Do You Believe That Evolution Is True?
By Ashja. Monday, 3. March 2008, 16:50:27
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this
context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
1. Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
2. Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles just like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
3. Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists say that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly, the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
4. Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent
observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The
generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
5. Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
7. Life is complex
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
8. Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!
9. Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited toeither its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But
why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.
10. Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided)
series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? A sexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.
11. Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
this?
13.It's no good unless it's complete
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.
14. Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
15. It should be easy to show evolution
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change
to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.
16. Complex things require intelligent design, folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to, one day, design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?
context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
1. Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
2. Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles just like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
3. Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists say that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly, the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
4. Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent
observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The
generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
5. Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
7. Life is complex
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
8. Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!
9. Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited toeither its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But
why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.
10. Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided)
series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? A sexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.
11. Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
this?
13.It's no good unless it's complete
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.
14. Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
15. It should be easy to show evolution
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change
to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.
16. Complex things require intelligent design, folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to, one day, design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?
You must be logged in to write a comment. if you're not a registered member, please ![ift28[1].jpg](http://files.myopera.com/Ashja/albums/437390/thumbs/ift28%5B1%5D.jpg_thumb.jpg)
![Hiu_Shen_mosque_China_7th_century.thumb[1].jpg](http://files.myopera.com/Ashja/albums/437390/thumbs/Hiu_Shen_mosque_China_7th_century.thumb%5B1%5D.jpg_thumb.jpg)
![ift21[1].jpg](http://files.myopera.com/Ashja/albums/437390/thumbs/ift21%5B1%5D.jpg_thumb.jpg)
![ISLAM_MOSQUE_OF_CORDOBA[1].jpg](http://files.myopera.com/Ashja/albums/437390/thumbs/ISLAM_MOSQUE_OF_CORDOBA%5B1%5D.jpg_thumb.jpg)
(4%)
By Ashja, # 3. March 2008, 16:51:21
sorry i wanna interrupt,
you already know that ur member in this group is a lot.
they come from every different country n also their language. may be, a part of them dont able to give comment in english or doesnt undrstand what the blog says.
so why u dont ask 1 person from 1 country which he/she have a deep knowledge about islam to be moderator for member with the same language in this group.
thats all, thanks
By mirac1e, # 5. March 2008, 03:44:26
why don't you join this group?
By Ashja, # 5. March 2008, 07:19:13
By mirac1e, # 5. March 2008, 10:09:25
By Ashja, # 5. March 2008, 10:23:26
Ever bothered to read an introductory book on evolution that doesn't derive from religious brain wash but was written by scientists?
By vivalamuerte, # 8. March 2008, 01:52:05
The passage of time is the best proof of the existence of that divine power,just think for a moment your past life,but now it seems it passed in a blink of an eye!your age itself is the proof,you were born & you will die.then what? that you think is the end?
that will be the beginning of the truth,the truth that you denied for your whole life! wait if you will,i too am waiting!
'By time(its passage),man is in loss.Except those who belive & do good work & exhort one another to truth & patience.' - Quran
By liquid snake, # 8. March 2008, 08:38:58
nice comment
By mirac1e, # 8. March 2008, 12:52:40
Because I understand what's going on in the very first place. I like the logic of scientific principles and I prefer them above dumb religious tenets.
No, and it doesn't make evolution anyway. Why do you bother do discuss such a topic when you don't even understand the very basics of what's going on?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (hail). Or Zeus. Or Odin. Or Allah. Guess what? I'd rather say "I don't know" than to trust ancient lies.
Okay, let's play a game for your mind. Guess that was true - that doesn't answer the question of who created your allah, then? Such a complex being that was enabled to listen to millions of prayers per second (by whom was it enabled, by the way?) and to create all the whole complexity of life on earth - how complex and, following your own logic of arguing against evolution, how unlikely its existence must be!
Yes, I think it will be the end. And until then I prefer to live than to wait for something that won't happen.
By vivalamuerte, # 8. March 2008, 13:22:58
But the principles of Islam will remain the same.What if after sometime scientists themselves claim that the healthiest way to live our life is the pattern defined by Islam!
the theory of evolution that you trust is itself denied by some scientists!!
