...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[EnemyOfReason]

Get used to it -- if it weren't for circular logic, AV would have no logic at all...

It just truly perplexes me as to why or even how somebody accepts something with no understanding of the matter.

I am a Zindiq/Deist Muslim of all things! I am an open heretic. I admit that science and common sense can abrogate ayat in the Qur'an and even make verses entirely invalid. If I can do this then any other person of faith can also. NO EXCUSES

 

[AV1611VET]

Circular logical fallacy again.

I get the feeling you say that a lot and hope someone will believe it.

Jesus says he is god in the New Testament so you say he created Adam in the past although no such mentioning is in the Tawrat.

As we put it: Jesus is in the Old Testament, concealed; and in the New Testament, revealed.

I really wish to know why on a logical level you reject evolution.

I don't reject evolution on a logical level -- I reject evolution on a theological level.

I myself can quote the Qur'an all day long to you and it would mean nothing

I'm not going to put my Bible down and meet you on neutral ground, as I have a feeling you're too prepared to do battle; and I would have to continually hold up my shield, which according to Ephesians 6 is my faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

It just truly perplexes me as to why or even how somebody accepts something with no understanding of the matter.

I thought I already pointed out to you that if the Creator of the universe rejects evolution, then I ... His follower ... do also.

I don't need to know evolution to reject it; all I have to do is believe its antithesis, and that's good enough.

I'll bet you reject Phlogiston theory outright because you believe in Combustion theory, don't you?

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I get the feeling you say that a lot and hope someone will believe it.

No I do not say it a lot as I have never had the need to. The only people who will believe it are people who use sound judgement in regards to logical evaluation of the subjects at hand.

I don't reject evolution on a logical level -- I reject evolution on a theological level.

With that statement I have just lost all hope in humanity

I'm not going to put my Bible down and meet you on neutral ground, as I have a feeling you're too prepared to do battle; and I would have to continually hold up my shield, which according to Ephesians 6 is my faith.

I do not mean to sound harsh when I say this and I sincerely apologize saying this, but are you in cowardice of what will happen when evidence comes into contact with a hypothesis and proves it incorrect?

Faith is one thing but to have evidence is another. I go with evidence

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I thought I already pointed out to you that if the Creator of the universe rejects evolution, then I ... His follower ... do also.

I don't need to know evolution to reject it; all I have to do is believe its antithesis, and that's good enough.

I'll bet you reject Phlogiston theory outright because you believe in Combustion theory, don't you?

No. I accept one over the other because one has been proven and the other disproven

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not mean to sound harsh when I say this and I sincerely apologize saying this, but are you in cowardice of what will happen when evidence comes into contact with a hypothesis and proves it incorrect?

No offense taken, my friend. I've been called a lot worse.

And hopefully, when your "newbie" status wears off, you'll see I don't run away very easily.

Faith is one thing but to have evidence is another. I go with evidence

And when that evidence changes? what then? do you change with it?

Since you go with evidence, there are six different scientific models as to how we got our moon: all six based on a subset of facts.

Which of the six do you go with?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I accept one over the other because one has been proven and the other disproven

Science "proves" things, do they? that's news to me.

Why then is it called Combustion theory?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Science "proves" things, do they?

No in the formal sense, yes in the colloquial sense but disproof is more common and achievable.

that's news to me.

Why then is it called Combustion theory?

Because "theory" in science since about the 1600s has meant overarching explanation of a body of facts. Since the rise of mystery stories it's been conflated with the idea of a guess.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Science "proves" things, do they? that's news to me.

Why then is it called Combustion theory?

Why is it you think I am referring to the "Combustion theory"?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I thought I already pointed out to you that if the Creator of the universe rejects evolution, then I ... His follower ... do also.

I don't need to know evolution to reject it; all I have to do is believe its antithesis, and that's good enough.

Evolution has an "antithesis"? What is that? Cloning?

I'll bet you reject Phlogiston theory outright because you believe in Combustion theory, don't you?

Because of the lack of a need for phlogiston when we discovered that combustion was rapid oxidisation. Similar to no longer needing a grand designer when natural selection was discovered.

 

[pjnlsn]

Science "proves" things, do they? that's news to me.

Why then is it called Combustion theory?

Semantics are irrelevant; Barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader, many and innumerable things have been proven in a scientific manner.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It just truly perplexes me as to why or even how somebody accepts something with no understanding of the matter.

Because accepting something for worship saves the trouble of attempting (and failing) to understand.

People think that religion is a search for the "Truth"; it's not. It's a search for security -- a paradigm that makes sense of the world.

Of course, once someone makes sense of the world, the last thing they want to hear is that they might be wrong --doubt becomes the enemy, and education leads to doubt... doubt in what they thought they knew before.

Scientific thinking tends to get the brunt of this neurosis because 1. it tends to challenge those paradigms directly, and 2. Science thrives on doubt and second guessing -- a scientists who tears down an established paradigm is at least as famous as one who establishes one.

