can examine those criticisms too …
Critics of the Book of Mormon state that it was fabricated by Smith[6][7][8] and that he drew material and ideas from various modern works rather than translating an ancient record. Works that have been suggested as sources include the King James Bible,[32][33] The Wonders of Nature,[34][35] View of the Hebrews,[7][8][36] and an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding.[37][38][39]
I did not say that I am convinced. I am just ponting towards an argument that seems to be weak from my point of view. **Very simple form of life has been created in lab by scientist. **Nature was able to produce similar conditions during the earlier times on earth for life to appear.
My major concern with evolution theory is consciousness. The theory cannot justify consciousness. How and when did we aquire that? Are we fully programmed beings who live in a bubble of hyper reality where we think that we control ourselves where in fact everything, every future thought and resultant action is already embedded in our DNA, much like the movie Matrix? If our DNAs are programmed (which they are) then where that programming came from? But primarily, where did self awareness came from. I doubt if amoebas have any self awareness. Then at what level it started, and why and how?
Another concern is with the survival of the fittest theory, according to which, every stage of evolution resulted in slightly different species, and those who were fit to survive, survived - and others simply perished. That means that somewhere we should find human looking fossils with non opposable thumbs or eyes on the sides of the face much like horses, than on the front that we have. Where are those fossils?
I think you are talking about an experiment where ready cells were taken from** living being **for creating an other bacterium?
Most important, Biologically they will never be able to create functional organism from scratch. Computation and automation however could create advance level of robots but they will be all artificial.
Philosophically, if you can create a building block to create human being, that implies you are creating immortal human being. For me, it is a contradiction.
What a great read...psyah excellent points! I have to say tho reading this thread is like a script for the numerous debates i've seen on YouTube - Team Science says religion is wrong but has no argument against Team Religion other than..."you have no evidence". There is no methodical breaking down of the argument that the religious side presents...it's just written off without even being looked at. I hope that made sense...it's just a general trend i've noticed. Anyhow.
This is laughable! I don’t think this is an argument you want to engage in. I bet there are even more critics of your religion with equally relevant critique and data to back them up.
Again, I’ll come back to the point, as this has escaped it. Where if your data? Where is your evidence?
As I pointed out in a previous thread, you can demonstrate the validity of your religion by doing something very simple. Scientists do this all the time! The way you demonstrate mastery of something is to make a precise prediction about it in the future. Every time someone has used religion to do this, it’s been a spectacular failure.
By the way, when is the next eclipse? Oh..and have you read this: Chemists Expand Nature’s Genetic Alphabet : Shots - Health News : NPR
You are doing this whole process wrong ... I am supposed to say this is my evidence - "The Qur'an" - and you are correct in saying that you are sceptical of "A Book" being evidence for the reasons you stated ... So for me the Qur'an is evidence, but for you the potential evidence would need to be shown "how" it qualifies as evidence. But you don't seem to care - you are ruling it out as evidence before hearing the case ... you say that every argument I put forth from my holy book can be put forth for every other book? Really? Ok let's see ...
1) The Qur'an remains unchanged through time ... this not just a claim it can be proven. Let me see any others that qualify ... please ...
quran remaining unchanged is hardly a miracle. you have absolutely no evidence that quran is the word of God.
how do you know no one edited what prophet mohammad had recited? were you present there to note that the scribes only wrote what he had said and no one edited it? whts your evidence that no one made gramattical corrections? i certainly think someone could have done it. you’re taking your religious books word for it. this is not evidence, its your belief.
have you heard what critics of islam say about Quran, and the prophet? ofcourse you will refute that as it goes against your belief. I am not going to mention those claims here as people tend to get offended very easily if a word is said against islam. but you can easily find alot of criticism on different websites which go into detail on contradictions, abrogation, error in compilation, and tons of other controversy which clearly show how it cannot be the true word of god. I am not saying whether all these accusation are true or not, but they are there for those who wish to see the other side. you can believe whatever you want, but there is always critics of every faith. so for you to think that your religious book is free of any criticism, is completely false. so when you come up with criticism against the book of Mormon, just remember, there is also criticism against your book.
This is laughable! I don't think this is an argument you want to engage in. I bet there are even more critics of your religion with equally relevant critique and data to back them up.
Again, I'll come back to the point, as this has escaped it. Where if your data? Where is your evidence?
As I pointed out in a previous thread, you can demonstrate the validity of your religion by doing something very simple. Scientists do this all the time! The way you demonstrate mastery of something is to make a precise prediction about it in the future. Every time someone has used religion to do this, it's been a spectacular failure.
By the way, when is the next eclipse? Oh..and have you read this: Chemists Expand Nature's Genetic Alphabet : Shots - Health News : NPR
Peace kprasad
I'm leaving all emotion here ... This is pure academic analysis ... The extent of what I said is easy to understand ... My first claim was about the Qur'an not being changed ... From evidence we can see this is the case ... Look to the oldest Qur'an documented ... Othmani ... Also, with so many people who have memorised the Book in each era it is impossible to get it wrong ... The Book of Mormon pails in comparison ...
But you see I like your statement I have put it in bold it is truly the sort of question a chemistry or physics experiment should be begun with ... A hypothesis ... A prediction of what is to come ... Any good scientific idea should be able to generate that ... Did you say evolution was science? I think I said it was more like a religion ... You see evolution cannot be used in the way you want me to defend my religion ... You can't tell me what will be the next creature to evolve, from where and from which mechanism ... And when!
Besides let's get to the meat of the question you raised ... It is quite humorous ... You asked me it as if I am the one bringing the message and you want me to call up the miracle ... The miracle of predicting the future accurately ... Regarding eclipses I will just use a planetarium or almanac to give you the dates that have been calculated the true task is to make a prediction without the natural world's clock helping us ... My religion does not tell me that it can give me what science gives me... But it tells me how to behave ... It tells me how we think .... And what we ought to do to get salvation. science can't tell you how to get salvation ... But that is why I don't ask you that question ... Because I am honest enough to admit that they are unsuitable for our discussion at hand.
quran remaining unchanged is hardly a miracle. you have absolutely no evidence that quran is the word of God.
Dear sweet bella88
In case you have not noticed, but scripture has a tendency to change ... Either because of pious fraud correct past errors or blatant fraudulent activity. But the Holy Qur'an did not need this ...
If it can be examined and shown that the Qur'an just could not have been written by any person then we must conclude that it is what it states it is ...
In case you have not noticed, but scripture has a tendency to change ... Either because of pious fraud correct past errors or blatant fraudulent activity. But the Holy Qur'an did not need this ...
If it can be examined and shown that the Qur'an just could not have been written by any person then we must conclude that it is what it states it is ...
thats your belief. there are critics who claim quran was compiled after prophets death and many verses were deleted and changed. of course you will deny this and say it's false, but you have no evidence to prove anything. again, as i mentioned before, there is criticism on every holy book. yours is no exception. you can choose to think all those claims are false but that doesn't change the fact that there are controversies. many hindus also claim that vedas is unchanged and is the same for thousands of years