Humans are the only species in nature who have been given the power to think,to question,to put up why-how-what-where.Animals or plants dont think or put up questions.they just follow their exact defined pattern of life,they dont themselves experiment.for example ,a tiger would'nt start eating grass just to have a change of diet or because its bored with meat!
Thats why Allah says that man is the ultimate creation in all the nature.But as our mind's capability is limited,so should we question the sole existence of our own creator!
And for humans that exact,defined pattern to live this life is Islam.Islam is not a religion! its a way to live the life of this world!
& Quran is a book of S-I-G-N-S(of the divine power) & not science!
May Allah guide you to truth.Ameen.
By liquid snake, # 8. March 2008, 15:07:56
That's exactly the point what I mean with "scientific principles"... finding out is still more reasonable than believing. By the way, I usually like to refer to the science-theories of Popper when I'm thinking that my "opponent" seems intelligent enough - I'm doing this now. I definitely prefer his thoughts on falsification and that stuff. So I am definitely NOT happy with a theory called 'allah' or whatever because it resists every attempt of falsification. It is simply not possible to use this scientific principle, instead, you could just state "oh I believe in a flying teapot somewhere in the universe since someone told me that there must be one because I don't understand evolution and there is no possibility or whatsoever to detect it scientifically but no possibility to exclude its existence as well. how sound and logically that is!" Same weird logic goes with your allah.
There are enough reasons to doubt that. Islam seems to be a proper way of life when one enjoys the oppression of women and when one is a sexual hypocrite. Then it's maybe perfect. But I'm not like that.
Yes, and because
I just refuse Islam and religion in general. I don't like to follow stupid, simple-minded patterns some 1000 years olds wrote down when they were bored. It's a waste of time.
if so, get out of scientific topics like evolution. If you mix religion with science, I'll do the same the other way round and blow your religion intellectually to the moon by challenging your complex-very-unlikely-allah-being scientifically.
By vivalamuerte, # 9. March 2008, 02:00:09
Please read my recent posted topic about "Qur'an And Scientific Knowledge" maybe its useful for you if you are willing to think other than your own beliefs or thinking’s .
Open your mind and search & find what is right and what is wrong for you if you find you find something good from our religion its good for you and if you do not find anything its your luck
Please read my most recent post on the topic of “The Holy Quran : Miracle Of Miracles”
and if you are looking the through then read holy book Quran or if you like our Islamic history maybe you find something which is useful for you . anyway thanks for reading our posts and share your views about this topic. Have a nice day cheers!
Zaki Khan,
now it’s time to leave this man to find its own ways ultimately one day science find the trough and which is written in our holy book and on it I am 100% shore .
keep fighting with each others do not result anything except more hate for each other’s so we ask others to come on with us on common beliefs we have among our religions if someone like to learn and search about this whole universe then I am 100% shore the holy book of creator full of surprises and unlimited knowledge and all human need to survive with peace and respectful manner .
By Ashja, # 9. March 2008, 09:46:30
so u BELIEVE in ur INTELLIGENCE ? but u cant see it,u cant hear it , u cant feel it , but it is there & u believe in it so much!!!
u can only see its effect!! u believe that u r intelligent!! its something like abstract!! but no one denies it also!!
...... Same way its THE GOD , u cant see Him,u cant hear Him,u cant feel Him .....but He is there!!! u can see His effects or His Creations!!!
By liquid snake, # 21. June 2008, 16:53:21
i already request you leave the people who do not like to hear anything other then their own thinkings and beliefs
anyway nice to hear from your end after long time.
Take care of your self.
Ashja
By Ashja, # 21. June 2008, 18:45:56
but you know it just came to my mind that on THAT DAY we all Muslims will be asked that why we didnt said something when the unbelievers said false things about Allah or when they denied Allah.
it is our duty as Muslims to give the unbelievers their answers.
Allah blesses the Muslims with good ideas & answers so that we can reply to the unbelievers.Today it is you ,me & other believers..... tomorrow it will be others from our one community.
