The Religion Discussion

[megadoc1]

AdamB why work yourself out on a statement that brought nothing to the discussion
let it be

Because the one making the statement may have a MSc or PhD, can't understand a simple question.

So, my next question is "WHAT IS YOUR CLAIM TO FAME?" LOL

well I started off just like you in the forums but was a bit worserer, you almost eclipsed me yo! but you let good sense prevail and changed a bit ...lol

[Humes]

Not really, no. The believers in this thread (and believers in general) have proven time and time again that they have a terrible grasp of even the most basic scientific concepts, while the proponents of science have demonstrated considerable knowledge of and experience with religion repeatedly.

ways boy people make such bold statements,where is your evidence?

Where's my evidence that the believers in this thread don't know science, but the science proponents know religion?

We're posting in it. Start here.

[megadoc1]

lol ....so what tests have you done in science to prove anything you saw from a text book ?
I am sure I did a lot more than you did... when yuh really look at it... in this ched I am one of the proponents of science (yes I am)who have demonstrated considerable knowledge of and experience with religion repeatedly.(yes cause I am also a believer)

[AdamB]

AdamB why work yourself out on a statement that brought nothing to the discussion
let it be

Because the one making the statement may have a MSc or PhD, can't understand a simple question.

So, my next question is "WHAT IS YOUR CLAIM TO FAME?" LOL

well I started off just like you in the forums but was a bit worserer, you almost eclipsed me yo! but you let good sense prevail and changed a bit ...lol

LOL, evolution at work???

[AdamB]

Not really, no. The believers in this thread (and believers in general) have proven time and time again that they have a terrible grasp of even the most basic scientific concepts, [b]while the proponents of science have demonstrated considerable knowledge of and experience with religion repeatedly.[/b]

ways boy people make such bold statements,where is your evidence?

Where's my evidence that the believers in this thread don't know science, but the science proponents know religion?

We're posting in it. Start here.

Have the proponents of science conquered / mastered Religion and have moved on? Quite possibly you didn't get the point aka you don't believe, which is alright but don't make the opposite a federal crime.

As Sherlock puts it "YOU SEE EVERYTHING BUT OBSERVE NOTHING"!! Incidentally, this is what you claim that believers are deficient in.

[megadoc1]

AdamB why work yourself out on a statement that brought nothing to the discussion
let it be

Because the one making the statement may have a MSc or PhD, can't understand a simple question.

So, my next question is "WHAT IS YOUR CLAIM TO FAME?" LOL

well I started off just like you in the forums but was a bit worserer, you almost eclipsed me yo! but you let good sense prevail and changed a bit ...lol

LOL, evolution at work???

correct and that's one of the only forms of evolution that's true ...not macro evolution as some, ignorantly tries to pass off as fact!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Also there are other religions that do not believe what you believe; does that make them wrong?
For example, the Gita doesn't have anything about Adam and Eve. The Hindu creation story is quite different. Infact "Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey, 77% of respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 88% of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well."

Duane,
2 questions?

1. Is there anything that Hindus WIDELY REJECT?

2. What percentage of GOD-believing people are knowledgeable of their religion? The poll quoted is evidence for nothing.

the quote was an example, as with any poll.

The point I was making, which you completely missed because you seem to focus on thinking that you are right and everyone else is wrong, is that the objection to the teaching of creationism based on the religious texts of a particular faith in a pluralistic society can result in the imposition of one religion.

I realise however, that you cannot help being condescending against other beliefs than your own.

So can you answer my question?
"why do you think schools, universities, scientists, scholars, biologists, anthropologists etc etc are so adamant about evolution and not teaching Adam and Eve instead?"

[AdamB]

Also there are other religions that do not believe what you believe; does that make them wrong? According to the standards / yard stick of my religion, they are.
For example, the Gita doesn't have anything about Adam and Eve. The Hindu creation story is quite different. Infact "Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey, 77% of respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 88% of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well."

Duane,
2 questions?

1. Is there anything that Hindus WIDELY REJECT?

2. What percentage of GOD-believing people are knowledgeable of their religion? The poll quoted is evidence for nothing.

the quote was an example, as with any poll.

The point I was making, which you completely missed because you seem to focus on thinking that you are right and everyone else is wrong, is that the objection to the teaching of creationism based on the religious texts of a particular faith in a pluralistic society can result in the imposition of one religion.