I am a Zindiq/Deist Muslim of all things! I am an open heretic. I admit that science and common sense can abrogate ayat in the Qur'an and even make verses entirely invalid. If I can do this then any other person of faith can also. NO EXCUSES

I've noticed something interesting about Islam -- like most religions, it offers a code of conduct, but it also clearly notes exceptions.

For example, like the Jews, Islam prohibits pig meat as "unclean." However...

Surat Al-Baqarah (2:173) “He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swine flesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”

I can respect any religion that values common sense over dogma.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am often surprised by those that reject evolution and their lack of knowledge upon the subject
For example.....

I am often surprised by those that reject creation and their lack of knowledge upon the subject. For example.....

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 1:31-2:1

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Genesis 1:20

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:26-27

 

[Loudmouth]

Amazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."

The map is not the territory.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Because accepting something for worship saves the trouble of attempting (and failing) to understand.

People think that religion is a search for the "Truth"; it's not. It's a search for security -- a paradigm that makes sense of the world.

Of course, once someone makes sense of the world, the last thing they want to hear is that they might be wrong --doubt becomes the enemy, and education leads to doubt... doubt in what they thought they knew before.

Scientific thinking tends to get the brunt of this neurosis because 1. it tends to challenge those paradigms directly, and 2. Science thrives on doubt and second guessing -- a scientists who tears down an established paradigm is at least as famous as one who establishes one.

Very truthful statements. Religion is not a search for truth but spiritual understanding. Religion was the "Science" of its time along with jurisprudence and political governing.
Religion should not be a search for truth but a study of god. Religions are built upon concepts about god and spirituality and to place them in any other situation then this is foolish.
I for example do not believe in prophecy ironically. I say "Muhammad is my prophet" but I do not believe in the prophethood of any man.

Ali Dashti 23 Years: A study of the Life of Muhammad
"The problem of prophethood must therefore be approached from another angle. It should be seen as a sort of mental and spiritual genius peculiar to an extraordinary individual."

Prophethood is the claim of a mad-genius or a mad-lunatic. It is the state of acquiring enlightened wisdom and is equal to the state of knowledge compared to Richard Dawkins. Prophecy was the gimmick used by people to spread a message. That is it, nothing more, as we can only speculate about god and his nature and to say that we ourselves know what god is like is essentially the usage of an oxymoron. One cannot know god if you believe god is above man and infinite.

I've noticed something interesting about Islam -- like most religions, it offers a code of conduct, but it also clearly notes exceptions.

For example, like the Jews, Islam prohibits pig meat as "unclean." However...

Surat Al-Baqarah (2:173) “He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swine flesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”

I can respect any religion that values common sense over dogma.

OF COURSE! . Many things in the ahadith and Qur'an exist for the use of basic reasoning and not divine commandment. Much violence int he Qur'an is present because Islam was created to stamp out tribal violence (often using violence as well). But we do not live in a tribal era anymore.

Islam was a governing tool but sadly many Muslims do not realize that the politics espoused in the Qur'an are outdated and not valid anymore. Modern social structure has trumped Islamic Law.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I am often surprised by those that reject creation and their lack of knowledge upon the subject. For example.....

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 1:31-2:1

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Genesis 1:20

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:26-27

Hahaha. I reject creationism yet ironically I do understand it as I was one in the past and still am. The issue is the rejection of the evolutionary steps to reach mankind

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hahaha. I reject creationism yet ironically I do understand it as I was one in the past and still am.

Indeed -- creationism is actually quite simple to understand; creationists' attempts to make it more complicated is not an effort to promote knowledge, but to obfuscate it.

The plan is to keep it a "mystery" that we need their "help" to unravel.

 

[KWCrazy]

The issue is the rejection of the evolutionary steps to reach mankind

If God created man, as He states that He did, how is the belief in "evolutionary steps to reach mankind" anything but an exercise in foolishness?

Saying "Mohammed is my prophet" for a person who doesn't believe in prophets is kind of like saying "This is my church" in regards to a place of worship you never attend.

 

[KWCrazy]

The plan is to keep it a "mystery" that we need their "help" to unravel.

How is it mysterious when it is detailed day by day and point by point? Even a blind squirrel could find THAT acorn.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Indeed -- creationism is actually quite simple to understand; creationists' attempts to make it more complicated is not an effort to promote knowledge, but to obfuscate it.

The plan is to keep it a "mystery" that we need their "help" to unravel.

Evolution is not a mystery and open for anyone. What confuses me more is that why is it religions must assert that mankind is not an animal when it is a fact that we are. Somehow we must be placed as a separate being in certain religions yet it is the human spirit that is unique not the flesh (if you accept that).

Immediate Creationism is by far the most simplistic theory about the origin of life and to some extent is a cop out(no offense to anyone). There is no study involved in it.