& i appreciate your work so plz grant me permission to comment freely,
thankyou
By liquid snake, # 22. June 2008, 05:58:06
even a high school student can tell that all the forms of energy are not visible,only its effects are there or sometimes visible......like sound,light,heat, radiation,etc. Since man's limited intelligence is able to detect it through various devices ...... but who knows the future ,by God's Grace may be we can develop something to detect all the truth that you deny!
& when u were nothing,then God created u!! so can He not create u again when now u r something???
humans r created from such a filth coming out from our loins,but look at the miracle & the perfect technology of Allah that He gives us such good forms!! & blesses us with "intelligence"! & also His technology is so perfect that it can reproduce itself through His Mercy!
but man is ever ungrateful,devoid of understanding.
can u not see that fire or burns for the human body or all living things create the most horrifying pain!! & also there is not much good cure of burns to human skin! ...... in it there is a sign of Hell!! a sign for the men of understanding!
can u not see how beautyfully has Allah described the process of froth floatation to extract ore!! it is there in the 13th chapter,17th verse!!!
had there been no technology,how would you keep time??? can u think something to keep time without the technology
that u believe & worship?? .....in Quran Allah says that He created 12 months & created the moon & made its phases so that you can keep time & count the number of years!! ...... any person with a little understanding of the phases of the moon can tell which date is it today!!! without depending on any technology!
& can u not see how after about some particular months of pregnancy,the baby suddenly becomes "ALIVE"!!(the same way u were) since suddenly its "auricles & ventricles" starts functioning!!! in the pefect rhythm!! to begin a cycle called life!! - EXACTLY as stated by Allah in Quran! Allah says that He breathes of His spirit to make it alive!!!
& can u not see that the universe is made up of gases & dust!!! - EXACTLY as stated by Allah in Quran!!
& can u not see that the "day" & "night" pursue each other to complete an ordained period of "TIME"!! - EXACTLY as stated by Allah in Quran!
& can u not see that all the heavenly bodies float in an orbit!! - exactly as stated by Allah in Quran!
& can u not see how Allah descibes that man will be judged according to even his "atom's weight" of his deeds!! -- "atom's weight" in Quran!!??
can u not see how complicated yet so perfect is our "double helix"(DNA & RNA) --- can it be random?? or by evolution?? -- some scientists explain it on the thoery of ID (Intelligent Design) !!
& can u not see that the entropy of the universe is ever increasing & pursuing an appointed TIME !!!???
& as said by albert eienstien "God does not play dice" !! -- ie, nothing is random,there is an intelligent Creator behind everything!
i am not saying that technology is bad,but when u start worshipping it......u r the fuel of the everlasting fire!
By liquid snake, # 22. June 2008, 06:16:10
"any animal who has visible,moulded out ears then it is a mammal!! or if not then its a non-mammal"
& guess who gave this simple logic ,one of our prophet Muhammad's(pbuh) companion!!!(by Allah's grace)
& Allah says in Quran that man can grasp ONLY that part of HIS knowledge which HE wills.
By liquid snake, # 22. June 2008, 07:16:22
By vivalamuerte, # 22. June 2008, 11:01:39
may be then you will realize that "seeing is not always believing".
& coming to the logics - the first question is - who defines the logic?
Logic behind good or bad,Logic behind crime(why murder,rape,robbery,etc is actually crime?),etc.
Logic behind even daily matters of life :-
1)sleep - why sleep in night?(in Quran God says the night is for rest & in sleep He has given us rest); scientifically it is good to sleep in night!
2)Marital relationship - why man cannot have sex with his own daughter,sister or mother(Islam forbids this & also unmarried sex);but may be in your so called "open society" you can do this.so who defines the rules that with whom you can have a sexual relationship & under what conditions??
3)Property distribution - how much to give to whom? to only your own family or relatives? What will be the best decision? - in Quran you can find every minute detail.
4)which foods you can eat? which animal flesh you can eat? which parts you cannot eat?(Quran says that forbidden to us is the flesh of swine,blood,anything which dies of itself,any animal slaughtered by any other name than Allah) .Also forbidden is wine,alcohol,flesh of preying or hunting animals,birds with hooked beaks(parrot,eagle),etc,
so logic is defined by God through His guidance.Just think about it.
By liquid snake, # 19. July 2008, 19:53:47