I realise however, that you cannot help being condescending against other beliefs than your own.I am being honest and realistic, I believe that only my religion is correct, others have the right to choose as they want. For example, I don't believe that it is possible that muslims, christians and jews will either go to heaven or hell but hindus will return via reincarnation until they are one with GOD. The two concepts directly oppose each other and therefore cannot both be true.

So can you answer my question?
"why do you think schools, universities, scientists, scholars, biologists, anthropologists etc etc are so adamant about evolution and not teaching Adam and Eve instead?"

This question was not originally posed to me, you will have to ask the schools, etc but if they did there would be obvious problems due to lack of unified consensus as well as the topic does not fit in a subject area like biology because the details are not known.

[bluefete]

I think you are terrified by the thought of being descended from apes or a puddle of mud.

Genesis - Chapter 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis - Chapter 3:

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Was it the "great" atheist Richard Dawkins who agreed with Aristotle's theory that human life came from mud via abiogenesis (the evolution of life from mud)???

Does he support the creationist perspective while simultaneously denying it????


http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/ ... ndly/1038/

In The Blind Watchmaker, in the chapter titled Origins and Miracles, professor Dawkins deals with the origin of life and of the presumed inception of the evolutionary process itself.

Most text books, he writes, favor the ‘primeval soup’ concept in which lots of chemicals got mixed up at the beginning of planet earth, and life just happened. It seems probable that the atmosphere of Earth before the coming of life was like that of other planets which are still lifeless. There was no oxygen....Chemists know that oxygen-free climates like this tend to foster the spontaneous synthesis of organic chemicals.

Professor Dawkins’s preferred hypothesis, however, is not the ‘primeval soup’ one, but the ‘inorganic mineral’ theory of Glasgow chemist Graham Cairns-Smith.

Cairns-Smith’s view, Dawkins writes, of the DNA/protein machinery is that it probably came into existence relatively recently, perhaps as recently as three billion years ago....Although the chemistry of modern Earth-bound life is all carbon-chemistry, this may not be true all over the universe, and it may not always have been true on this Earth. Cairns-Smith believes that the original life on this planet was based on self-replicating inorganic crystals such as silicates. If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role.

Continuing, professor Dawkins writes, Cairns-Smith’s guess is that the original replicators were crystals of inorganic materials, such as those found in clays and muds....Since it is replication we are interested in, the first thing we must know is, can crystals replicate their structure?...Sometimes crystals spontaneously start to form in solution. At other times they have to be ‘seeded’, either by particles of dust or by small crystals dropped in from elsewhere....


Very interesting indeed. The same people who try so hard to disprove creation (and God) end up almost proving it!!!

[bluefete]

Nice. But what was the cause????

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ very interesting indeed! good find

except that if you want to use the above as proof then you need to follow through with all the other fossil data that shows that those puddles of mud evolved into single celled amoeba and then on to multi-cellular animals that evolved into the animals that roam the earth today, including humans.

unless of course you want to continue the popular practice in here of selective and convenient argument and proof.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

This question was not originally posed to me, you will have to ask the schools, etc but if they did there would be obvious problems due to lack of unified consensus as well as the topic does not fit in a subject area like biology because the details are not known.

the details of what are not known? Adam and Eve?

[AdamB]

This question was not originally posed to me, you will have to ask the schools, etc but if they did there would be obvious problems due to lack of unified consensus as well as the topic does not fit in a subject area like biology because the details are not known.

the details of what are not known? Adam and Eve?

The Creation of Adam and Eve is not like the creation of you and me (we are created in the wombs of our mothers). What is not known:

1. How Adam was created from clay (dust and water).
2. How Eve was created from Adam.

What would be the benefit if the details of the biological and chemical processes were known? Could they be repeated? Would they benefit medical science since it's different (growth rates, etc)?

[AdamB]

Many religious scholars have stated that they do not believe in religion.
GOD says in the Quran 5:3 This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Are there any muslim scholars from your list who don't believe in religion? The link to the quoted verse is obvious.

[Humes]

Many religious scholars have stated that they do not believe in religion.
GOD says in the Quran 5:3 This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Are there any muslim scholars from your list who don't believe in religion? The link to the quoted verse is obvious.

A religious scholar is a scholar of a religion. So a scholar of Islamic religion doesn't necessary have to be Muslim.

I explained this above...why are you still confused by such a simple concept?

[AdamB]

So why do you think Adam and Eve should be in text books?

BTW Schools in Trinidad and Tobago allow / have an allotted period every week for Religious Instruction with students being taught by scholars of different religions. (I know this because my wife is a teacher who teaches one of these classes.)

The point of evidence: The textbooks used are the revealed holy books like the Quran, Bible, Gita, etc.

So technically Adam and Eve are in the textbooks in schools (from this angle).

[AdamB]

Many religious scholars have stated that they do not believe in religion.
GOD says in the Quran 5:3 This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Are there any muslim scholars from your list who don't believe in religion? The link to the quoted verse is obvious.

A religious scholar is a scholar of a religion. So a scholar of Islamic religion doesn't necessary have to be Muslim.

I explained this above...why are you still confused by such a simple concept?

Humes,
You are confusing yourself with an erroneous definition, possibly non-sensical. A scholar is knowledgeable of his religion. I can read the entire Bible but that doesn't make me a Christian scholar. You can read the Quran but will never be able to understand and deduce the benefits from the verses that a trained Islamic scholar can do.

Muslims scholars are certified with an Ijazah to indicate that one has been authorized by a higher authority (teacher/shaykh) to transmit a certain subject or text of Islamic knowledge. The following link will give an idea but may not do justice to a description of Ijaazah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijazah

Knowledge is acquired by studying, then implementing it for Allaah's pleasure because He has ordered it and made it a means by which the truth is manifested.

As an example I will post a link to a description of verses related to the Creation of Adam http://abdurrahman.org/audio/SalehAsSal ... an.org.mp3

[MG Man]

AdamB, do aliens pray to allaH? did he reveal the koran to them too?

[AdamB]

AdamB, do aliens pray to allaH? did he reveal the koran to them too?

MG,
You're a funny guy??
You don't believe that GOD exists but aliens do? BTW GOD is alien to the earth. If they exist, HE is their LORD!!

A possible answer from the first chapter of the Quran, first verse:
All the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).

[MG Man]

after all that u eh answer the question...........

[stickman]

Humes,
You are confusing yourself with an erroneous definition, possibly non-sensical. A scholar is knowledgeable of his religion. I can read the entire Bible but that doesn't make me a Christian scholar. You can read the Quran but will never be able to understand and deduce the benefits from the verses that a trained Islamic scholar can do.

Muslims scholars are certified with an Ijazah to indicate that one has been authorized by a higher authority (teacher/shaykh) to transmit a certain subject or text of Islamic knowledge. The following link will give an idea but may not do justice to a description of Ijaazah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijazah

Knowledge is acquired by studying, then implementing it for Allaah's pleasure because He has ordered it and made it a means by which the truth is manifested.

As an example I will post a link to a description of verses related to the Creation of Adam http://abdurrahman.org/audio/SalehAsSal ... an.org.mp3

Wrong, a religious scholar is not limited to one religion and whether he/she has a religion is irrelevant.

Also, understanding the Quran is something that can be done by anyone. The problem with Muslims is that they think their book is perfect and only they can fully understand it.

[MG Man]

Humes,
You are confusing yourself with an erroneous definition, possibly non-sensical. A scholar is knowledgeable of his religion. I can read the entire Bible but that doesn't make me a Christian scholar. You can read the Quran but will never be able to understand and deduce the benefits from the verses that a trained Islamic scholar can do.

Muslims scholars are certified with an Ijazah to indicate that one has been authorized by a higher authority (teacher/shaykh) to transmit a certain subject or text of Islamic knowledge. The following link will give an idea but may not do justice to a description of Ijaazah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijazah

Knowledge is acquired by studying, then implementing it for Allaah's pleasure because He has ordered it and made it a means by which the truth is manifested.

As an example I will post a link to a description of verses related to the Creation of Adam http://abdurrahman.org/audio/SalehAsSal ... an.org.mp3

Wrong, a religious scholar is not limited to one religion and whether he/she has a religion is irrelevant.

Also, understanding the Quran is something that can be done by anyone. The problem with Muslims is that they think their book is perfect and only they can fully understand it.

what's worse is they condemn everyone else's book without studying it

[AdamB]

Humes,
You are confusing yourself with an erroneous definition, possibly non-sensical. A scholar is knowledgeable of his religion. I can read the entire Bible but that doesn't make me a Christian scholar. You can read the Quran but will never be able to understand and deduce the benefits from the verses that a trained Islamic scholar can do.

Muslims scholars are certified with an Ijazah to indicate that one has been authorized by a higher authority (teacher/shaykh) to transmit a certain subject or text of Islamic knowledge. The following link will give an idea but may not do justice to a description of Ijaazah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijazah

Knowledge is acquired by studying, then implementing it for Allaah's pleasure because He has ordered it and made it a means by which the truth is manifested.

As an example I will post a link to a description of verses related to the Creation of Adam http://abdurrahman.org/audio/SalehAsSal ... an.org.mp3

Wrong, a religious scholar is not limited to one religion and whether he/she has a religion is irrelevant.

Also, understanding the Quran is something that can be done by anyone. The problem with Muslims is that they think their book is perfect and only they can fully understand it.

Stickman,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but you need to stick to what you know. The subject of Islamic knowledge and scholarship, to put it simply...you have no knowledge of.

The Quran is Perfect because it is the speech of GOD, HIS speech is from HIS attributes which are ALL PERFECT, therefore the QURAN IS PERFECT. It is our book, who else do you expect to fully understand it?

The Quran cannot be understood by just anyone!!

[MG Man]

so who CAN it be understood by then?

[stickman]

Wrong, a religious scholar is not limited to one religion and whether he/she has a religion is irrelevant.

Also, understanding the Quran is something that can be done by anyone. The problem with Muslims is that they think their book is perfect and only they can fully understand it.

Stickman,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but you need to stick to what you know. The subject of Islamic knowledge and scholarship, to put it simply...you have no knowledge of.

The Quran is Perfect because it is the speech of GOD, HIS speech is from HIS attributes which are ALL PERFECT, therefore the QURAN IS PERFECT. It is our book, who else do you expect to fully understand it?

The Quran cannot be understood by just anyone!!

Islamic knowledge and scholarship is just a system created by the Muslims. You don't need to be a scholar to understand the Quran. You're just delusional.

Also, the Quran is not perfect. It is a flawed book just like the others. Why? Because it was written by men just like you and me, it's not the speech of God.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

It is our book, who else do you expect to fully understand it?

The Quran cannot be understood by just anyone!!

are you suggesting that the Qur'an can only be understood by Muslims?

Also, the Quran is not perfect. It is a flawed book just like the others. Why? Because it was written by men just like you and me, it's not the speech of God.

can you prove that?

[stickman]

Also, the Quran is not perfect. It is a flawed book just like the others. Why? Because it was written by men just like you and me, it's not the speech of God.

can you prove that?

Not sure what kind of response you are expecting, but the Quran contains many contradictions:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran ... _name.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SK ... ctions.htm

There are also many discrepancies, moral issues, etc.

[3.5v6]

1. Knowledge is not meant for or restricted to a certain Religion, Ethnic Group, Country or whatever..

2.Message / Guidance of GOD, Allah or Lord is not only for some specific group of people. It is for all of mankind/ World/ Universe / Universes.

3. Quran was not revealed only for Muslims or is not meant to be read and understood only by Muslims. It was Revealed by Allah to all of mankind for their guidence.

Quran can be read and understood by anyone, as Knowledge and Wisdom does not only belong to Muslims. In some cases a non Muslim may understand Quran better then a Muslim, based on his research and study necessary to understand it (which is not an easy task).

4. Muslims are called Muslims only because they accept, believe and practice the teachings of Quran.
It does not mean that Muslims are the only once who can understand it better.
Being a Muslim only entitles you to get the benefits (Spiritual or whatever) associated with the teachings and practices.

So, Muslims are not the most intelligent beings of this universe, a non Muslim can understand it better he he tries to. accepting it or not is totally different issue.

Abu Jahal and Shaitan are the best examples, both understood Quran and message more then anyone else, but both refused to accept it.

sorry if i took too long, I would usually just read and pass.....but just wanted to say few things.....always ready to take corrections.

[Humes]

Humes,
You are confusing yourself with an erroneous definition, possibly non-sensical. A scholar is knowledgeable of his religion.

Partner, we talking about the real world here. Real language, real definitions. Not personal interpretations of terms.

A religious scholar is not necessarily an adherent of the religion or religions he specialises in.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

AdamB, Dr. Zakir Naik is very proficient in the Bible and Christian theology. He has recited long passages from memory and understands the Bible better than a lot of, if not most, Christians. However he is not Christian.